|

|
|
Evan Owen's
take on regulation
Regulatory
Consultancy
Make a donation, monthly and/or single
HERE
We are launching a campaign to lobby the lawmakers.
Why the CPMA should look again at human rights
Issues
Peter Hamilton is a barrister specialising in financial services at 4 Pump Court
The new Chancellor of the Exchequer set out plans for the reform of financial regulation in his Mansion House speech recently.
The day after George Osborne’s speech, Treasury Financial Secretary Mark Hoban, enlarging on what the Chancellor had said, made a further announcement in Parliament: “At the heart of the banking crisis was a rapid and unsustainable increase in debt. Our macro-economic and regulatory system utterly failed to identify correctly the risk that posed, let alone prevent it.
“No one was controlling levels of debt and when the crunch came, no one knew who was in charge.
“For that reason, we need a macro-prudential regulator with a more systematic and detailed knowledge of what is happening not only in individual firms but across the financial system as a whole.
“Only central banks have the broad macro-economic understanding and understanding of markets, the authority and the knowledge required to make macro-prudential judgments.
“We will therefore place the Bank of England in charge of macro-prudential regulation by establishing within the bank a financial policy committee. We will also create two new, focused regulators- a new prudential regulator under the Bank of England, headed by a new deputy governor, and a new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority.
“All the new bodies will be accountable to Parliament, and their remit will be clear, so that never again can someone ask who is in charge and get no answer.
“First, we will legislate to create the financial policy committee in the Bank of England. It will have the responsibility to look across the economy at the macro-economic and financial issues that may threaten stability, and it will be given the tools to address the risks it identifies.
“It will have the power to require the new Prudential Regulation Authority to implement its directions by taking regulatory action with respect to all firms.
“Secondly, we will create a Prudential Regulation Authority as a subsidiary of the Bank of England. It will conduct prudential regulation of sectors such as deposit-takers, insurers and investment banks.
“Thirdly, a new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority will take on the Financial Services Authority’s responsibility for consumer protection and conduct regulation.
“The CPMA will regulate the conduct of all firms, both retail and wholesale, including those prudentially regulated by the PRA, and will take a strong proactive role as a consumer champion. It will have a strong mandate for ensuring that financial services and markets are transparent in their operation.
“The CPMA will regulate the conduct of every financial services business, whether they trade on the high street or trade in high finance. We need to ensure that this body has a tougher, more proactive approach to regulating conduct, and its primary objective will be promoting confidence in financial services and markets.”
At this stage, what can be made of the broad outline of those plans? There is a long way to go before they become a reality. There will be a consultation paper later in the summer, then there will have to be legislation which is promised within two years and the act which emerges from Parliament is likely to include (perhaps substantial) changes to the broad shape of what has been announced.
It is clear that the need for reform is chiefly driven by the failure of the current regulators to prevent the banking crisis and to ensure it does not happen again.
The key point is that prudential regulation of big financial institutions should be undertaken or overseen by the Bank of England, which is the lender of last resort.
On the other hand, the new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority will take on the FSA’s responsibility for consumer protection and conduct regulation. It will be refocused as “a consumer champion” and will have “a tougher, more proactive approach to regulating conduct, and its primary objective will be promoting confidence in financial services and markets”.
There are a number of comments to be made. The first is to note that all three of the new regulatory bodies are to be accountable to Parliament.
That is an important change for the better. At present, the FSA is at least nominally independent of the Government and Parliament. One of the negative consequences has been that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has had no jurisdiction to investigate FSA failings.
Recently, the Parliamentary Ombudsman produced a much admired report into the failings of the regulators concerning Equitable Life.
The Government, the FSA, and the public at large would have benefited from a similar searching investigation of the failures of regulation that contributed to the collapse of Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS.
Once the new CPMA is established and accountable to Parliament, it should also then fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
She will therefore be able to investigate allegations of maladministration by the CPMA referred to her by MPs.
Second, the new CPMA will have a fresh opportunity to put the rule of law and the law of human rights at the heart of the way in which it does its job.
