FSA threatens one-man firm over long-stop campaign

TCF works both ways

TCF as a system should work both ways as paying members of the FSA the rules and priciples we adopt for our customers/clients should also be adopted by our regulator for us. We should be treated in a fair manner. We can only advise within the rules and with the information we have at our disposal at the time of advice (some or most of the information comes either from the FSA or from organisations the FSA controls ((or who control them)). If the rules or information are subsequently changed then there should be a longstop available for IFAs. Indefinite prosecution cannot be fair in a TCF environment.

Posted by: c evans

Consistency would be good

I would very much like to hear how the FSA believes that it can demonstrate how the very large remuneration packages given by banks to certain employees and the levels of business risk taken by those organisations can be viewed as bringing 'additional benefit to both consumers and firms.' Pity that the regulations do not get applied in an even manner, I would have though that in itself breaches the FSA's own 'requirements'.

Posted by: Mike Poprdan

partner

The FSA are not interested at all in the wellbeing of the people it supervises despite the millions that are paid to them. This is all about bullying and control by people who have no idea what it is like in the world outside.

Posted by: terryarch

FSA

Same old Same old The FSA again out of touch with the people in this industry What can we do, they rampage through out of date ideas crazy shut the gate after the horse has bolted actions let us in the day to day struggle to function have a say in how they can help PLEASE LISTEN ,no name as they may witch hunt all of us who speak out

Posted by: Broker

Macdonalds guilty of customers death

I wonder how McDonalds would feel if they were blamed for a customers death 20 years after he ate one of their burgers. I quite agree with allowing IFAs to have a long stop on advice/complaints, it does feel like one rule for IFAs and one rule for everyone else, the FSA treat us like idiots who have to be told how to run our own businesses and we have no course for redress as they see themselves as judge and jury and to add salt into an already painful wound we have to pay them for this privillage.

Posted by: Kenneth

FSA

The FSA, like the Government, has neither control nor power over the banks, which have continually proved to be the main sources of bad advice in the UK. In order to justify its existence, the FSA tries to create the impression that it understands and regulates the financial services industry by dreaming up rules which impact on the part of the industry that it can control, namely IFAs. All other professions are regulated by people who have served in their industries and have an understanding of fairness on both sides. The FSA beaurocrats have no interest in fairness to IFAs. If it survives a change of government and good IFAs leave the industry in droves, the FSA will claim that the reduction in adviser numbers has been due to the FSA's effectiveness in "weeding out" bad advisers. The FSA has no incentive to introduce a 15 year long-stop because it would remove a major reason for IFAs to leave the industry. That is also why, that despite an apparent consultation period, the RDR is a done deal. It will have no effect on banks but it will impact on IFAs, particularly small firms and older, experienced advisers.

Posted by: Mike

More of the same

I wonder who these people are that think this is 'good practice' for our regulator. We pay them to ADVISE us and regulate for market inequalities. Well here is a market inequality that they are forcing on us. And once again someone who stands up to be counted becomes a bullying target. When IS this all going to stop? This is MY business and I appoint clients the way I want to appoint them. They can always go elsewhere after all. I don't shop in B&Q out of choice after all. as usual anonymous

Posted by: Roddy

FSA - threatens long-stop campaigner

So, the FSA cannot demonstrate why it might be reasonable for IFAs to have a longstop against liability claims - if they cannot understand that denial of this basic requirement is itself unlawful and, at the same time, totally pernicious, then its no wonder that the FSA have proved themselves so incompetent on everything else it has passed judgement. In a world where murderer Blair may be sworn in as EU president next month, can we really expect a bunch of quangocrats to see sense or treat honest decent people (most IFAs) fairly. Answers on a postcard to.........

Posted by: Bill Wells

Is this the Brave New World?

were it not so predictable this attitude of the FSA would be shocking. I happen to know that the wording of these Terms of Business has been extremely carefully assembled and great care has been take to ensure balance between customer and adviser. But are the FSA interested? NO. All they can think of is to issue threats and demands. Do it their way or not at all is the approach. I wonder whether the general public have any real concept of how this Leviathan regulator uses fear and unfettered power to abuse its subjects. This then is the brave new world. This is the evidence of Orwellian reality. The Government are bad enough -- but the FSA are a million miles worse - and as this Governement sees how the FSA gets away with the abuse of its power so will the Government follow with its own abuses. People of once Great Britain beware - First the IFA community are to be oppressed -- then it will be impossible to reverse the trend to ever greater imposition of diktat from appointed power masters.

