FSCS judicial review has “very slim” chance of success – Adviser Alliance

100% in agreement

Having followed cases over the last few years and attended the Royal Courts of Justice on 2 specific cases such as FSA v Bill Matthews and FOS v Heather Moor & Edgecomb, it was clear to me that FSMA 2000 will never be beaten. There are so many rules, rules which contradict other rules that the regulatory staff don't understand them, so how are the solicitors, judges and barristers going to interpret them? In the HM&E case one of the judges (3 in all) made a statement about the BA final salary scheme being guaranteed! We all know what's happened to the private sector final salary schemes, e.g. over 90% insolvent now. A leading London actuarial firm suggested that BA should consider bankruptcy as an option http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/pensions/article787575.ece The scheme I believe now is over £3 billion in deficit. How guaranteed is the BA scheme? Yet the judges made decisions based on guarantees. Remember the pensions review? The case of Bill Matthews in the morning the judge said he could award either £0 or £220,000 for compensation, but would not make a decision on the same day and agreed that his Human Rights had been breeched. The PIA Ombudsman had not given him an opportunity to challenge their final decision. The judge proceeded to offer to extend the case for another 3 days to cover this point. Matthews had already spent £100,000 at this stage on legal fees and with no proper job (FSA had shut him down) or prospect of paying for a potentially failed challenge if he would have lost the case. So Bill Matthews made a calculated decision to admit liability hoping the judge would be lenient. The judge proceeded to award approx £80,000 + £10,000 costs. The then judge Peter Smith, next case was Dan Brown's plagiarism on the Da Vinci code! How can we expect judges to understand when dealing with a multitude and wide variety of subjects when we have people within the industry that can't themselves? My view is, challenging FSMA via the legal system will not work as the confusion (cleverly designed FSMA 2000) of rules will always allow a get out for the regulator. The government needs to look at the core act and probably replace it, otherwise we will always be on the back foot as we have been for the last 10 years. This can only be done via MPs who can change the act/regulatory system. Alternatively we need the industry to refuse to pay the regulator anymore so that they are starved of funds until the MPs in question take some proper advice. And for those IFAs who are pro RDR and may think they are ahead of the game, think again. There will be more exams on demand with a history of changing the goal posts like a bully who will be back for more. More fees, more regulations, more beaurocracy and more constant abuse. Finally, if no one makes a stand where they can really hurt the regulator and bring it to it's knees, the IFA will be dead for good!

Posted by: paolo standerwick

Who's sorry now?

Well this is the second such view and who would argue? Well Regulatory Legal and Mr Fatchett it would seem. Now we know all the jokes and epithets concerning lawyers, but I guess whoever made them up must have had this firm of legal eagles (oops - I mean vultures) in mind. So all you who have stumped up good money must be feeling the berks the rest of us thought you were. If you are so gullible no wonder so many naff investments are being sold. (Thank you Mr. Maguire). And therefore no wonder we have to pay out for compensation.

Posted by: Harry Katz

Time to leave?

I feel that as a small IFA who has worked hard given appropriate advice diligently it is time to leave. It is a shame I did not build up a business in another field I have wasted 20 years of my time and effort. The hidden agenda is to rid the country of the small practicing individual.

Posted by: John