The rule of law is not an abstract concept of interest only to academic constitutional lawyers. It is of vital importance to all of us all of the time, it underpins our essential values and freedom. The courts will take action to uphold it. Fairness is at the root of the concept: -all are equal before the law and all are subject to it and rules of law should not be retrospective in their application.
There are at least two well known examples of concern to IFAs where arguably the FSA has not paid due regard to the rule of law.
The first is in relation to the lack of a long stop in the Financial Ombudsman Service rules, imposed retrospectively on all subject to the FOS jurisdiction, and rendering IFAs subject to different rules of limitation.
The second example is the unfair proposal made in the course of the retail distribution review that currently authorised IFAs will be disqualified if they do not requalify under rules to be introduced and to take effect at the end of 2012.
As a member of the profession, the ordinary law already requires him to work to the standard of a reasonably competent IFA. If he is not working to that standard, he would not be fit and proper under the present rules and he would be liable to have his authorisation cancelled.
On the day that the new qualification becomes mandatory, what will have changed apart from the rule itself? The IFA remains the same person who, up to the day before, was regarded as fit and proper and working to at least the standard that the ordinary law requires.
This has been discussed in my previous articles. Let us trust that the new CPMA will have second thoughts.
There is a natural and obvious close relation between the rule of law and human rights. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Human Rights Act 1998 should also be engaged in respect of those same two examples.
The FSA has been unwilling to acknowledge that that act has any application. Every public authority has a statutory duty to act in a way that is compatible with the human rights enshrined by the convention and the act.
Again let us trust that in its refocused zeal to protect consumers, the CPMA will have due regard to the human rights of those it regulates
The Financial Services and Markets Bill was declared compatible with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 by Gordon Brown, despite spending five years using all available avenues Evan Owen failed to obtain permission to have sight of any legal advice which may have supported his declaration.
In a connected exercise it took many years for us to get two cases before the European Court of Human Rights, one was brought by Andrew Kerr with under £25,000 of direct IFA support and through indirect funding by Englands Ltd and of course Evan Owen who spent £50,000 of his own money chasing your rainbows.
The easiest way to pull the rug from under any attempts to obtain justice is to abolish the offending item and replace it with something ‘new and improved’. If this compensation machine is made compatible with human rights laws and limitation acts which are legitimate legal defences will you show any gratitude to those who may now be struggling to exist?
|
|
|
From: Mike
Fenwick Sent: 05 March 2010 3:22 PM
To: @fscs.org.uk Cc: @fscs.org.uk Subject: Keydata: FSCS's Position Statement in
respect of the 2010/2011 Indicative Levy
Keydata: FSCS's Position Statement in respect of the
2010/2011
Indicative Levy for the Investment Intermediation
Sub-Class
I write to express my opinion in respect of the above.
I am sure you are aware that there have been issues raised
on this matter, amongst which have been
suggestions that the FSCS's decisions should be challenged,
perhaps by way of Judicial Review, or
perhaps by a mass refusal, on the part of those who may be
subject to levy in consequence of any
FSCS final decision, to pay any such levy.
It is I believe self evident that the latter course of
action, refusal to pay, would render those who
chose such action to potential de-authorisation by the FSA.
It is not therefore a course of action
which should be undertaken without considerable thought.
It is equally self evident, I believe, that seeking Judicial
Review of any final decision by the FSCS
involves costs, costs in the establishment of any such
Review, and, perhaps equally likely, costs as they
may arise in the defence by the FSCS of any such Review.
Both such costs would fall to be borne by
the very same parties - it would appear to be what is
commonly called a double whammy.
I make those opening comments so that I may explain the
purpose of this contact, which is to outline
from my personal perspective why it seems rational to raise
issues which might influence the final
decision of the FSCS - but which can only do so if they are
made known to you in advance of that
decision.