Posted by: Dave Chaundy

A challenge for the FSA

If a disagreement, often referred to as a complaint, is made about a firm, mediation is an FSA rule requirement(i.e. the FOS must be involved). However, it is disappointing to see that when an adviser WANTS to discuss something with them, they refuse to do so claiming they disagree on interpretation. It even seems they are not prepared to pick up the phone to even try and find some common ground. And....they seems to be refusing to even to read the "potentially" offending document before making what might be interpreted by some as 'implied threats'. If the FSA will not discuss what they object to, then aren't they risking stifling innovation? If they wish to regain any of the credibility they lost as a result of their failure to regulate the banks and by their actions since the credit crunch emerged, we feel strongly that they need to start talking to advisers - especially to those willing to raise their heads over a perceived parapet - rather than slamming up the shutters. Perhaps the FSA will accept this challenge? Ask Phil Castle for a copy of the document and then report to EVERYONE what is that is felt to be unacceptable. Assuming Mr Castle is a reasonable man, we suspect he will simply discuss the issues and once agreement is reached, be happy to amend the document before ever using it.

Posted by: cherry

TCF?

It really makes one wonder if the FSA knows the meaning of their own initiative. All other industries in the UK are under one rule and IFA/financial advice under another, that cannot be TCF in an industry context. In addition to this, having this rule which only applies to our section of industry means that the client ultimately foots the bill in ever increasing regulatory costs which have to be passed on. The long stop provides adequate cover as for example a person with a 25 year life plan kept for the full term without the client claiming, effectively gives them 31 years of potential compensation if an error has been made, how much more protection do the public want to pay for? Then maybe our insurance plans could be improved with smaller excesses to reduce the strain on the compensation fund and provide better cover for the client?

Posted by: Ian

A challenge for the FSA

If a disagreement, often referred to as a complaint, is made about a firm, mediation is an FSA rule requirement(i.e. the FOS must be involved). However, it is disappointing to see that when an adviser WANTS to discuss something with them, they refuse to do so claiming they disagree on interpretation. It even seems they are not prepared to pick up the phone to even try and find some common ground. And....they seems to be refusing to even to read the "potentially" offending document before making what might be interpreted by some as 'implied threats'. If the FSA will not discuss what they object to, then aren't they risking stifling innovation? If they wish to regain any of the credibility they lost as a result of their failure to regulate the banks and by their actions since the credit crunch emerged, we feel strongly that they need to start talking to advisers - especially to those willing to raise their heads over a perceived parapet - rather than slamming up the shutters. Perhaps the FSA will accept this challenge? Ask Phil Castle for a copy of the document and then report to EVERYONE what it is that is felt to be unacceptable. Assuming Mr Castle is a reasonable man, we suspect he will simply discuss the issues and once agreement is reached, be happy to amend the document before ever using it.

Posted by: cherry

Life Sentence caused by unjust regulator

After over 30 years of providing financial advice to the public I chose to cease trading approx 3 years ago as I was no longer prepared to take the risk of advising people with regards to financial services business under the current ridiculously unjust regulatory regime. As a past sole trader who never mis-sold anyone all I can see in front of me for the rest of my life is the prospect of having to defend myself against firms of 'ambulance chasing commission & compensation opportunists' who think they may be able to 'make a few quid' by putting forward fraudulent complaints with nothing to lose due to the encouragement of the current compensatory culture by the FSA and the FOS. Adjudications carried out by the FOS become a lottery as some adjudicators & ombudsmen ignore factual evidence on file and, although they know nothing about the advisers inegrity, experience or background, act as judge, jury & executioner basing their decisions on 'the balance of probability' otherwise known as guesswork. No one should have to live a life sentence of having the constant fear of an ombudsman making an error of judgement based on guesswork which could cause financial ruin - not once - but repeatedly throughout their lifetime until death becomes a blessed relief. No-one is really interested about the injustice because it only effects past and present financial advisers and their voices seem not to be heard in the wilderness. I have some interesting evidence of injustices if any journalist would like to contact me.

