The content on this page has been converted from PDF to HTML format using an artificial intelligence (AI) tool as part of our ongoing efforts to improve accessibility and usability of our publications. Note:
- No human verification has been conducted of the converted content.
- While we strive for accuracy errors or omissions may exist.
- This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a definitive or authoritative source.
- For the official and verified version of the publication, refer to the original PDF document.
If you identify any inaccuracies or have concerns about the content, please contact us at [email protected].
Consultation on the FRC Strategy 2025-28 and Annual Plan and Budget 2025-26: Feedback Statement
The FRC does not accept any liability to any party for any loss, damage or costs howsoever arising, whether directly or indirectly, whether in contract, tort or otherwise from any action or decision taken (or not taken) as a result of any person relying on or otherwise using this document or arising from any omission from it.
© The Financial Reporting Council Limited 2025
The Financial Reporting Council Limited is a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England number 2486368. Registered Office: 13th Floor, 1 Harbour Exchange Square, London, E14 9GE
1. Introduction
Our consultation
We published our three-year Strategy for 2025-28 and our Annual Plan and Budget 2025-26 in December 2024 inviting responses by 6 February 2025. This feedback document summarises the range of views we received from our stakeholders, and our response. We are grateful to the organisations who responded, for their positive support for our overall regulatory approach and their suggestions on how we can further develop that approach.
Section one summarises stakeholders' views on our updated purpose, our four strategic objectives for 2025-28, the public interest outcomes which will guide our priorities and against which we will measure our progress, and the indicators we will use to assess the overall health of the corporate governance, reporting, audit and actuarial ecosystem.
In consulting on our Strategy for 2025-28, we welcomed the Government's commitment in the King's Speech to bring forward draft legislation to reform the FRC's statutory authorities, powers and regulatory perimeters. Respondents in general supported this initiative.
The finalised three-year strategy will set the course for our annual plans in the years 2025-28. We recognise that the landscape in which we operate can change quickly and we may refresh the Strategy further, to take account of the planned legislation, developments in the governance, reporting, audit and actuarial ecosystem, and our stakeholders' views.
Based on our four strategic objectives, the FRC's finalised Annual Plan and Budget 2025-26 sets out what we will deliver in support of each objective and the resources we will need. Section two summarises your views on our planned activities, and our response; section three summarises your views on our expenditure and funding and confirms our budget and levies.
2. FRC Three-year Strategy 2025-28
What you told us and our response
Growth
Most stakeholders warmly welcomed the FRC making our role in supporting UK economic growth through upholding high standards more explicit, and that this had been accompanied by an articulation of five priorities. Where responses were more sceptical, they reflected the appropriateness of regulators in general reflecting the growth duty in their purpose rather than being specific to the FRC. While a smaller number of respondents felt that we could have gone further in setting out how the regulatory regime is an enabler of economic growth, we consider it appropriate to focus on how our activity can support this objective rather than setting out an argument for regulation as a whole.
There was an appetite for the FRC to publish a further document on how we are meeting the Growth Duty alongside detailed guidance on how the FRC's five priorities can support economic growth, including the activities planned within each area. The UK Government has recently consulted on performance reporting by regulators against the Growth Duty. We will consider next steps on our reporting in line with the finalised proposals brought forward.
Purpose Statement
The majority of responses supported the revisions made to the FRC's purpose statement. One business stakeholder suggested that it should be reworded to focus on a single part of the corporate ecosystem, in this instance investment consumers. It is important that we consider the public interest as our overriding purpose in the context of balancing the needs of a wide variety of stakeholders, rather than in any single area.
Similarly, there were requests that the purpose statement should be expanded to give greater clarity on certain elements, such as that the FRC's role includes developing and promoting standards. Our approach to the statement is for it to be succinct as possible, necessitating less specific description on the details of our approach.
Proportionality
Stakeholders supported the FRC's commitment to, and tone taken on, proportionality. There was appetite for additional detail on how we define proportionality. We believe it is important that this topic is considered in the context of the FRC's different activities and how they interact with different parts of the corporate ecosystem, and we will therefore be setting this out in each major publication where relevant.