May I start here:
My understanding is that the FSCS have been asked to provide
the legal opinion upon which their
current thinking is based. My past experience of requests
of that type are that they are not met
with an acceptance, by the party to whom the request is
made, that the legal opinion will be made
available. I am unaware whether in this instance the FSCS
have agreed to make the legal opinion
available. I am willing to be corrected, and I stress that
comment, but I suspect not, and if that is
the case, then as night follows day, questions must arise
that matters are being hidden, or at best
deliberately kept unavailable from those most affected by
any eventual FSCS decision. A process,
other than one of transparency and openness, begins. Such
processes, in and of themselves, are
perhaps the initial genesis of challenges such as those
mentioned above. Factually, the FSCS become
the parent of any subsequent challenges. You will understand
therefore that it is my intention to allow
the contents of this communication to be made public.
However, I am aware that the FSCS have issued a position
statement, and that it, in part, allows for a
partial insight into the legal advice that FSCS have
received. My understanding, and again please
correct any misunderstanding on my part, is that this
position statement has not been circulated, nor
perhaps has even its existence been made generally known, to
all those who may have an interest in
matters concerning Keydata, neither those who may be
affected by any eventual levy, nor indeed those
who have suffered losses in the Keydata affair. I choose
not to believe that the FSCS are unaware of
the nature of a Judicial Review, and its scrutiny of
process. It may be defensible to withhold the full
details of a legal opinion, but are the FSCS satisfied that
effectively operating a version of
apartheid over who does and does not receive details of the
position statement must leave it open to
question over process? The more so when, again as I
understand the position, the FSCS have made
known to some, but not all, that their initial indicative
thoughts are not final, and that up until
mid-March, again as I understand it, they will accept
representations which may influence the
eventual decision. I fail to grasp how representations can
be made, unless it is known that they have
been invited, nor how any representation would be in any way
productive if the position statement
against which representations may be addressed has not been
made publicly available.
I ask that you consider my comments.
However, now to substance.
I seek to address your current indicative decision from two
differing perspectives, one being that
you are incorrect, and the other being that you are correct.
In doing so, and in an effort to minimise the content of
this communication I intend to rely on the fact
that you are fully aware of the content of your position
statement, and that I do not therefore need
to offer extracts in full where I wish to draw conclusions,
but may rely on your intimate knowledge of
your own endeavours to understand the comments I make.
However, you may not be aware of comments I have already
made public, and I draw these to your
attention by way of the under noted links. Again I do so to
curtail repetitive comment. You will find
one post from me in the first link, and two comments in the
second link - both appearing in Money
Marketing.
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/hopes-rise-on-fscs-keydata-levy/1007741.article
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/adviser-news/the-toll-truth/1007763.article
Why do I assert that your current indicative decision is
incorrect? It lies in the manner in which I
believe the legal opinion has been reached.
We are dealing with what can best be described as a "chain
of events", one event dependent on the
other, and eventually events which culminated in the losses
that have occurred. I assume you would
not disagree with that analysis - this was not one event.
It is therefore crucial to assess that very sequence of
events so that what happened eventually can be
traced back, step by step, to where it all started. I wish
to suggest that your legal opinion (to the
extent that you have allowed it to be known) fails, and
fails precisely because it does not
encompass that perspective.
Beyond the formation of Keydata itself, and its seemingly
changing status - by way of its offerings,
and indeed its original authorisation by IMRO, we reach a
point where it decides to bring to market a
range of products. In doing so it engages in decisions
about what those products will embrace, the
investments, and potential investment returns, the
management of the investments, the decisions over
who does what and when.
I do not believe that anything that occurred subsequent to
those "initial" decisions, the starting point,
could have occurred but for that "initial" event.
As I see it, each and every one of those initial decisions
relate to "investment management" at that very
genesis of events, they cannot at that point relate to
"investment intermediation" because without the
"investment management" decisions having been concluded
there is no subject matter upon which to
"intermediate".
What your legal opinion seems to suggest (as best you have
made it known) is to omit and indeed ignore
both the "conception and birth", and address exclusively the
"childhood" of events - and in doing so it
may have blinded you to the reality that exists if the chain
of events is addressed in its correct
sequence.
Let me stress that had I been presented with the same legal
opinion - with its start point of
assessment at a later stage in the actual "chain of events"
than was correct, I too could reach an
indicative decision that it was "investment intermediation"
- that in many ways would perhaps, I
stress perhaps, be the obvious and only conclusion.
