© 2026 Macro Global. All Rights Reserved.
Traverse the article
Exclusions in the SCV must be clearly governed and evidenced to support regulatory review and payout readiness.
Poorly governed exclusions commonly lead to follow-up questions during FSCS/PRA verification and business-as-usual review activity. High exclusion volumes, inconsistent categorisation, or weak rationale/evidence can increase manual checking and extend remediation effort.
Exclusions are also a governance signal. If exclusion decisions aren’t rule-based, consistently applied, and well evidenced, they can raise questions about SCV governance and decision discipline during PRA/FSCS review programmes.
This blog explains how to manage SCV exclusions effectively, reduce follow-up effort during verification/review and ensure defensible, audit-ready reporting.
What is the FSCS Exclusions View File (SCV “Exclusion File”)?
The Exclusions View file (often called the “Exclusion File”) is a disclosure artefact that records appropriate exclusions from the SCV, specifically accounts that are Legally Dormant (LEGDOR), Legally Disputed (LEGDIS), Sanctioned (HMTS), or Beneficiary (BEN). It should not be confused with the PRA’s ‘exclusions list’ of ineligible deposits, i.e., deposits that are ineligible for FSCS protection must not appear in either the SCV or the Exclusions View file.
Misalignment between the SCV and Exclusions View files often indicates inconsistent classification, weak evidence, or unstable rules, so it commonly triggers follow-up questions during verification. At a minimum, accounts cannot appear in both files, where the same customer can appear across SCV and Exclusions View for different accounts, and where a customer is sanctioned, all of their accounts should be placed in the Exclusions View file.
What this means in FSCS SCV Verification / PRA Business-as-Usual Review
Separating the SCV and Exclusions View enables FSCS to sense‑check each file independently. In the Exclusions View, aggregate balance and compensatable amount should be calculated only from accounts in that file (and likewise SCV totals should be based only on SCV accounts).
As exclusions affect which accounts are paid via straight-through processes vs manual investigation, unclear exclusions can lead to more follow-up questions during verification and, in some cases, additional remediation before future submissions.
Clear separation helps reviewers validate the SCV population and understand the basis for exclusions. Where exclusions are excessive, inconsistent, or weakly evidenced, reviews typically involve more follow-up questions, additional evidence requests, and extended remediation before firms are considered submission-ready.
Why Exclusions View Submissions Attract Follow-Up Questions
Where exclusions materially change compensatable exposure or increase manual investigation, FSCS/PRA verification may focus on whether the classification is rule-based, evidenced, and repeatable.
Unsupported exclusions tend to attract evidentiary challenge because reviewers need to see clear rule definitions, traceability to source data, and reproducible outcomes. The risk is less the exclusion itself and more the absence of a defensible rule and evidence trail.
Exclusion File Audit Readiness Checklist
A quick, audit-ready checklist to confirm your exclusion file rules are justified, traceable, stable, governed, SCV-consistent, and fully reproducible.
- Exclusion rules are clearly defined, rule-based, and justified
- Priority logic is implemented exactly as prescribed (HMTS → LEGDIS → LEGDOR → BEN)
- Each exclusion is traceable back to the source data
- Exclusion volumes are stable and explainable from period to period
- Significant volume changes are investigated and documented
- Recurring exclusion patterns are identified and analysed
- Ownership and governance approvals are formally documented
- Exclusion logic is consistent with the SCV file
- The process is repeatable and reproducible (same input, same output)
Exclusions: View Categories (and Where Review Focus Tends to Land)
FSCS guidance defines four Exclusions View categories and codes: LEGDOR (Legally Dormant), LEGDIS (Legally Disputed), HMTS (Sanctioned), and BEN (Beneficiary). Where an account could fit multiple categories, FSCS requires a single Exclusion type using the prescribed priority order.
Legally Dormant Accounts (LEGDOR)
- Indicative review focus: Medium (not an FSCS classification)
- Risk typically arises where dormancy logic is inconsistent or where inactivity evidence is weak.
- Spikes or inconsistent application can trigger follow-up queries about transaction history, dates, and dormancy controls.
Legally Disputed Accounts (LEGDIS)
- Indicative review focus: High (not an FSCS classification)
- Ensure the dispute is evidenced and time-bound (e.g., legal hold/notice), with clear account-level classification.
- Reproduce the same LEGDIS outcome from the same inputs; changes in legal status should be reflected promptly and consistently.
