UK Human Rights Failures: The Case of Jasthi Alom and the FCA’s Legal Vulnerabilities

British public authorities, including regulators like the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), are bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Yet, the FCA’s actions in the case of Jasthi Alom demonstrate a fundamental disregard for these legal obligations, exposing both the organisation and the UK Government to legal, reputational, and financial risks.

Unlike previous whistleblower cases, Alom’s situation is not about disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) but about victimisation for challenging the FCA’s toxic HR culture, unfair appraisal system, and internal discrimination. His case raises serious breaches of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life) of the ECHR, making the FCA uniquely vulnerable to legal action.

A Broken System: How the FCA Punished Jasthi Alom

Jasthi Alom’s case exposes the FCA’s complete failure to uphold fundamental human rights protections. After raising complaints about discriminatory practices and internal unfairness, Alom was targeted through:

• Systemic Retaliation: Alom’s engagement in protected acts under the Equality Act 2010 (not PIDA) led to targeted disciplinary measures.
• Predetermined Dismissal: The FCA’s internal processes were clearly rigged against him, with decision-makers displaying bias and animosity.
• Breach of ECHR Article 8: The FCA’s actions destroyed his reputation, career, and financial security, violating his right to private and family life. This included a direct and detrimental impact on his psychological integrity, which in turn affected his personal and family life both directly and indirectly.
• Breach of ECHR Article 6: The FCA denied Alom natural justice and due process during his internal disciplinary process by refusing to furnish him with his accuser’s witness statement, preventing him from adequately defending himself. This constituted a fundamental denial of a fair hearing under Article 6.

FCA’s Hypocrisy: No Human Rights Policy Despite Legal Obligations

As a public authority, the FCA is legally required to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Yet, it does not have a Human Rights Policy, as confirmed in a letter to MP Diane Abbott from Siobhán Sheridan, Chief People Officer of the FCA.

The FCA carefully positioned its response by stating:

“We do not have one specific human rights policy, but we incorporate human rights legislation and considerations into our organisation.”

This is deliberate misdirection—akin to a regulated firm claiming to comply with anti-money laundering laws but refusing to document an AML policy. If a bank tried that, the FCA itself would come down hard on them.

The absence of a formal human rights framework raises key concerns:

• No Internal Human Rights Mechanism: The FCA lacks a structured process to handle human rights complaints from employees or external parties.
• Legal Vulnerability: Under the HRA, the FCA can be sued for human rights violations, one of the few areas where it is not immune from civil liability.
• International Repercussions: If these failures escalate, the UK risks embarrassment at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

?The FCA’s Limited Legal Immunity: A Rare Opening for Accountability

The FCA enjoys near-total immunity from civil lawsuits. However, there are two exceptions where it can be held liable:

1. Acts committed in bad faith.
2. Breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Jasthi Alom’s case falls squarely within these exceptions, making it one of the few legal avenues available to hold the FCA accountable.

The Human Rights Act 1998 provides a unique opportunity to challenge the FCA’s misconduct, especially given:

• Their refusal to implement a Human Rights Policy.
• Their failure to establish an independent complaints process.
• The clear breaches of ECHR Article 6 and Article 8.

Unlike previous whistleblower cases where the FCA could rely on regulatory immunity, this case is different. If challenged effectively, the FCA’s legal defences could crumble.

The Need for an Independent Human Rights Oversight Body

The UK’s financial regulators must be subject to the same human rights scrutiny as any other public authority. The Office of the Whistleblower Bill (OWB Bill) represents a major step forward in addressing regulatory misconduct, offering:

? Establishing an Office of the Whistleblower as an independent enforcement body.

? Creating a centralised reporting channel, bypassing ineffective internal complaint mechanisms.

? Imposing regulatory penalties—up to 10% of a company’s annual global turnover—for non-compliance.

? Enhancing investigatory powers, allowing intervention before cases escalate.

? Ensuring uniform human rights standards across all public and private entities.

The OWB Bill is robust and transformative, but the FCA’s refusal to adopt a Human Rights Policy remains a critical gap. Without stronger enforcement, regulators like the FCA will continue to evade accountability while employees suffer.

Recommendations: Enforcing Human Rights in Financial Regulation

To bring the FCA in line with its legal obligations, urgent reforms are needed:

1. Mandatory Human Rights Policy – The FCA must adopt and publish a comprehensive Human Rights Policy, detailing enforcement mechanisms.
2. Independent Complaints Mechanism – A dedicated, external body should handle human rights grievances against financial regulators.
3. Stronger Legal Remedies – Employees must have a clear path to legal redress when regulators violate human rights.
4. Human Rights Oversight – Parliament must explicitly incorporate human rights protections into whistleblower legislation.

Conclusion: The FCA’s Reckoning Under Human Rights Law

The FCA’s failure to implement a Human Rights Policy is not a minor oversight—it is a legal and ethical failure that places the UK at risk of international condemnation.

Jasthi Alom’s case is not just about employment law; it is about the FCA’s blatant disregard for fundamental human rights protections. The regulator is now vulnerable to legal action under the Human Rights Act, one of the few avenues where it cannot hide behind immunity.

The UK’s financial regulators must be held to the same standards they impose on others. The FCA’s hypocrisy is clear: it demands compliance from firms but refuses to apply those same standards to itself.

The message is clear: Uphold human rights—or face the legal consequences.

Disclaimer:

This article provides analysis and commentary on legal and regulatory matters but does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek independent legal counsel for specific concerns.