But it would in my opinion be incorrect for the very reasons
I have stated. One cannot "intermediate
investments" in the absence of earlier "investment
management" decisions, and in this case the sole and
exclusive arbiter of such "investment management" decisions
were Keydata.
It is impossible in my opinion to escape that conclusion.
The genesis of the "chain of events" were
the "investment management" decisions taken exclusively by
Keydata, and it is to that category of
activity "investment management" that the levy should fall.
However ...
Based, again on my experience, it is not at all uncommon for
Bodies such as the FSCS to find it hard to
change its mind, not least when it has obtained legal
opinion, whether correct or incorrect, and not
least when it has issued a position statement based on that
legal opinion. Changing one's mind becomes
hard in such situations, even when cogent argument is
presented that validly points in that direction.
So what are the implications if my earlier comments do not
persuade you that your indicative decision
is incorrect? Indeed are there very much wider
implications? In my opinion yes, and they are
profound.
Let me start by using a visual illustration - my reasoning
in so doing will be justified later in these
comments.
Let me imagine that the FSCS have a two drawer filing
cabinet.
In one drawer is a list given to you by the FSA, and it is
headed "Firms and persons authorised and
permitted to engage in "investment management".
In the second drawer is a similar list issued by the FSA,
but this time it is headed "Firms and persons
authorised and permitted to engage in "investment
intermediation".
Your position statement makes clear (again I am relying on
your knowledge of its contents) that for
the FSCS an immediate reaction to an event such as Keydata
is not to simply ascertain which drawer
Keydata is in. No matter the permissions or authorisations
granted by the FSA, the FSCS are both
required and empowered to ignore those two drawers, and must
for its purposes focus exclusively on
the "activity" involved. It is the "activity" involved - in
this case the activity of Keydata which
decides which drawer is involved.
That in essence is what your position statement seeks to
address, and the legal opinion (such as you
have made known) seeks to assist you in addressing.
Both seek to list a number of criteria by which you can
decide, who holds the monies, who acts as
agents, etc etc - you already know the points involved
without my repeating them.
What it produces, and for you to hold to your current
position, what it must continue to defend, is a
"DNA profile" of those factors from which it is possible to
distinguish a person or firm whose
activity distinguishes between "investment management" and
"investment intermediation". Were it to
fail to do so would mean convicting the innocent and
allowing the guilty to escape.
However, having established that "failsafe" DNA profile, and
having decided that Keydata's activity
was without question or qualification of any kind, that of
100% "investment intermediation" - what
then is the next step?
It is to apportion a levy, and seek payment from those who
fall into that identical category. However,
if you just open the second drawer, which from everything I
currently know, is what you intend to do
- in so doing you negate, and put at risk the very analysis
that you have so far employed.
In one of the links above, I cite as one example, an
instance where those granted
permission and authorisation as "investment managers" may at
times also engage in "activities" which
can be assessed as "investment intermediation". There are
other examples beyond the one I gave.
Am I correct in reaching that conclusion? I have to be, do
I not, because I am using the very criteria
that you have used, I have matched it against the DNA
profile the FSCS have given for Keydata -
namely, the very criteria that the FSCS assert establish
beyond all and any reasonable doubt that
this "activity" - is that of "investment intermediation".
It matters not what the FSA lists in drawer one may say, it
matters not what "chain of events" may
be involved, or that this activity is of a secondary nature,
or to an earlier or even otherwise more
predominant activity - the DNA is the key evidence, it
cannot be therefore be refuted - the very
position I suspect you currently intend to maintain.
That being the case, any levy which has to be apportioned
must fall to "all those" who match that
DNA profile - the DNA profile upon which your indicative
decision is founded. It cannot be
otherwise.
You cannot ignore your own process of analysis. You cannot
just open drawer two and without further
thought to your own arguments and justifications, if you
hold them to be 100% exempt from
challenge or question, impose a levy on the list given to
you by the FSA therein. To do so would ignore
"activity" - the foundation of your conclusions to date.
If Keydata was not engaged in "investment management",
despite all arguments that can be raised
against that position, but is, on the basis of your adopted
criteria, engaged in "investment
intermediation", then so too - at times - are many other
"investment managements".
