Explanations?

Can some one tell me how each firm is assessed on this? We have 2 advisors and our fee if £1400! What are the criteria on this. Everybody seems to be paying varying amounts.

Posted by: Hugh Jeego

Failed Again!

They've failed again but I'll pay once again for the incompetence of those we already pay to exist to fail spectacularly on every occassion. I am afraid ,very afraid that those who close the stable door after the horse has bolted expect this Practice to pay again! £1335 bill for nothing and with the threat of 2013 where the hell are our rights? Can you imagine this happening to Farmers or Public Sector workers or indeed the FSA. Imagine being held responsible for the Banks running out of money on your watch etc. etc. It won't break the bank but I could have used it towards the changes necessary for someone else's idea called the RDR which is destined to destroy thousands of jobs and threatens our livelihoods or perhaps to pay a staff bonus! Once again, the sohisticated adviser drops a bollock and the FSA didn't spot it.

Posted by: Peter Taylor

well done Martin...

...on finding a positive in this, although I'm not sure it's going to win many people over. I cheered when our levy was only £1600 - only because there had been rumours of £10k+ at one point!

Posted by: Adrian

Unbelievable

I trade as a one man band. My fee is £1,335.33. It is being like a Lloyds name with unlimited liability but with no reward. Only a Quango can work like this, amateurs not doing their job then demanding that professionals settle the bill for their mistakes Unbelievable

Posted by: David Blissett

What a strange world

This new 'one-off this time' levy is not pleasant and it does irk to pay for the errors of others. We have traded for 14 years and never made a mistake that required settlement in this quantum (£4k), so, for us the experience is new. All said though I suppose we trade with clients who remain comforted by the FSCS scheme and now it is at work,compensating people who looked to play with the high rolers but don't like the outcome, we should attempt to demonstrate to our clients its efficacy in a real world situation. It would be useful if the FSA gave us some training and guidance notes on how to best present the role of the FSCS so we can do so in a compliant manner - I wonder if they will run another mandatory attendance seminar like the TCF one I had to sit through where my mouth went dry as I sucked egg after egg, or the pension switch analysis day I had to suffer pondering the bleedin' obvious. Our role/job is truly under threat - we have no measures available to us to counter the changes which seemingly suit banks - our choices are simple, keep taking the punches or pack up. Mithering will not alter a thing!!!

Posted by: Mike Hurst

Explanation!

I can explain the calculation! Here's an extract from the FSCS re explanation: "With respect to your breakdown, Cameron Trinity had 1 Approved persons as at 31st December 2008, and per our records when we asked you for your split of business between Investment & "Life and Pensions" you advised us that the split was 90/10, meaning that the split was 90% of your business is providing customers with investment advice or arranging deals in investments, hence the .9 Fee Traiff Data on your invoice. The calculation : Full Year Levy : 0.9 X £1811.46 = £1630.31 Previously Charged : 0.9 X £476.13 = £428.52 (June 2009) This invoice : Full year levy LESS Previously Charged = £1201.79 I would say that that the fee split varies considerably between firms, and as this is a major component of the charge, it obviously has direct impact on the resulting invoice. As you may know, following public consultation, firms in the investment intermediary sub-class (SD02) will, from April 2010, be levied on the basis of their annual eligible income, and not by reference to the number of approved persons operating at the firm. We believe that this may be a fairer basis to base this levy on."

Posted by: Linda Hulls

levy

My comment is that as a business we cannot stand uncertainty. Surely for companies to fail like this a short coming of regulation and controls, were was it when it was needed, again like the bank's. Disgraceful

Posted by: roger holloway

2 advisers £1,602 charged

but a colleague in a one man band has only been charged £260!

Posted by: Ken Durkin

Unlimited Liabilty

When the next crash happens I think the bills from the FSCS will bankcrupt many firms as there is no limit to the amount of money they can claim from IFA's

Posted by: Kim Andrew Lincoln

Stop Moaning and Support the Judicial Review

OK the bill is a pain but if this one is not contested the precedent is sent. Our bill - just over £300 but we're still going to put in our £200 to have the judicial review done. Why? Simple - it's only a matter of time before something similar happens and the "fee" might be 10 or 20 times. Would we have a leg to stand on? No - because we accepted the first one. Spending £200 now is cheap by comparison and logically a review would settle it once and for all.

Posted by: Alex Docherty