Saga paid out £156k for mis-sold LTC funds

Author: Rachel Dalton
IFAonline | 07 Dec 2011 | 12:40

Categories: Long Term Care| Better Business| Investment

Topics: Better Business| risk| Long Term Care| Saga| FSA

Saga logo

Saga paid 12 people £13,000 each in compensation after one of its advisers mis-sold them funds within long term care (LTC) plans.

Between 2006 and 2007, 12 clients who had low-to-medium risk appetites were advised by an individual from Saga's care funding advice service to invest in a medium risk property fund.

Saga wrote to all of the customers affected and made compensation payments to each clients averaging £13,000. This ensured they received the return they would have had with a low-to-medium risk fund, Saga said.

"We reported this matter to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as soon as we were aware of the issue and the regulator formally confirmed to Saga that it was content with the swift action we took," a Saga spokesperson said.

"Our long term care advisory service has never received anything other than a clean bill of health from the regulator."

The adviser in question left after the incident, Saga confirmed.

On Monday, the FSA fined HSBC £10.5m for the mis-selling by its subsidiary NHFA of LTC investment bonds to elderly customers.

The FSA found that most of the customers were unlikely to live long enough to realise their policies and had lower attitudes to risk than required for asset-backed investment products.

More long term care news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

Cynical?

Bravo for such swift action by Saga. Did the individual responsible go to another financial services company or was the reference enough to deter any potential new employer? If Saga deemed it serious enough to 'let the person go' then he/she should be in another occupation by now.

Posted by: Paul

07 Dec 2011 | 13:59
Complain about this comment

Does the author know?

What exactly were Saga fined for?

Posted by: snooks

07 Dec 2011 | 14:43
Complain about this comment

@snooks

...Saga were not fined for the mis-selling. Rather the organisation spotted the problem and paid customer redress quickly.

Posted by: Ed

07 Dec 2011 | 16:20
Complain about this comment

Only half a tale

Many thanks for your kind comments Phil. However, at the risk of being called pedantic (yet again) IFAs don't actually need the FSA, consumers do. I do fully agree that the FSA need IFAs, a factor neither side does not yet fully comprehend. As the FOS statistics indicate it is the direct sales organisations, i.e banks, insurance companies, building societies, that create the greatest cost and the greatest level of complaints. Without being complacent about IFA failures, they have, in the main, been a very positive and beneficial factor in providing clients with a fair deal. Take away that controlling factor and the problem areas get larger, and the FSA's job much harder. I read all the IFA comments and wonder why they are so inward looking, desperately trying to be good boys, obeying the rules, and thereby hanging onto their jobs. I can understand the pressure to have a job in the current climate, but, in truth, the underlying sentiments have not changed in the last few years. Yet the terms under which IFAs operate are continually declining due to the penal rulings of the FSA. I suspect that in any other occupation or profession there would have been a walk out years ago. Every IFA now runs the risk of providing quality advice to clients and still be hounded out through no fault of the IFA. If every IFA were to say to the the FSA that the rulebook and the regulatory procedures had to follow the Rule of Law and good commercial practice or every IFA would resign in December 2012, even Parliament would want to know what was going on. I wouldn't for a second expect the IFA community to have the strength of purpose to present such an ultimatum in the next 12 months. I would though be interested in reviewing the market in 36 months time when IFAs find that the providers are unable to cope with the changes, service starts to deteriorate, costs start to rise and clients are getting angrier by the day. I suspect that IFAs will adapt, but I also suspect the adaption may not be entirely in favour of clients. Part of the reason for survival will be the monopolistic position of IFAs (which is already being commented on) and monopolies are rarely beneficial to consumers. It is merely a hypothesis but a combination of a monopolistic position and a sharp decline in IFA numbers may cause the FSA regulatory problems in 2 to 3 years time. It would be dangerous to drive out IFAs through disciplinary action if that creates such small numbers the advisory market is unsustainable, except as an indulgence for the rich. Advice would then have to be provided to the majority of the populace by the major institutions, who are currently in the process of withdrawing. The FSA would need to create a positive environment before the major companies would comeback, and I don't think William Hill would bother taking any bets on the quality of service this would provide. However this is viewed the FSA put themselves in an untenable position. Just a hypothesis, but it does support the view that they need IFAs, whilst IFAs do not need the FSA. Clients, sadly, are merely casualties in the war. I wonder if Parliament really cares? I wonder if consumers/voters are aware that Parliament doesn't care or understand. Or that TCF is merely an FSA slogan, not a true objective. I suspect that over the next 12 months IFAs may be in a more powerful position than they have ever been before. It would take the co-ordinated action of 10,000 to 15,000 IFAs to threaten to resign from regulated advice in December 2011 to bring the matter to a head. But it may be easier to find flying pigs.

Posted by: Glen McKeown

08 Dec 2011 | 01:03
Complain about this comment

Related articles

Most Read

Audio / Visual

Coffee Lounge

View all the winners here

PPR Structured Product Awards 2011

View all the winners here

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

event logo

International Fund & Product Awards 2012

14 Jun 2012 - 14 Jun 2012

London, UK

event logo

British Mortgage Awards 2012

03 Jul 2012 - 03 Jul 2012

London, UK

event logo

Cover Webinars

04 Jul 2012 - 04 Jul 2012

London, UK

Poll

Should there be a cap on hourly fees?

In Focus

Viewpoints