While there was support for the FRC's campaign to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in accessing audit services and reducing reporting burdens where possible, two respondents suggested that it should include considering the appropriateness of the auditing standards for that size of entity and that the FRC should introduce a standard for less complex entities. Through the market study launched in February 2025 the FRC is undertaking open and extensive stakeholder engagement to understand potential challenges auditors have taking advantage of the flexibilities built into auditing standards which allow for more proportionate audits of SMEs. These findings will help guide the development of a Practice Note to support auditors in this process.
We consider a Practice Note to be a preferred option to support the proportionate audit of SMEs over a new auditing standard as the existing international standard for less complex entities is aimed at supporting 'simple' rather than small entities, therefore benefiting a smaller population than a Practice Note.
One of the professional bodies suggested that we should be more proportionate in interpreting the Companies Act 2006 legislation which underpins mutual recognition agreements. The FRC has the authority to recognise the audit qualifications of other countries and oversight of the award of the UK audit qualification under powers delegated by the Secretary of State. Under these powers, the FRC has a duty to ensure that only when the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 are met are third country audit qualifications recognised, and the UK audit qualification awarded.
The FRC's effective discharge of this duty ensures that the integrity of the UK audit qualification is maintained. Our scope for flexibility is therefore limited and proportionality needs to be considered in conjunction with the need for independence, integrity, and evidence-based decision making.
The FRC has encouraged economic growth through its successful negotiation of memoranda of understanding for the recognition of statutory auditors from other countries. These arrangements have maintained the integrity of the UK audit qualification by ensuring that its award complies with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006.
Attractiveness of the audit profession
Audit firms alongside one of the professional bodies requested more emphasis on how the FRC will support the profession including its wider public perception, and more recognition of the impact which our regulation has on the profession's attractiveness.
The UK's audit profession provides vital services to companies and therefore to the wider economy, and in our regulatory role we are clear that ensuring the audit profession remains viable, both now and in the future, is essential. We have a role to play in supporting this as a regulator. However this is shared with the audit firms and professional bodies themselves, and the FRC has an important public interest responsibility to hold auditors accountable where appropriate in order to maintain public and investor confidence in the profession and ecosystem. Our public interest outcomes make this joint responsibility clear.
Enforcement
The announcement that the FRC will be undertaking an end-to-end review of our enforcement processes was welcomed by stakeholders, alongside requests for further detail on the scope, scale and timings of the activity from audit firms. We have added some further information regarding project scope and timings, and we aim to consult on any changes to enforcement procedures in Autumn 2025.
One firm asked about the sharing of learning outside of the E2E and FASS project scope. During the course of an investigation, we aim to communicate the initial focus of the investigation as part of the scoping meeting held with firms at an early stage. Enforcement outcomes are shared not only in our AER but also published throughout the year. The publications process is also included in the scope of E2E. Our Supervision teams share learnings with firms on non-enforcement matters as a matter of business-as-usual. Our FASS project will consider where there may be scope for improvement in this area.
Some respondents raised questions regarding how the FRC will use any additional powers provided through the Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill. The FRC is not currently able to comment on possible powers while this legislation is not yet published. We will, however, consult in full on operating procedures once there is greater clarity and our understanding is that the regulatory regime will be focused on those cases where there are serious breaches and a strong public interest element.
One of the professional bodies emphasised the importance of timeliness when undertaking and concluding enforcement cases. The FRC agrees that investigations should not take longer than necessary and has set key performance indicators (KPIs) of concluding 50% of cases within two years and 80% within three years. Timeliness at all stages of the process is a key feature of our E2E project.
Private Capital
Stakeholders noted the FRC's interest in the growing interest from private capital in taking a greater participation in the UK audit market, with one audit firm suggesting that private capital-owned firms should be subject to a level of supervision equivalent to that applied to those firms with the largest share of the UK's Public Interest Entity (PIE) market.
The FRC's approach to supervision remains risk focused. Private capital investment can take various forms and is one of the factors we will consider when determining the appropriate level of supervision for a firm, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach which we do not consider to be proportionate use of resources.
Objectives
There was overall support for the four strategic objectives set out in the Strategy with some respondents making suggestions for specific areas to refine the wording:
- One professional body recommended including a reference to 'audit and assurance' within the second objective.
