FCA takes Hunter Jones to court over unauthorised activity claim

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said on 21 September 2026 that it had begun civil proceedings in the High Court against Osborne Baldwin Limited, which trades as Hunter Jones and Hunter Jones Group. The regulator alleges that the firm sells loan notes and carries on regulated activity without the authorisation the law requires. As at 22 September 2026, the claim had not been determined by the court and no trial date had been set.

This matters to anyone who has invested through Hunter Jones, anyone considering a loan-note investment, and anyone who wants to understand what FCA authorisation does and does not cover. The case is at an early stage. Nothing in this article should be read as a finding against Osborne Baldwin Limited: the FCA has made an allegation, not proved one, and FinTechPulse had not identified a public response from the company as at the time of writing.

What the FCA alleges

According to the FCA's 21 September 2026 announcement, it is asking the High Court to stop Hunter Jones carrying on regulated activity and to require money to be returned to investors. Those are remedies the FCA has requested, not orders the court has made. The FCA's release does not set out the claim number, the precise regulated activity it says was carried on without permission, the number of affected investors, or the amount involved. The FCA's announcement does not provide those details; the sealed claim form, the particulars of claim, or a later court order would be needed to establish them.

The FCA asked people who invested through Hunter Jones and are concerned, or who hold information relevant to the case, to contact the regulator at consumer.investments@fca.org.uk.

Companies House records identify the defendant as Osborne Baldwin Limited, company number 08744562, an active private limited company incorporated in England and Wales on 23 October 2013. Its registered office is listed as One Oaks Court, Warwick Road, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, WD6 1GS, and its stated nature of business is SIC code 64999, financial intermediation not elsewhere classified. That Companies House record establishes the company's corporate status only. It does not show, and should not be read as showing, that the firm holds FCA authorisation or permission to carry on any particular regulated activity.

What a loan note is, and where the risk sits

A loan note, sometimes marketed as a mini-bond, usually works by an investor lending money to a company for a fixed period in exchange for interest. If the issuing company fails, the FCA says an investor could lose all the money invested. That is a general description of how this type of product works, not a statement about the terms, security or performance of any product sold by Hunter Jones, which is not detailed in the available public information.

Loan notes and mini-bonds are also often illiquid. There is frequently no established market to sell the note before it matures, so an investor who needs the money back early may not be able to get it.

Since 1 January 2021, the FCA has permanently restricted the mass marketing of speculative illiquid securities, including relevant mini-bonds and loan notes, to ordinary retail investors. The restriction does not amount to a total ban on the product: promotions to some categories of investor, such as those who qualify as high-net-worth or sophisticated investors, can still be made subject to the applicable rules.

Authorisation is tied to the activity, not just the firm

One point in this case deserves particular care. The FCA's own consumer guidance on mini-bonds says that a company does not generally need FCA authorisation simply to issue a mini-bond and raise money that way. What can require authorisation are related investment services, such as giving advice on the product or arranging or distributing it through an authorised person.

That is why the FCA's specific allegation against Hunter Jones matters, and why this article does not attempt to characterise it beyond what the regulator has said: that Hunter Jones sells loan notes and carries on regulated activity without authorisation. The announcement does not specify which regulated activity is alleged. Readers should not infer that selling or issuing a loan note is always unlawful, nor assume they know which part of Hunter Jones's business the FCA is targeting.

Ombudsman and compensation scheme access is not automatic

A firm's lack of authorisation has consequences for what an investor can do if something goes wrong.

The Financial Ombudsman Service generally considers complaints against firms authorised by the FCA or the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), firms that have opted into its voluntary jurisdiction, and activities that fall within its remit. A person who dealt directly with a firm that was not authorised, or whose activity was not one the Ombudsman covers, will ordinarily be unable to bring a complaint against that firm to the Ombudsman.

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) works in a similarly conditional way. FSCS protection is not automatic just because an investment, or another party to the transaction, appears to be connected with an authorised firm. Whether a claim is eligible depends on matters including which firm was involved, whether the activity was regulated, and the specific product or service in question. Where an eligible investment claim does qualify, and the firm failed after 1 April 2019, FSCS states a maximum of £85,000 per eligible person, per firm. That figure describes the ceiling for an eligible claim; it is not a statement that any Hunter Jones investor is, or will be, eligible.

The FCA itself has said that investors in mini-bonds or loan notes are unlikely to be able to use the Ombudsman or claim through the FSCS unless they dealt with an authorised person and the complaint concerns a regulated activity.

How to check a firm before investing

The FCA advises consumers to use its Firm Checker to confirm two separate things: that a firm is authorised, and that it holds permission for the specific product or service it is offering. Authorisation for one type of activity does not automatically cover another.

The FCA also maintains a Warning List of firms operating without authorisation, but it has said that a firm's absence from that list does not prove the firm is authorised or genuine, because the list is not exhaustive. The regulator reported on 20 August 2026 that it had issued more than 1,200 warnings during 2026 up to that date; it did not say how many of those related to loan notes specifically.

A previous, separate relationship

The FCA has previously said, in a 26 March 2026 update on the liquidation of Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited, that Osborne Baldwin Limited, trading as Hunter Jones, was an appointed representative of Equity for Growth between 2015 and 2020. An appointed representative acts under the permissions of an authorised principal firm rather than holding its own full authorisation.

In that same update, the FCA said Equity for Growth had received investor complaints referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service, including claims concerning mini-bonds issued by unauthorised companies and promoted by appointed representatives Amyma Limited and Hunter Jones. The High Court ordered Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited to be wound up on 25 March 2026, following an FCA petition.

This history is relevant background, and it comes from the FCA's own published record. It is not evidence for, and does not prove, the separate allegation the FCA has now brought against Osborne Baldwin Limited in the proceedings announced on 21 September 2026.

What investors and prospective investors can do

Anyone who invested through Hunter Jones and is concerned, or who has information relevant to the FCA's case, can contact the regulator directly at consumer.investments@fca.org.uk. FinTechPulse is not able to advise individual investors on their options and is not directing readers to any commercial claims-management or recovery firm; the FCA has separately warned, in its wider guidance on unauthorised firms, that people who have lost money to unauthorised activity can also be targeted by follow-on "recovery room" approaches.

Anyone considering an investment in a loan note or similar product, from any firm, can use the FCA Firm Checker to verify both the firm's authorisation and its specific permissions before handing over money.

What to watch next

The High Court has not determined the FCA's claim, and no trial date had been set as at 22 September 2026. The next public developments to watch for are likely to be a defence from Osborne Baldwin Limited, any interim court order, a case-management hearing date, or a further FCA update on the proceedings. FinTechPulse has not identified a public response from the company as at the time of writing and will update this reporting if one is issued. Readers wanting the primary detail should follow the FCA's press releases directly rather than relying on secondary reports of the case.