TSC v FSA: Regulator could re-examine long-stop

To be clearer..

The article is a little vague where it says "A long-stop - meaning the matter complained about must have occurred within the last 15 years or the complaint is void - was introduced in 1980. Adviser Alliance says the FSA removed it, without consultation, in 2001."........................................ it's not entirely accurate. The fact is the Longstop is the legal property of the defendant under statute law and the FSA did indeed remove it without consultation, some would argue illegally. The Longstop does not however relate to ALL claims over 15 years, only those relating to professional negligence.. which is why, upon receipt of any compliant, the adviser should establish the "class of complaint" clearly with the complainant. The law is very clear, unless something was knowingly with held by the adviser (the onus of proof for that is upon the complainant in a court of law) then 15 years is the outer limit. This is NOT an automatic right but one that must be claimed. This therefore allows anyone to choose on a case by case basis whether they want to use this as a defence or not. The FSA removed the right to make the choice and this should be changed back. I wish the Adviser Alliance every success in their attempt to get this injustice resolved once and for all. Currently the FSA and thus FOS is above the highest law of the land... or so they currently think.

Posted by: Former IFA

Longstop

If you log on to the TSC website and play the recording again, the Longstop comment was at 1hr35mins They were wrong not to respect the longstop before and they are wrong not to tell the FOS it must be respected now. I have written correspondence from the FSA refusing to even discuss what I suspect will be their back tracking on the LOngstop issue and the solution I suggested. They even effectively threatened me if I was to point out to clients that a longstop in common law exists and whilst the F-pack refused to respect it, if FSA policy was reversed in due course, we would look to rely on our common law rights. Becuase of our insistence that it was a requirement of being TCF that we stated this, we ended up with us having to remove our membership of Trading Standards Buy with Confidence Scheme as the FSA implied quoting the existance of a common law right to a longstop was against their rules withotu ever publicly stating it either way. THIS is the accountability IFAs have demanded is placed on individuals at the FSA for their decisions. I will now look at the written communications and take the matetr from there. Pleased they are willing to look at the longstop issue now, but this goes to prove they never were a principles based regulator, willing to discuss matters in an open and honest manner as I have written responses of them refusing to discuss the issue.

Posted by: Phil Castle