- One business stakeholder advocated focusing all four objectives on investment consumers. As already set out, we believe it is important that our objectives, like our purpose, balance the needs of all stakeholders.
- One audit firm requested additional detail on the activities which the FRC will be undertaking to support the delivery of each objective. We will publish further information in a separate document to accompany the Strategy.
Responses from an audit firm and a professional body felt that the objectives contained insufficient emphasis on audit market resilience regarding supporting competition. We have reviewed the language in our objectives from the perspective of resilience. However, we believe it is important that this is considered as an issue distinct from competition. As the FRC does not have a statutory competition objective, the Strategy reflects that our work in this space is voluntary with no statutory powers until such time as it is legislated for.
One business respondent made specific recommendations on additional measures in both the Corporate Governance Code and Stewardship Code. We will consider the recommendations as part of the consultation on the Stewardship Code, and we have published guidance the Corporate Governance Code. One professional body also encouraged the publication of a roadmap for how the FRC will role model best practice in governance and stewardship, as well as an analysis of how trust has been restored to governance, reporting and audit. We will consider the development of this roadmap, provided these measures can be proportionate.
One professional body noted that they expected the Audit, Reform and Corporate Governance Authority (ARGA) to have a different approach to regulation as set out in our second objective, and that the transition should be explained. We do not agree that the modernisation of the FRC's current regulatory toolkit through statutory powers would necessarily lead to a major change in the tone and approach of our regulation. We have been clear in our Strategy and our Plan that our focus is forward-looking, and that not all the risks and issues which were relevant in 2019 remain the same today.
Engagement and transparency
Respondents welcomed the FRC's approach in embedding increased stakeholder engagement as part of our consultation process, especially ahead of the formal consultation period. In light of this, we have gone further in our final Strategy and explicitly commit to maintaining this approach for our future consultations.
One professional body suggested that within the FRC's 'Influential' value should be a reference to listening. We review the language in our values on a regular basis and will consider this feedback for the next review.
Another professional body encouraged additional emphasis on improvement regulation within the FRC's accountability objective. We have adapted the wording of this objective accordingly.
Measuring performance and outcomes
We note the government's recent action plan announcement which stated that they will strengthen the model of accountability with formal performance reviews undertaken by sponsoring departments, and we will work with DBT on what this looks like for the FRC in terms of these MHIs and our operating performance measures. The government is also undertaking a baselining of the administrative cost of regulation and we will base any FRC specific baselining on a similar methodology.
We received responses from audit firms asking for the provision of more detail on how the FRC's Strategy and Plan are linked, as well as on how we will undertake our horizon scanning and be agile. We will continue to set out further information to stakeholders where possible and our reporting will iterate over time, however this Strategy is not intended to provide a level of granularity more appropriate to an operating plan.
One audit firm requested further information on how the public interest outcomes correlate to the strategic objectives, as well as a baseline for where the FRC currently sits against each objective. As mentioned above, we have published separately a table showing the linkage between our annual plan activities and the objectives and outcomes.
One audit firm commented on the FRC being accountable for the delivery of its objectives and the exercise of powers in doing so, as well as making recommendations regarding the ambition and measurability of the public interest outcomes. The FRC continues to report regularly to the UK Parliament and Government on our activity, and we will take forward any further requirements brought forward by ministers. Many elements referenced in this response also lie in policy areas where the FRC does not possess statutory powers.
One professional body suggested there should be more emphasis on how the FRC should be using market intelligence and recommended publishing a regular Market Stability report. As mentioned above, we intend to develop our reporting against the Market Health Indicators (MHIs) over time and taking into consideration any future steer from government on the performance reporting of regulators. We will consider how this proposal could be taken forward in a way which does not duplicate existing publications that the FRC produces which provide information on the audit market.
One professional body suggested that the FRC's public interest outcomes should reference our role in corporate resilience, with accountability for preventing unexpected corporate failures. The FRC's role is to ensure trust and confidence in all aspects of the corporate reporting ecosystem. While this contributes to corporate resilience, it is only one factor, and the FRC is not a prudential regulator with responsibility for preventing corporate failure. We will be held accountable by government for delivering our existing (and any new) legislative powers via DBT's monitoring and evaluation plan which will be agreed as part of their Regulatory Policy Committee submissions.