Beneficiary Accounts (BEN)
- Indicative review focus: High (not an FSCS classification)
- Beneficiary accounts are where the account holder is not absolutely entitled and holds funds on behalf of/for the benefit of another person (e.g., trust/client accounts; Junior ISAs and Child Trust Funds are treated as beneficiary accounts).
- Expect additional investigation in payout to identify underlying beneficiaries; document rules and evidence accordingly.
Key Regulatory Implications (per FSCS guidance)
Inconsistent application commonly drives follow‑up questions and remediation during verification/review.
Overuse (or unexplained spikes) often triggers follow-up queries on rule logic and evidence.
- Higher-risk exclusions demand stronger evidence
- Inconsistent application across cycles increases reconciliation effort and evidence requests.
Exclusion Type and Priority Logic (Including Multi-Type Accounts)
Exclusion Type rules and priority logic determine how an account is classified in the Exclusions View when multiple conditions could apply. FSCS guidance requires a single Exclusion Type per account, using the priority order HMTS → LEGDIS → LEGDOR → BEN, where multiple types could apply, and the Exclusion Type field should be populated in the Exclusions View and blank in the SCV.
Key Risk Implications
- Priority errors cause double-counting or omission
- Incorrect sequencing exposes process design flaws
- Conflicting SCV and Exclusion outcomes undermine data integrity
Regulatory Assessment Focus
- Priority logic is often reviewed because it’s a practical test of whether classification is rule-based, documented, and consistently executed.
- Weak or undocumented logic can increase reconciliation effort and trigger further questions during verification/review.
Common Exclusions: View Errors (Seen in Verification / Reviews)
FSCS verification focuses on whether exclusions are correctly classified, complete, and reproducible, because errors can impact payout readiness and increase manual investigation.
Common Error Patterns
- Incorrect priority logic or validation failures/control failures/rule implementation defects can create inconsistent Exclusion Type outcomes and force additional reconciliation.
- Duplication (e.g., an account appearing in both SCV and Exclusions View) is a hard issue: FSCS guidance says accounts cannot appear in both files.
- Inconsistencies across SCV and Exclusion Files reveal unclear ownership.
Regulatory Impact
Errors compound across cycles
Repeated issues flagged as systemic weaknesses
Findings recur, increasing remediation scope.
Is Your SCV Exclusion File Audit-Ready Today?
Most exclusion issues surface during reviews when remediation time is tight and regulatory risk is at its highest.
Why and How FSCS Reviews the Exclusion File
In practice, reviews focus on whether exclusions are applied consistently and can be evidenced — not just whether the file exists.
Common Verification Focus Areas
Duplication across SCV and Exclusion Files
Priority logic alignment
Sanctioned account handling
Evidence and justification trail
Consistency across cycles
Unexplained spikes in exclusions compared to prior cycles (often prompts follow‑up queries).
Typical Outcomes When Issues are Identified
- Clear evidence and rule documentation reduce follow‑up cycles and manual checking.
- Weak documentation can lead to further data requests or re‑submission requirements.
- Where usability or logic is unclear, reviewers may need more manual testing before sign‑off.
Governance and Change Control
Governance determines whether exclusions are controlled, rule‑based decisions with an auditable trail. PRA/FSCS review activity can include questions on ownership, approval, and change control, especially where exclusion volumes or classifications shift over time.
Key Governance Implications
- Unclear ownership enables unauthorised exclusions
- Weak approvals dilute accountability
- Poor version control obscures the audit trail
- Strong governance typically reduces follow‑up effort and rework during verification/review.
SCV Alliance can support decision traceability and audit evidence by standardising exclusion rationale, approvals, and reporting artefacts.
Exclusions: View Structure, Format, and Key Data Requirements
File structure affects review efficiency because FSCS/PRA expect standardised files (fields present and in the required order), even when some fields are empty/not held, so submissions remain consistent and machine-readable.
Regulatory Implications
- Missing or inconsistent required fields can delay verification and trigger rework.
- Poor formatting or non-standard structure can increase manual intervention.
- Structural inconsistency can signal weak operational discipline and reduce confidence in repeatability.
Exclusions: View File Structure and Format (What ‘Good’ Looks Like)
FSCS review efficiency is driven less by file presence and more by how usable the file is under audit conditions. Structure, format, and naming discipline are practical indicators of operational control and repeatability during review.
