National Crime Agency

3. Mr L complains that the National Crime Agency (NCA) failed to provide his MP with a substantive response to their correspondence.

4. He says this has caused him to lose the opportunity to challenge the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) about its handling of his evidence. He explains that he has experienced frustration and inconvenience as a result.

5. Mr L would like the NCA to provide a substantive answer as per the Cabinet Office's guidance for responding to MPs.

6. Mr L is involved with the Bank Signature Forgery Campaign. The Campaign deals with allegations of banks forging signatures and documents. In July 2019, the Treasury Committee wrote to the FCA and NCA to ask them to engage with the Campaign to review the evidence it had and investigate it as appropriate.

7. Mr L wrote to the NCA about this in September 2022. It responded in February 2023 and told him it would not be taking any further action in relation to his allegations of bank misconduct. The NCA explained it had reached this decision after undertaking a review and not finding ‘evidence of serious and organised crime or conspiracy to commit fraud or forgery offences that warrant further review or investigation’.

8. In August 2025, Mr L’s MP wrote to the Director General of the NCA to ‘find out if front line staff and the Financial Conduct Authority were made aware that document manipulation/tampering was to be investigated alongside as signature forgery submitted by the bank signature forgery campaign group’[sic].

9. The NCA responded to this in November and referred the MP to the letter it had sent Mr L in February 2023, a copy of which it enclosed. Mr L is unhappy with this response as it did not answer the question his MP asked. He considers the NCA has failed to provide a ‘substantive’ response as per Cabinet Office guidance.

12. When we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

13. Mr L complains that the NCA’s response to his MP’s letter does not provide a substantive response, so is not in line with Cabinet Office guidance.

14. The Foreword of the guidance states that ‘[it] is the right of citizens and MPs on their behalf to write to Ministers…and…receive timely, accurate, and understandable replies’. The Foreword explains that the guidance is an aide to help Ministers respond to correspondence. Ministers fall under the Cabinet Office’s remit.

15. Mr L is correct to say that the Cabinet Office guidance requires a substantive response be provided in response to correspondence. We note Mr L’s MP wrote to the NCA’s Director General, who is not a Minister. We therefore think it would not be appropriate to apply the Cabinet Office guidance to the Director General’s response. We appreciate this may be disappointing for Mr L.

16. We have instead looked at the response alongside the UK Central Government Complaint Standards (the Standards).

17. The Standards say that organisations should give a clear and balanced account of what happened, based on established facts. Where needed, they should explain why things went wrong and be open and honest. Having considered the NCA’s response to Mr L’s MP, we are satisfied that it has acted in line with this.

18. The letter Mr L’s MP sent to the NCA asked a question about the NCA’s investigation. The NCA had already detailed the action it had taken in this investigation when it wrote to Mr L directly about this in February 2023. While the November 2025 letter to his MP did not provide the ‘yes/no’ response Mr L had hoped it would, we do not think that the NCA demonstrated any failing. It had previously been open and honest about its investigation with Mr L (at least to the extent it could be) and it had given him a clear and balanced account of what it did and what had happened. We consider that this was a substantive response. It was reasonable for the NCA to send his MP a copy of this letter in response to its query about the same matter.

19. We acknowledge the frustration this has caused Mr L, and the lost opportunity to challenge the FCA based on the response he had hoped to receive. As we have not seen any failing on the NCA’s part in this regard, we will not consider the complaint further. We wish Mr L well with his future endeavours.

1. We have carefully considered Mr L’s complaint about the NCA. We are sorry to hear about his concerns and the wider issue he is trying to address.

2. We have seen no indication that the NCA got anything wrong when it responded to Mr L’s MP. We think it would not be appropriate to apply the Cabinet Office guidance to the response provided to Mr L’s MP. We are satisfied that the response is in line with the UK Central Government Complaint Standards, so we will take no further action. We recognise Mr L may be disappointed with this and we hope our explanation below provides him with reassurance.