It is my opinion, as indeed is the entire content of this
communication in like manner, my opinion, were
you to levy only those in the FSA list in drawer two, you
would be selectively penalising, and thereby
prejudicing wholly incorrectly, a limited number of those
upon whom any levy should be allocated, and
allowing others who match your criteria to avoid any levy
and I cannot escape my current conclusion
that this fact, and its wider implications (beyond just the
Keydata issues), has escaped your attention.
I believe my thoughts are worthy of your serious
consideration. I hope you, even perhaps reluctantly
at first, may eventually share that opinion. Not least
because they are issued in advance of any final
decision, and may therefore allow you to reach your final
decision aware of at least some of the views
that others have on the matter.
For the record, I have no actual or potential liability for
any levy, nor am I or have I been affected
by the events surrounding Keydata. The comments are my
personal opinion, and are intended to
challenge your current thoughts in the hope that your final
judgement is fair and less open to question
than might otherwise have been the case.
Naturally, I do not expect any detailed response at this
juncture, but I would consider it a courtesy
if an acknowledgment of the receipt of this e-mail were
issued.
The pages on this website are under
review so please accept our apologies for all errors or
omissions.
www.fs-du.co.uk
A fishy tale
Qualifications maketh the 'professional'? An
educationalist's view
Opinion of
Anthony Speaight QC:
"There are growing concerns that the pendulum of
consumer protection has swung too far in the case of the
Financial Ombudsman Service and small independent financial
advisers. The FOS appears regularly to be exercising its
discretion to adjudicate upon claims against small IFAs up to
its maximum theoretical jurisdiction of £100,000. There is
rarely an oral hearing. And there are good reasons to believe
that sometimes FOS makes substantial awards in cases which
would be rejected by the courts. On other occasions
compensation seems to be calculated in a more generous manner
than a court would assess damages. By reason of very large
excesses and other insurance shortcomings some such IFAs have
no insurance which responds. There is no appeal on the merits.
Such a system would be tolerable if the maximum award were
modest – say
£5,000 (which is the maximum summary compensation under the
legal professions’ schemes for "inadequate professional
service"). It would also be tolerable if, as is the case
with the summary system of adjudication in the construction
industry under the Housing Grants Construction and
Regeneration Act 1996, there could be a complete rehearing
before a court. And it might even be tolerable if it were
applied only against very large companies
But an unappealable, compulsory, summary jurisdiction
against small traders making awards as great as £100,000 is,
in my view, both wrong in principle and producing injustice in
practice."
Information Tribunal dismisses HM Treasury appeal against
ICO Decision Notice and must disclose information relating to
Gordon Brown's declaration that the Financial Services and
Markets Bill was compatible with human rights legislation.
Suggestions from a barrister,
things to do when faced with the FOS if you want to make any
possible future case against it as water tight as you can.
STAND
YOUR GROUND
Qualifications maketh the 'professional'? An
educationalist's view
Submission
to House of Lords Select Committee on Regulators - Call for
evidence - UK Economic Regulators (Copyright)
Their report is HERE
...The word is independent. There are many definitions but
let's take a look at three:
1. Not influenced or controlled by others in matters of
opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an
independent thinker.
2. Not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction;
autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
3. Expressive of a spirit of independence;
self-confident; unconstrained: a free and independent
citizen.
Long live IFAs
whatever method of payment their clients choose
Evidently
in response to articles including THIS
ONE
Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Financial Ombudsman
Service gave a speech at the Association
of Finance Brokers (AFB) annual dinner on 2 July 2007. Our response is HERE
FSA mystery (PDF)
"Most
regulators’ careers end prematurely in failure and
disgrace." - HOWARD DAVIES : HENRY THORNTON
LECTURE : CITY UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL : 4 NOVEMBER 1998
Letter from FSA
regarding 15 year long stop HERE
Hirst Opinion on FOS requirement to take account of what the
'former scheme' was required to do HERE
Open letter from
Terence O'Halloran to FSA
FOSSY
LOGIC!! Page
1 (1MB) Page 2
(4MB) Page 3 (1MB)
Subscribe to Money
Management The original writing is HERE
(HTML) or HERE
(Word)
UNFAIR
AND UNREASONABLE
Endowments
meet their targets, what was all the fuss about? Reproduced
with the kind permission of the Evening Standard. Copyright:
Evening Standard 2006.