The same professional body also urged us to be more ambitious with regard to the outcomes relating to corporate reporting, whilst noting that 'gold plating' may be too costly and unrealistic an approach for the UK in the current environment. They also suggested the FRC focuses more on reporting connectivity and the use of AI and technology. We note these concerns and agree that the FRC's approach should be proportionate whilst maintaining high standards. We believe that, in this rapidly changing reporting landscape, the aim towards an outcome in which the framework is well understood and the reporting is clear, consistent and compliant, is a worthy goal in which high quality is implicit.
Legislation
Respondents broadly welcomed the announcement by the Government in the King's Speech of the Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill which will modernise the FRC's toolkit to ensure we can continue to support UK growth and investment and close the remaining gaps in the UK's regulatory frameworks, so investors have confidence in a level playing field for corporates. One firm sounded a note of caution on the potential unintended consequences and negatives of legislation. We note that it is for government to undertake an impact assessment and determine whether the benefits of legislating are worth any associated burdens on business.
One audit firm responded that there should be additional recognition on how the passage of this legislation would impact on the FRC's fourth strategic objective. As previously noted, we do not agree that the modernisation of the FRC's current regulatory toolkit through statutory powers would necessarily lead to a major change in the tone and approach of our regulation.
One professional body requested that the FRC publish a specific consultation on how we will operationalise new objectives and powers subject to the passage of this legislation. We are committed to consulting in full on operating procedures once there is legislative certainty. However we are precluded from doing so any earlier while complying with the Managing Public Money framework.
One audit firm emphasised how an expansion of the PIE definition may impact on the supply of auditors to newly designated PIEs and suggested a review of our registration processes to minimise disruption. The PIE definition is a matter for the Government and any legislative change will include a suitable transition period. We will shortly be consulting on our registration regulations, which have been in place now for two years. A professional body also recommended that the FRC should set the number of UK PIEs as a KPI. We will consider whether this is an appropriate market health indicator for the FRC to report on once there is clarity on any change in the definition. However, we do not believe it is appropriate to set a KPI that is wholly outside the FRC's control.
One professional body suggested that the FRC should pilot the adoption of the Audit and Assurance Policy and develop enhanced disclosure on resilience and fraud. Neither the Audit and Assurance Policy nor the Resilience Statement were taken forward during the previous Parliament and we do not believe that it would be appropriate to bring forward an additional burden which does not reflect current government policy.
A professional body and audit firm encouraged the FRC to be more active in non-financial standard setting and assurance, supporting IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards. The FRC has recently concluded a market study into the assurance of sustainability reporting, the findings from which will help inform a forthcoming government consultation on this issue. We will also continue to give secretariat support to the UK Sustainability Disclosure Technical Advisory Committee which provides recommendations to the Business and Trade Secretary for endorsing the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards for use in the UK.
One professional body asked for more information on how the FRC will be supporting the Government's review of non-financial reporting. We have identified the development of sustainability reporting standards for UK businesses and the associated market for sustainability assurance as a priority within our third strategic objective. However, it is important that the FRC does not get ahead of any decisions by government regarding the reporting framework, requirements (including assurance) and any subsequent consultation on implementation.
Local audit
Following the publication of the FRC's draft strategy, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) issued their consultation on reforms to the local audit system. Included in the Government's proposals is the establishment of the Local Audit Office (LAO), a new body which will take on regulatory and system leadership responsibilities for local audit.
One professional body emphasised the importance of the FRC in supporting the transition of roles to a new regulator. As of 12 February 2025, the FRC has transferred system leadership responsibilities back to MHCLG ahead of the formation of the LAO, and we are committed to working closely with government on the transition of any regulatory functions following the outcome of the consultation to ensure the effective functioning of the local audit system.
3. FRC Annual Plan 2025-26
What you told us and our response
Locations and workforce strategy
One audit firm asked for additional detail on how the FRC will ensure that it has sufficient skills and expertise to deliver on its regulatory commitments, including the use of its expert panel. When backfilling roles, we assess whether a like for like replacement is necessary or desirable. All advisory roles are advertised externally. The FRC's advisory panel contains subject matter experts who provide expert advice across the breadth of the FRC's activities. A full list of all our current senior advisors and panel members can be found on our website.
