Categories: Regulation
Topics: adviser firms| FSCS
Adviser Alliance founder Alan Lakey says the £70m additional levy imposed on intermediaries for the failures of Keydata and two stockbrokers “goes against the spirit of the law” – but is confident the FSCS will re-think its decision.
Lakey says Adviser Alliance has been in contact with the FSCS and is hopeful its action, alongside the work of law firm Regulatory Legal, AIFA and the IFA Defence Union, will make a compelling case to overturn the proposal.
Last week, the FSCS sent a letter to Regulatory Legal - which has launched a campaign to fight the levy - saying it had not reached a decision on who will carry the can for the failings of Keydata and stockbrokers Pacific Continental Securities and Square Mile Securities.
It invited the firm to make representations on behalf of its adviser clients by 15 March.
"The FSCS seems to have mellowed its position and appears to be back-tracking somewhat," says Lakey. "Ourselves, AIFA and Regulatory Legal are all singing with the same voice and this will make a robust case for the FSCS to have a re-think. It is now very likely a deal will be reached."
He thinks the regulatory body's levy proposal smacks of hypocrisy.
"Under the FSA's TCF initiative, the regulator will fine me if I do something against the spirit of the law," he says. "In this case, classing Keydata in the adviser sector clearly goes against the spirit of the law, even if the decision is technically ok. So, we want the same standards applied to the regulator as it applies to advisers."
He adds the FSCS underestimated the backlash and strength of outrage the levy proposal would trigger.
"The argument against the levy is overwhelming," he says. "IFAs have been outraged by the decision and consumers, including my clients, have been appalled. All advisers who dealt with Keydata felt they were dealing with a product provider."
Adviser Alliance is now recruiting members as it looks to raise funds to mount legal challenges against what is sees as damaging regulation. But Lakey says the not-for-profit organisation will not pursue legal action on the Keydata levy as this would "dilute" the work already being undertaken by Regulatory Legal.
Last week, the law firm said it had generated enough funds to mount a judicial review against the levy, although partner Gareth Fatchett hopes a negotiated settlement can now be agreed.
| Share | |
| Comment | Keydata levy against 'spirit of law', but will be overturned |
More regulation news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
Related articles
Most Read
This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.
Events
Poll
|
|
Job search
Ifaonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.ifaonlinejobs.co.uk now
In Focus
Two months left before the ‘real RDR deadline’ – are you compliant with the required professional...
Viewpoints
2012 marks a watershed for the Life companies, fund managers, banks and advisers who service...
please write to the FSCS yourself
Steady on--nobody can 'mount a judicial review'. This is a technical area which the writer should research a bit please before going into sensational print. We can all just ask the FSCS if we like for their rationale-by writing them a letter along the following lines? '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