Split-cap
‘compensation’ going to those who made millions and HERE
LIMITATION
and ANOTHER
and ANOTHER (1)
(2)
Please take care with any
opinion because that is all it is.
Letter to John
McFall HERE - Guess
what - No reply
PIA warned of
PIA perils HERE
Robber baron HERE
Letter
from FSA HERE
confirming our worst fears, regulated persons and companies
have no rights under common law. The letter is supposed to
address the fears we expressed during this meeting:
http://.fs.du.co.uk/meeting.htm
Letter
to FT
BACK
TO THE FUTURE?
There
may be trouble ahead......
More EMAILS
FOS
Goes to Strasbourg
False
Premises - Money Management
The IFA Defence
Union recommends the use of surveillance equipment when
dealing with the regulators or even clients, the following
story is that of another IFA who fell under the wheels
of this driverless juggernaut:
"Totally
endorse the recording of dealings with regulators
We were terminated by FIMBRA due to false allegations by a
couple of sick bully boys.
Almost by accident I had taken a micro recorder up (my
sister-in-law worked for an electronics firm). I had recorded
the conversation with the compliance officer at Hertsmere
House.
When we played back the recording it bore no resemblance to
the words we were alleged to have said and which were pivotal
to the case against us.
Our Solicitor let it be known that he had seen the transcript
of the tape, but no mention was made at our appeals tribunal.
Our Barrister did take the compliance officers apart and
showed them up for what they were..
There was an ex policemen that worked for the 2 compliance
officers that had taken a statement from us, at the hearing he
told the Tribunal that the written statement attributed to him
and used to bury us was not made by him (he at least was being
honest).
1) What would have happened if I didn't have the proof that
they were lying?
2) Why did they lie in the first place?
3) Why were they not disciplined for lying? (we couldn't
afford to take them to the High Court)
I am saddened by what happened, my Father thought naively
that if we just told the truth we would be alright. Just as
well that I am I bit more devious. I am still bitter for what
they did to my Family (unable to work for 3 months young
family to support and relying on state aid including milk
tokens) - I wonder whether Magee-Englefield and Hamp really
thought they had done a good job?
Thanks for all the support and help. (NO need to reply as
you are doing a great job into the nitty gritty)
Best Wishes
Yours Sincerely"
A Member
Dear
Mr Kenmir - Re: LAUTRO 'assumed expenses'
Depolarisation -
a shambles in the making
The Union is
the first port of call for advisers wherever they may be in
the UK and whatever area of business they have chosen to work
in. We welcome any person caught in the inhuman web of the
Financial Services and Markets Act, an Act that is not
compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 so we will be
testing this soon, see THIS
and send it to YOUR MP as soon as possible, after
reading THIS
, THIS
Important legal
case HERE
Limitation
of liability
Responses
to ABI Commission Consultation Document From REAL people
to UNREAL people
Leviathan
at large
Leviathan
still at large
FSA
determined to give endowments a fair trial
Repayment
mortgages NOT
guaranteed to repay the loan - stunning revelation, not.
And HERE
and HERE
PENSIONS
REVIEW - WHAT A FARCE! Part
1 Part2 (.tif
files)
Then what
was said in Parliament
Re:
Article in Money Marketing entitled "IFAs seek legal
advice on misselling responsibility'. The quote in full was:
"the IFA Defence Union has been gathering opinions from
legal and actuarial experts as well as questioning the FSA.
The evidence strongly suggests that IFAs have a case for
misrepresentation of risk against providers with many products
but accept the argument that the regulator is culpable in some
areas and that the providers have a right to want to challenge
it. IFAs cannot be held responsible for misrepresentations
made by either party, they have been the whipping boy for far
too long. If IFAs are afraid of taking on the providers they
should ask themselves how much time and money they are wasting
on defending claims relating to 'unsuitable advice' when the
complaint is in fact about the product, the FSA have indicated
that it would be appropriate to refer such complaints to the
provider".