One audit firm recommended that the FRC set out its long-term vision for its dual-office structure of having a presence in both Birmingham and London. We will continue our approach of aiming to recruit all new hires in Birmingham as we seek to achieve a 50/50 split between the two offices. It is important to us that we create an organisational culture in which the Birmingham and London offices are seen to be equal in importance, with colleagues working seamlessly together between the two. Over the next year, we will be looking to increase our Board and Executive Committee engagement across the two sites, having begun to host regular meetings in Birmingham earlier this year.
Wates Principles
Respondents noted that from 2025 the FRC had assumed governance of the Wates Corporate Governance Principles for Large Private Companies and asked whether this would incur additional resourcing implications. The FRC's plan already includes suitable provision to resource the governance of the Wates Principles.
One business stakeholder questioned the difference in standards being applied to public companies versus private companies. The Government is considering legislative proposals which would extend the PIE definition to private companies and is expected to consult on streamlining reporting requirements for all companies.
Professional oversight
One professional body encouraged the FRC to use its convening power more with the recognised qualifying bodies (RQBs) to allow for the sharing of insight and experience. We welcome the opportunity to convene roundtables with all of the RQBs and will be reaching out in due course to agree which topics might be mutually beneficial.
Use of AI
One professional body recommended that the FRC should assess the data needs and quality implications of AI analysis as part of supporting the wider application of emerging technologies to financial information. We have identified the impact of AI, technology and digital reporting on the markets and firms we oversee, as well as on our own operations, as one of the key developments on the horizon. As part of this, we have already begun providing guidance to those we regulate and have developed a technology strategy to support both internal and external activity.
4. FRC Expenditure and funding 2025-26
What you told us and our response
Expenditure
Several respondents suggested that the FRC should publish a three-year budget in support of the three-year Strategy 2025-28.
We recognise the importance of giving stakeholders a clear view of the resources we will require to deliver our 2025-28 Strategy. Until there is clarity on the timing of the legislation, and on the impact of any changes to the scope of our regulatory activities, we do not feel that we can give a sufficiently robust forward view of our likely expenditure in 2026-27 and 2027-28. We will remain committed to the tight discipline that we have followed in setting the 2025-26 budget and funding requirement, and to consulting annually on our budget and funding. We plan a small reduction in our overall headcount during 2025-26.
We have included in our finalised budget an explanation of the impact of the change in our responsibilities in relation to local audit. This will reduce our overall budget for 2025-26 by £1.6m. We have also incorporated efficiency savings of £0.1m. The net effect of these changes is to reduce our annual budget from the proposed £74.0m to £72.3m. We do not see scope for further significant changes to our expenditure in 2025-26 if we are effectively to serve the public interest in high standards of corporate governance, corporate reporting, audit and actuarial work.
Several respondents asked for the FRC to provide greater transparency on our resourcing.
We set our annual budget by considering four main costs: the annual budget for each of our core regulatory roles; the costs associated with enforcement cases, which depend on the number and size of the cases we pursue; our investment in stakeholder engagement, market intelligence and analysis; and the costs arising from developments outside our control. In determining the overall budget, we also take account of the need to avoid unnecessary increases in our overall funding requirement. We will continue to look at ways in which we can become more agile and efficient – including through our use of technology, data and information. One respondent questioned the adequacy of the proposed budget in enabling us to recruit the necessary skills. We fully acknowledge the importance of an effective people strategy.
The budgets for our core regulatory roles are the largest element of the FRC's overall budget. We set these budgets through our judgements on what is required to promote high standards in each area we oversee. For each area, depending on the scope of our responsibilities, we publish our analysis of the extent to which the necessary high standards are being met. That analysis, supported by consultation with stakeholders, guides us in determining the resources we require for each planning period.
Our substantial investment in market intelligence and stakeholder engagement directly supports the effectiveness and targeting of our frontline regulatory programmes. Shareholders can see the extent of our engagement activity throughout the year through press releases, publications, consultations, roundtables, webinars and other events.
Funding
The accountancy and audit professional bodies questioned the increase in the proposed funding requirement allocated to the bodies, and whether this increase will disproportionately impact their smaller constituents.
