The FSA threatens

Those words "the FSA threatens......" just about sums the whole thing up!!!

Posted by: Keith Ayres

One assumes the FSA is also responsible for their decisions as well

If we are responsible for our decisions for life does the same apply to the FSA? What ever happened to the advice the FSA gave people when they printed documentation which said or implied that final salary pensions were "safe and guaranteed". Did they act responsibly when this was found to be misleading? I trust they too will be following their own rules and regulations and acting accordingly and there is not a long-stop on anything the FSA does especially when they plan to set up a free advisory service for the public as announced in the Queens Speech this week !

Posted by: Michael Fallas

Sensationalist headlines

Scott I am surprised that a jornalist of your calibre has chosen to run this article with the two sensationalist words "threatens" and "warnings". This will only serve to rile advisers, resulting in semi abusive comments, which obviously has no advantage to the ongoing dialog which should be occuring between the FSA and our industry. I would urge other people considering posting a comment to read what the FSA have actually said, details of which can be found at http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/your_firm_type/financial/library/long_stop.shtml

Posted by: You must be joking

This is what the FSA said re their warning

"We would not consider acceptable any approach by a firm which purported to exclude or restrict a customer’s right to pursue a complaint against a firm with the FOS or before the courts. Accordingly, we would expect to take follow-up action with any firm adopting this course."

Posted by: Michael Fallas

FSA "guarantee" on final salary pensions

For those not sure what I was referring to above re "guaranteed" final salary pensions, you can see what Ros Altmann said on the matter here and the FSA response before her comments: http://www.rosaltmann.com/FTLetterFSA.htm

Posted by: Michael Fallas

Fairness

It seems to me that the FSA wants to treat customers fairly as do advisors, but they don't want to treat us with the same fairness. We simply ask that we have a little common sense prevail in this argument over the long stop. We cannot continuously have the sword hanging over our head continuously and certainly not into retirement. Look at the amount of advertising and press regarding endowments and yet claims still come out of the cupboard by people who have done nothing despite risk warnings from their providers. They simply go after where they think that can get money although they have accepted no responsibility for their decision making in the first place. It is about time this was tested through the Courts and maybe Phil Castles stand will end there.

Posted by: Bob Donaldson

What's the problem?

The FSA have set out the maximum term for complaints as Eternity!!! Surely, as long as Mr Castle's terms of business make it clear that his personal liability does not extend beyond 15 years of the ending of the advice relationship, it is up to the client as to whether or not to do business with him under those terms. What the FSA seems to be saying is that Mr Castle cannot into a contract with clients who have a perfect right to accept or reject his terms of business. It seems that the FSA want to extend their powers beyond the industry and now wish to impinge on the rights of the individual by preventing them conducting their business relationships on terms which they find acceptable. It is the Nanny state gone mad.

Posted by: Stuart Duncan

illogical

Having read the link, it simply reinforces how illogical this is. The FSA's own comments suggest that they feel that such a long stop would not be binding on a customer, and wouldnt be recognised by FOS - so why are they bothering with it then? Either they are right, in which case they neednt act to "protect" customers, or they are wrong, in which case they SHOULDNT act. And lets be clear, the use of the work "unreasonable" in the FSAs own TCF clause gives the game away - under any circumstances, up to 15 years IS reasonable (the fact that it applies for ALL other professions reinforces how reasonable it is)...but eternity is surely unreasonable.

Posted by: Paul Harding

FSA are using Writ of Outlawry

In the common law of England, a "Writ of Outlawry" declared the subject was no longer human, he had no legal rights. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw could not use the law to protect himself if needed, such as from mob justice, and could be robbed or even murdered with impunity. When Gordon Brown was asked to show legal opinion that the FSAMA 2000 did not breech the Human Rights Act, he failed to give these opinions. However, in 1998, two years before the FSMA 2000 Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC and Monica Carss-Frisk were of the opinion that the FSMA 2000 was bad law and in breach of the Human Rights Act. Anthony Speaight QC took this view also. Gordon Brown claimed that he had legal opinion to say the FSMA 2000 was compatible. Well when challenged he refused to release this – I wonder why! The FSA are quite happy to have the independent sector "outlawed" so they (the FSA) can do as they please. IFAs must ask themselves if they are happy with the status "outlaw" because with regard to financial services they have no rights other than those the FSA deem to allow. When the IFA is questioned about his/her commission and worth ask back how much one should be paid in exchange for these common law rights and remember the price that has been paid to defend these rights over the centuries. Regards SIMON MANSELL TEMPLE BAR IFA LTD

Posted by: SIMON MANSELL