FSA warns of
high cost of small IFAs OUR
RESPONSE HERE
What
a week that was NEWS
Did
you know? - Commission costs an average of 3% within
investment business, compliance costs 9%... is the FSA adding
value? Considering it costs investors three times more than
the IFA distribution channel any sane person would come to the
conclusion that regulatory interference is counter
productive.
Complaint
to Callum McCarthy - FSA
Complaint
to Walter Merricks - FOS
ENDOWMENTS
- THE FACTS

Falconer
call to end claims culture: A Department for
Constitutional Affairs spokesman said: "This is a complex
and controversial issue where the Government cannot provide
all the solutions". OH YES IT CAN!! Here are the
simple solutions:
-
Follow the
lead of our astute Irish neighbours who require claimants
to sign an affidavit.
-
Penalise
those who tell lies.
-
Restore
some burden of proof to the complainant.
-
Charge the
complainant a fee that is refundable if successful.
-
Regulate
the 'clams handlers' - we have already reported a number
of IFAs who also have an 'unregulated' arm. How they can
claim to be 'unregulated' is in dispute when financial
advice is being provided.
Simple
solutions? Of course they are but why can't they be
implemented? Why is this so painful?
Also see: Complaints
and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
OPINION
of ANTHONY SPEAIGHT QC on FSMA 2000 and COMPATIBILITY
with ECHR (STILL VALID)
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/121/1999121.htm
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following
statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
In my view the provisions of the Financial Services and
Markets Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
The
Pensions Ombudsman and Article 6 of the European Convention on
Human rights HERE
If you
don't have the time or the inclination to read it here is a
brief synopsis : The FSMA is NOT compatible with the ECHR,
we have asked for sight of opinion. Also see HERE
IFADU
Response to FSA Consultation Paper 04/12
Gary
Stidolph Response
Susan
King Response
APCIMS
N2+2
Making
a fuss about the FOS This article is published in the
September 2004 issue of Money Management Magazine. To
subscribe call 020 8606 7545 or visit www.FTadviser.com
The only problem is a reference to primary legislation being
required to amend the FSMA and rein in those empowered by it
(in their own interpretation) when the fact is that the FSMA
allows just one of Her Majesty's Ministers to change
anything he/she wishes at any time and as often as he/she
deems fit. Well that's democracy? See HERE
We need copies of
FOS decision letters that advisers feel are incorrect so
please fax them to us on 0845 4585299, we will be compiling a
database that will be used to find inconsistencies. We have
quite a few interesting developments on this front, more to
follow.
FOS
Jurisdiction: It has been brought to our attention that
many IFAs are not aware of the full facts relating to the
jurisdiction of the FOS for any complaints relating to advice
provided before 1st December 2001.
 |
We can provide advice :
The regulatory climate is becoming more prescriptive
and the use of 100% hindsight by those in authority is
causing advice to be deemed inappropriate many years
after it was given in good faith, all advisers need
support from:
- Legal Experts
- Compliance Advisers
- PI insurance specialists
We have a list of people with experience of reversing
FOS decisions and success in appeals tribunals.
|
Many professions
have their own defence union:
Lawyers,
Accountants and Doctors have a union to turn to in times of
need. Now IFAs will have their very own defence union.
In the words of
Tony Blair
Source:
The Hutton debate
in Parliament and the following is quoted from Hansard,
Columns 770 and 771 on 4 February 2004 - the words are spoken
by the Prime Minister:
*I somehow feel
that I am not being entirely persuasive in certain quarters.
We cannot have a
situation in which we end up translating what we know today
back into the context of what was known and thought in
September 2002, and then reaching a judgment.*
Only
the financial services regulatory system has 100% hindsight
The more corrupt
the State the more numerous the laws. -- Cornelius Tacitus
Click on the
'About' button to find out more and join our mailing list on
the links page.
http://www.qualifying-recognised-overseas-pension-scheme.com/
|