FCA Whistleblowing Data Q2 2026: Total Numbers Down But Regulatory Action Up

The Financial Conduct Authority's latest whistleblowing data provides a useful insight into both the issues being raised to the regulator and the extent to which the FCA is prepared to act on intelligence received from whistleblowers.

While Q2 2026 saw a modest reduction in the number of reports received compared with Q1, the regulator's response to disclosures became more interventionist.

Whistleblowing Volumes Remain Elevated

Between April and June 2026, the FCA received 333 new whistleblowing reports. This represents a 6% decrease from Q1 2026, when it received 355 reports. However, the longer-term trend remains upward. The Q2 2026 figure is approximately 6% higher than the equivalent period in 2025, when the FCA received 315 reports.

Taken together, the data suggests that whistleblowing activity remains at historically high levels. 

Nature of Allegations: Conduct and Culture Continue to Matter

The 333 whistleblowing reports received in Q2 2026 contained 886 allegations, compared with 906 allegations arising from 355 reports in Q1 2026. 

Areas of concern identified in reports have not materially changed.

Q1 2026 data showed that Consumer Duty allegations feature as the largest category of concern, while allegations relating to leadership and senior manager behaviour were the second-largest category. Systems and controls, individual conduct, and firm values made up the top five categories. 

The FCA's Q2 publication suggests that these themes continue to feature prominently in whistleblowing reports. Although total allegation numbers reduced slightly, the data gives no indication that concerns regarding governance, leadership behaviour, firm culture and conduct are receding.

This remains particularly significant given the FCA's new non-financial misconduct regime, which came into force on 1 September 2026. The prominence of conduct-related allegations reflects the increasing regulatory focus on culture, managerial behaviour and workplace conduct across the financial services sector, with employees more likely to bring concerns in these areas to the regulator’s attention. 

FCA Action: More Reports Leading to Significant Intervention

While fewer reports were received in Q2 than in Q1, a greater proportion led to significant FCA intervention.

During Q1 2026, the FCA closed 265 reports. Significant action to manage harm was taken in 23 cases (9%), while a further 80 reports (30%) resulted in action to reduce harm. Overall, 39% of closed reports resulted in some form of direct FCA intervention.

By contrast, the FCA closed 395 reports in Q2 2026 and took significant action in 56 cases (14%). A further 114 reports (29%) resulted in action to reduce harm. In total, 43% of closed reports led to direct regulatory action.

The increase in "significant action" – defined to include enforcement action, a section 166 skilled person report, or restricting a firm’s permissions or an individual’s approval – is particularly striking. The move from 9% to 14% of closed cases may be taken to indicate a regulator that is increasingly prepared to act decisively where whistleblower disclosures identify potential harm.

What Should Firms Take Away?

The latest data reinforces three messages. 

First, whistleblowing volumes remain consistently high. Firms should assume that concerns which are not properly addressed internally may ultimately reach the regulator.

Secondly, allegations relating to leadership conduct, culture and managerial behaviour continue to feature prominently. It is therefore more important than ever that conduct training – particularly for managers – is effective and regularly refreshed. Our recent article on managers and NFM can be found here.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the FCA appears increasingly willing to take meaningful action in response to whistleblower intelligence.

Against the backdrop of the new non-financial misconduct rules, firms should ensure that whistleblowing arrangements, conduct frameworks, and management accountability structures can withstand close regulatory scrutiny. 

The regulator is not simply gathering intelligence. Increasingly, it is acting on it.