The Great Rip Off

I'm glad to see that someone is actually challenging this. Why the hell should i pay for something that i had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with. Would this happen in any other industry. Are those people that we pay fees to every year to liase on our behalf to the FSA etc doing anything. Its bad enough paying extra PI for firms that have missold pensions and investments but when a big investment company goes bust and i have to pay for it that is the bit that really takes the biscuit

Posted by: Brendan Carlin

Money for Lawyers only

Sorry to be a spoil sport, I wouldn't give him my money. He's on the make and more fool the IFA who parts with money. I've sat in court rooms listening to other cases where it goes above judges heads with no result apart from laywers fees. Try lobbying with MPs. IFA for 30 years

Posted by: Experienced IFA mnn

"Interm Levy" and F-pack bonuses

I would suggest that it would be equitable to link all F-pack bonuses to whether any interim levies have to be paid, whetehr there has had to be a banking bailout or the country collapses due to uncontrolled debt. The annual levy is bad enough, but to have to pay an "interim levy" even of £440 (don't forget, that does not include Pacific and Continental etc I think) may mean that many small firms will have to look to cancel any intended admin staff bonuses, many of whom might be on modest earnings as part-time staff (between £5,000 and 25,000k per annum is probably common for admin staff in small firms). We paid ours in December for the GOOD WORK our staff did, so there is no tacking it back. It is unjustifiable and immoral therefore for the F-pack to continue to pay staff bonuses when the average salary at the FSA is how much? (£50k rings a bell)Especially when this appears to be as a result of regulatory failure, i.e. NOT the fault of our admin staff....

Posted by: Phil Castle

I thought I would ask---

For 2010/11, our assumption is that more Keydata Investment Services Limited claims are likely to come in along with the residual Pacific Continental Securities (UK) Limited and Square Mile Securities Limited claims. Together with other claims, this results in a total indicative levy of £19m for the Investment Intermediation (SD02) sub-class in 2010/11. Loretta Minghella Chief Executive FSCS in the FSCS Plan and Budget for 2010/11 But how has the SDO2 sub-class been assembled? Why would firms which do not handle Client Money like IFA’s be classed together in risk terms with firms who are stockbrokers and which do handle client money and so are surely of a different and more risky character. Furthermore, what is the logic or the justification for IFA’s being included in the same sub-class as a product provider such as Key Data Services? Who was consulted in the FSCS decisions on which type of firm was to be in SDO2? When were these decisions made? By whom were they made? Is there any forum in which IFAs’ views can be heard and points addressed on the matter of which sub-class the FSCS decides to put IFA’s in? I understand from this Budget paper that the FSCS wishes to consult Stakeholders on these matters. I see that in order to do so the FSCS consults its own advisory panel which is said to include representatives from Trade Bodies. Can you tell me please whom the FSCS consulted as representative of IFA’s? I also understand from the Budget paper that the FSCS conducted interviews in order to gather external views. Clearly this statement does not reveal a great deal about the FSCS process, so I would like to see the protocol adopted in determining the scope, number and content of these interviews please, and the report made to the FSCS on these interviews which determined the outcomes set out in the Budget document.

Posted by: snooks

no justice

this is similar to the FSCS complaints procedure which costs the ifa £360 even if he is subsequently proved innocent by the ombudsman, we still pick up the tab for frivolous complaints because the public are encouraged by the compensation culture in the hope of getting something for nothing and as long as it costs them nothing to complain this will carry on, with regard to this keydata payment of £440 the first writer is perfectly correct, this is tanatamount to asking someone else to pay your parking fine for instance, as long as someone else is around to pay, this sort of injustice will carry on, this sort of thing is endemic in our society at the moment and is not just confined to the financial services industry, perhaps for instance they should set a levy every time government departments cost the taxpayer money, like the swine flu vaccine which they over ordered the list is endless

Posted by: ex IFA

Still waiting Gareth

I asked for sight of something which would convince me that he has anything new to use in this case. Not a cuckoo.

Posted by: Evan Owen

what comes round goes around

Let's be realistic - FSMA 2000 created the FSCS and 'light touch' regulation of IFA's. We made shed loads of commisions for very little work, during the boom times of mid 2000's. What's the odd £440 interim levy in comparison? Didn't you keep anything back for the tough times that had to follow? Stop bitchin' and use your time looking for the next gravy train.... Ciao (offshore) IFA

Posted by: new ifa