Posted by: mike skelton

Dictatorship Thrives at FSA

No one should be surprised by the threats issuing from the FSA over its dictatorial polices. Challenge and arguement do not sit well with 'Big Brother'! We live in an age where we are the only profession who cannot determine our own method of payment even though our clients can choose, we cannot question a regulator who is in hock with the big banks and we must accept that millions of people will be denied independent financial advice through the actions of said regulator as those clients cannot/will not pay fee's. Oh how the Banks must love the FSA..yet another generation driven into the grasping palms of these bonus grabbing barons. Try getting a bank to answer your calls with a failing pension/investment..not likely when they can't sort out a dodgy direct debit!

Posted by: Stoney Broker

TCF

Didn't someone once comment that TCF stood for Tossers Collecting Fines??

Posted by: Anon

Ironic

What I find mind boggling is that this autocratic authority with all consuming powers which it liberally misuses and fails to understand the implications of, was set up as the only EU regulator that was placed above the law in statute so that it could not be sued for incompetence (viz a viz Equitable Life, BCCI, Keydata, Northern Rock --- where do i stop) and yet it has the audacity to leave the IFA hung out to dry. What an astonsishing double standard. I have never been a lobbier for specific reasons as I feel some of the RDR has merit and also that most of this is a done deal and we are just unwilling passengers, however I would willingly vociferously support any professional body that pursues equality by forcing the FSA's hand to accept the addition of a long stop to our terms of business. What happened to this country being a place of fairness and tolerance and equality. Bill

Posted by: Bill Ward

No Alsatia in England?

Dear Phil Simply write back to the author of FSA's letter. Refer him/her/it to Beatson J in Shore v Sedgwick Financial Services [2007] EWHC 2509 - the ratio of which is that the Limitation Act *does* apply where any such complaint is brought before the courts. You are of course treating your customers fairly by making this clear to them - something that firms have not done so in the past. Then make the following points/questions: - - FSMA gives rule-making powers to the Board of the FSA; Could they please direct you to the Instrument where the Board said that writing the ordinary law into a legal document was unfair?; - The Principles are open to interpretation. FSA will be aware of the Tribunal's determination in the Fox Hays case where FSA's interpretation of the Principles was flatly rejected; - Could FSA please therefore direct you any determination by the Tribunal or indeed Court of Appeal confirming that writing a jurisdiction clause into a contract (something that happens in every walk of like) would be a breach of Principle? - Would the FSA official be willing to put their (own) money on the daft idea that the Tribunal or a Judge in the Court of Appeal *would* indeed regard asking for the ordinary law to be applied as constituting a breach of a very vaguely worded principle?!? If you really want to wind them up, ask: - - One major Bank has a 15-16 week backlog for responding to bog-standard financial planning complaints - 6 months for more specialist financial planning matters. What are they doing about it? - FOS likewise have a massive backlog. They are currently staffed (in the main) by contractors sourced from Momenta and Hazell Carr - yet are still taking 6-18months just to assign cases. Why don't they sort this out first? Hope this helps.

Posted by: Man in Black

long stop

I agree that you have to have an end date even 15 years is to long 6 is better same as the inland revenue can go back with outstanding tax and the requirement for file keeping. Its a shame the FSA did not act the same way against the Banks they only like to bully the small IFA and we would not be in this mess.

Posted by: david waller

TCF is not the pinnacle of law

This is yet another example of the FSA seem to think that TCF is simply a label that they can apply to any situation that suits their purposes. TCF is a principle dictated by the FSA but not one that is applied uniformly, as anyone can see from the blatantly unfair actions and attitudes of many lenders over the last 18 months. What I can say is that it is not statute and it does not and cannot over-ride the law of the land or, indeed, the law of the whole continent. If a decision is in breach of English, UK or European law, then TCF does not justify it, even if it were not such a vague "Rule".

Posted by: Stuart Duncan