Who is gonna tell Hoban?

This sounds great until you relaise that the main in charge of retail financial services is Mark Hoban. I met with Mark at his Westminster office two weeks ago and he made it abundantly clear that unless evidence could be provided to confirm that introducing a longstop would not cause any consumer detriment then the current situation would continie.

Posted by: Alan Lakey

Long Stop

Lets see now... Phil Castle's proposed Terms of Business comply with the law of the land (i.e. they are lawful). But... This does not suit the FSA who have principles that stand outside of the law. The FSA requires regulated firms to offer terms that are outside of the law. i.e. unlawful. Is there any other organisation in the country that demands people to work outside of the law? Is there any other country that permits a privately funded company to act outside of the law and demand that citizens follow suit?

Posted by: Mike S

Agree with Mike S

The law of the land should apply to everyone and one group should not be singled out as we have. The other side of this issue is the never ending additional cost to consumers, any additional cost in an industry has to be paid for by their customers, in this case the public, both in extremely high insurance costs and an ever increasing time spent on reports which attempt to cover any eventuality which may occur in the next x amounts of decades. The bottom line is the consumer pays for all the additional regulation good and bad, if everyone were millionaires then it would be ok, but this is the real World out here. We need a balance of common sense, affordability, simplicity and a dose of reality brought in to regulation.

Posted by: Ian

Law is the Law

As I have said before, if a complaint comes before the courts (e.g. an action for breach of duty under s.150, FSMA), the Limitation Act will apply - and nothing FSA says can alter this. The logic of the FOS jurisdiction is the old one of 'equality of arms' i.e. the ordinary law and Courts are a bit unfair if Joe Schmoe wants to fight MegaBank Plc. That is why FOS has a definition of eligible complainant - being basically a private individual or a small business. Is it beyond the wit of FOS, HM Treasury or the Tory Party to figure out that perhaps some of the one-sidedness in the FOS jurisdiction (such as the absence of the long-stop, or decisions being binding on one party only) should only apply to larger outfits? That perhaps if an IFA would otherwise fall into the same criteria as an 'eligible complainant', that the one-sidedness has no basis in 'fairness'. Anyway, public message to Phil Castle: You always treat your "customers" fairly. If FSA think otherwise just because you want to apply the law, make it clear to them that we will see them in the Tribunal. There they can try their argument that the 'Principles'can be stretched to the point of arbitrary construction. And we will see what the Judge thinks...

Posted by: Man in Black