Law firm set for Keydata challenge after raising £30k

Is a Judicial Review the right way to go?

A Judicial Review is: !are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached. It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were 'right', as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the 'correct' decision. This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way. If you want to argue that a decision was incorrect, judicial review may not be best for you. There are alternative remedies, such as appealing against the decision to a higher court." Hopefully it won't be needed.

Posted by: Michael Fallas

FSCS

Again why do these people come after IFAs, is it because we are seen as too small, unimportant or too weak? Or is it that we are a dishonest bunch that should be got rid off? Where does common sense come into this and our other legal processes that support the criminal? Well done Gareth and the AIFA!!

Posted by: frank Roberts

Balance

In the interests of balance it should be pointed out that Adviser Alliance has also been working 'behind the scenes' to resolve this matter. It is important to make such a point clear as otherwise it might seem to the innocent observer that we are sitting on our hands.

Posted by: Alan Lakey

Put the money to good use

Question to Gareth; if the money is not required to fund a review over the keydata fiasco, can it be used to fund a review re the lack of a longstop?

Posted by: fsafatigued

save yourself

Why don't we all just send something along the following lines to the FSCS. I think I'll send mine 1st class-that wont cost me £200. 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

An action without class?

The Daily Mail reports a class action which went spectacularly wrong. http://tinyurl.com/yfqv7bg

Posted by: Evan Owen