What Reviewers Care About
In verification, usability matters, including reviewers need complete, consistent data that links cleanly and can be validated quickly against rules and evidence.
- Data completeness: All required fields and accounts must be fully reported and present in the Exclusions View.
- Source traceability: Each exclusion must be auditable to the source records and supporting evidence.
- SCV Record Number/ID consistency: SCV Record Number should match across SCV and Exclusions View for the same depositor, with exceptions as per guidance.
- Balance accuracy: (Including FX conversion) Use exchange rates as of the request date; FSCS recommends the Bank of England spot rate.
- Classification accuracy: Exclusions must be correctly categorised according to FSCS guidance (LEGDOR, LEGDIS, HMTS, BEN).
Weakness in any of these areas can drive additional manual testing and follow-up evidence requests during verification/review.
File Format and Structure
- Non-standard file formats increase validation and reconciliation risk
- Naming inconsistencies indicate weak data governance and control of ownership
- Format drift across reporting cycles (e.g., Format 1–3) undermines comparability and audit traceability
- A clean, standardised structure strengthens audit defensibility and review efficiency
Where complexity, validation gaps, or repeatability risks persist, SCV Alliance enables standardisation through rule-based validation, controlled file structures, and consistent evidence generation across reporting cycles, supporting defensible, repeatable compliance outcomes.
Compliance Best Practices
Effective exclusion compliance is driven by consistency, traceability, and audit readiness.
Best-practice Controls
- Consistent rules reduce interpretation risk
- Traceability strengthens regulatory confidence
- Audit readiness lowers remediation cost
- Controlled processes shift compliance from reactive to disciplined
Review confidence is strongest when exclusions are explainable, reproducible, and governed , not just technically formatted.
A Compliance-Focused Next Step
Exclusion reviews are most effective when conducted before a regulatory challenge. A structured pre-audit assessment of exclusion logic, governance, and supporting evidence reduces follow-up effort and avoids prolonged remediation cycles.
When positioned as risk reduction rather than compliance overhead, exclusion review allows institutions to validate logic integrity, governance ownership, and evidence quality, shortening review cycles and strengthening FSCS confidence. SCV Alliance supports this by standardising exclusion rules, automating key control checks, and maintaining clear decision traceability and evidence, enabling institutions to identify duplication, misclassification, and logic gaps early.
By supporting consistent, repeatable SCV and Exclusions View submissions across reporting cycles, SCV Alliance helps firms move from reactive remediation to defensible, audit-ready exclusion governance, with Macro Global providing the regulatory expertise and implementation support to embed these controls into business-as-usual processes.
FAQs
Why does FSCS review the Exclusions View file so closely?
FSCS periodically reviews SCV and Exclusions View submissions against the Depositor Protection requirements to support rapid payout. Exclusions matter because they affect what can be paid straight‑through vs what requires manual investigation, so the focus is on correct classification, evidence, and reproducibility.
Can the Exclusions View file be used to correct errors in the SCV file?
No. The Exclusions View file is for appropriate exclusions (LEGDOR/LEGDIS/HMTS/BEN). Ineligible deposits must not appear in either file. If the SCV contains errors, those should be corrected at source, and the SCV regenerated, rather than using exclusions to ‘reshape’ the population.
How does FSCS assess whether exclusions are defensible?
Primarily through verification of correct Exclusion Type classification, completeness, and the ability to reproduce the same outcomes from the same inputs. Reviewers may also ask for supporting evidence and governance context (ownership, approval, and change control) where classifications or volumes shift.
What is the regulatory impact of weak exclusion governance?
Weak governance typically leads to more follow-up questions, additional evidence requests, and remediation work during FSCS/PRA verification or BAU review activity. It can also increase operational friction because more accounts require manual investigation in a payout scenario.
Reduce Exclusion Risk
Spot issues before they become findings. Validate exclusion logic and traceability early.
SCV Alliance
FSCS SCV Audit Platform
SCV Forza
FSCS SCV Automation Platform
Defensible Control, Not Reactive Fixes
Uncontrolled exclusions create risk. Defensible controls reduce it.
Related Resources
BLOG
Regulatory Update: FSCS Deposit Protection Limit Rising to £120,000 – Key FSCS SCV Reporting Changes for Banks and Deposit Taking firms
BLOG
FSCS Updates 2025: What Depositor Protection Changes and Compensation Limit Increases Mean for SCV Reporting
BLOG