See what your case review would flag
For brokers and AR firms — register, then upload a real statement and see exactly what a paying customer's API call would return.
See how it works →
Positioning
Why brokers and AR firms actually pay for this
Scrivenza doesn't save a broker time reading a statement. It gives them a documented reason they didn't miss something — and it gives an AR principal firm a fast way to prove the same thing across their whole network.
| Individual broker | AR / principal firm | |
|---|---|---|
| Buying | Protection from their own liability | A fast way to discharge an oversight duty they already have |
| Driver | Fear of being the next case penalised for missing a flag | The Dec 2022 AR reforms already made this their job |
In a real FOS decision (Loan.co.uk, DRN-5974028), a broker picked a lender that didn't require bank statements specifically so a client's gambling wouldn't surface — and was ordered to refund fees plus the client's evidenced gambling losses with interest. Consumer Duty's test is what a firm "knew or should reasonably have known" — having the information and ignoring it is worse than never having had it. That's the gap this closes.
This is documented FOS complaint-risk today, not a proven FCA enforcement pattern for this exact fact pattern — and not every flagged pattern is material (a small, stable gambling spend was found not to be a failing in a separate decision). Say it that way, not stronger.
What you get
- Up to 3 free case reviews on your own account — register once, come back any time.
- The same triage badge and full report a paying customer's API call returns.
- No password — we email you a one-time link to sign in.
- Nothing about your statement is stored once the review is shown to you.