The FRC's funding requirement is set to match our budget. We seek to raise only the funds necessary to deliver our annual plan; and set the levies we raise from each funding group in line with expenditure on the key functions that apply to or benefit that group.
The funding requirement we have allocated to the audit and accountancy professional bodies through the CCAB and CIMA is based on the costs of professional oversight, audit and assurance standards, and 50% of the core costs of our enforcement team. For our responsibilities in relation to audit, the costs directly associated with our audit quality reviews, audit firm and audit market supervision, enforcement case costs and our oversight of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies, are recovered from the recognised bodies through a separate arrangement. Accounts preparers meet the costs of our work in relation to corporate governance, corporate reporting, our corporate reporting reviews and the other 50% of core costs of our enforcement team.
The CCAB contribution has increased because the costs associated with professional oversight and enforcement (in particular) have increased in line with our regulatory priorities.
By a long-standing, mutually agreed arrangement, the FRC sets an overall annual funding requirement for the CCAB. Under this arrangement, the CCAB itself determines the share of the overall requirement that should be provided by each of its member bodies. While accepting that the overall CCAB funding requirement has increased, the proportionate impact on larger or smaller entities is for the CCAB and its member bodies to determine. Although the allocation is a matter for the CCAB, the FRC would expect that – as with other FRC funding groups – the larger regulated entities will in practice provide the bulk of the funding.
We agree with the CCAB and other respondents who support the introduction of a new funding model, which will depend on the necessary legislation. Our 2022 consultation on our proposed statutory funding model, undertaken at Government request, received general support from stakeholders; we will consult again at an appropriate point. Under our proposed model, audit firms with PIE clients will be levied directly based on their size, and the individual professional bodies charged an annual fee depending on the size of their membership under a formula to be discussed in detail with stakeholders. We will continue to engage with the professional bodies and our other funding groups to ensure that our funding arrangements are fair and proportionate.
The accountancy professional bodies question the use of reserves in 2024-25 to mitigate the increase in the preparers levy in 2024-25. We consider that the 2024-25 adjustment was both fair and proportionate. The use of reserves for this purpose was shown in the consultation draft of the Annual Plan and Budget for 2024-25 and the finalised Plan and Budget and was agreed with Government.
We have an arrangement with the CCAB under which we adjust their annual contribution in line with actual expenditure on the activities they fund. The CCAB member bodies have been net beneficiaries of this arrangement, which means that they have not in practice contributed to current FRC reserves. Our reserves have been largely established from contributions from accounts preparers. There is no mechanism equivalent to our arrangement with the CCAB for adjusting contributions from accounts preparers in-year: receipts from the voluntary levy are difficult to predict and do not enable us precisely to align revenue and expenditure. As noted above, accounts preparers fund 50% of the core costs of audit and accountancy enforcement activities, reducing the amount that would otherwise be charged to the professional bodies, and meet the full cost of the UK Endorsement Board, whose activities benefit accountancy professionals as well as corporate entities.
The use of reserves in 2025-26 to invest in an enterprise resource planning system will benefit all funding groups - in the short term by reducing the amounts that would otherwise be charged to both professional bodies and accounts preparers, and over the longer term by enhancing our operational efficiency.
One respondent asked us to clarify the basis on which we communicate the voluntary basis for our levy on accounts preparers, which we raise either through the Financial Conduct Authority or a collection agent. We will address this point in our communications on the 2025-26 levy, which will continue to be requested on a voluntary basis, while making the necessary reference to the reserve power in company law for the Secretary of State to impose a statutory levy.
Annexe - Respondents
The following 14 organisations responded to our consultation:
- Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)
- Association of Investment Companies (AIC)
- Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)
- Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB)
- Deloitte LLP
- Ernst & Young LLP
- Forvis Mazars LLP
- Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)
- Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)
- Institute and Faculty of Actuaries
- KPMG LLP
- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- Quoted Companies Alliance (QCA)
- UK Shareholders' Association Ltd
Financial Reporting Council
London office: 13th Floor, 1 Harbour Exchange Square, London, E14 9GE
Birmingham office: 5th Floor, 3 Arena Central, Bridge Street, Birmingham, B1 2AX
+44 (0)20 7492 2300
www.frc.org.uk
Follow us on Linked in.