Adviser complaints fall- bank complaints rise steeply
Share
Complaints against advisers fell from 17,186 in the first half of 2009 to just under 14,000 in the second half, with uphold rates among the lowest of all firm types at 31 per cent, down from 35 per cent.
The FSA’s aggregate complaints statistics, published today, show that personal investment firms, made up of IFAs, financial advisers and arrangers, received 13,994 complaints in H2, 2009.
Banks and building societies received 2,225,458 complaints, up 107 per cent from 1,075,400 in H1, 2009. The uphold rate increased from 36 per cent in H1 to 47 per cent in H2.
The FSA says the increase has been caused in part by the backlog of bank complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges, which are now being processed after the FSA’s waver expired following the Supreme Court ruling in November.
Just 11 per cent of overall complaints were caused by advising, selling and arranging disputes.
Terms and disputed sums or charges caused 59 per cent of complaints, general administration and customer service caused 24 per cent and arrears related complaints made up 2 per cent of the total.
Since August 1, 2009, when the FSA introduced new complaint reporting requirements, banks and building societies have paid £202,633,825 in redress.
Personal investment firms have paid out £14,966,977 and mortgage firms, including brokers, lenders and providers, have paid out £5,059,837.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (12)
terry | 11 May 2010 1:07 pm
This proves a point, yet the FSA are trying to get rid of us, driving everyone to the banks.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 May 2010 1:23 pm
Trouble being the IFA is hamstrung with study, compliance and dealing with economic uncertainty - so much so they are unable to fight the regulatory push in favour of banks. Keydata shows just how wrong the regulators can act.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 May 2010 1:29 pm
What in heavens name is the FSA going to do about these disgraceful figures. The RDR lets banks carry on the way they always have whildt the IFA market is being undermined. It is long overdue for the FSA to get into the 21st century and sort out the real problem Bank Advisers who screw as much out of customers as is possible hit their tatgets and get big bonuses
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan C | 11 May 2010 1:32 pm
Got it in one Terry!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Colin Last | 11 May 2010 1:33 pm
Based on this information, which is consistent with previous information received, should the FSA and FSCS fees that we have to pay reflect the fact that the IFA sector is clearly less of a risk than the banks and building societies. It is blatantly unfair that the IFA sector pays a disproportionate amount of fees. The level of risk should be reflected in the fees paid.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 May 2010 1:36 pm
Even if as stated 11% of all bank registered complaints are advice related that still makes a total of 363,094. The fact that they have received a total of over 3.3 million complaints in 2009 clearly highlights that the banks definately need closer regulation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 11 May 2010 1:54 pm
So complaints against banks are going up, whilst complaints against the IFA sector appear to be continuing to fall steadily.
Is this not further proof that the hugely burdensome RDR, the cost of which has been grossly underestimated, thereby completely invalidating the FSA's cost:benefit analysis (in reality, nothing but an ill-informed guesstimate), should be thrown where it belongs and replaced with an RBR?
Of course it should but, as we know, the FSA is answerable to no one and the real, yet thinly disguised agenda of the RDR is basically to destroy all but the HNW end of the IFA sector.
What the RDR really is is the FSA's "Final Solution" to "the IFA problem". As perceived, of course, by the FSA, and to hell with what anyone else may think.
Having said all that, 11% of the total number of complaints against the banks comes out at a few less than 245,000. Now, if we knew the total number of bank salespeople, we could quite easily work out the number of complaints, on average, per salesperson and compare that with the number of complaints per IFA.
These data could then be compared with the totally disproportionate share of regulatory levies imposed on the IFA sector and a straight question put to the FSA as to how it justifies such a manifest imbalance.
Above all else, is the FSA not obliged to impose its costs on various sectors of the industry in direct proportion to the level of regulatory risk posed by each of those sectors? Of course it is ~ it says so in the Statutory Code of Practice for Regulators. So, the question might also be posed: Why does the FSA ignore the very code on which all its policies and actions are supposed to be based?
What chance of straight answers, I wonder?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
vp73 | 11 May 2010 2:21 pm
Need we say more. When will the FSA start to look at what is happening in the real day-to-day world. They need to start supporting and us not driving customers to the bnaks where they will not be given advice, but sold a product. Even if customer were to be given advice by the banks, it would more than likely be bad advice.
The industry needs a complete re-think and the FSA needs re-assess what it is there to do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
failed politician | 11 May 2010 3:15 pm
So half a percent IFAs complaints and 99.5% banks
so its obvious as the FSA have staffing to cope with 0.5%
Surely they could not of planned a massive increase of new staff for the future to keep them in bonus.Do they really care about anyone else?The IFA the provider .The two tier system is surely unfair practice.
Treating your customer fairly must also apply to IFAs and FSA are we not their customers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 May 2010 4:25 pm
Why does the FSA publish these stats, when they show banks in a bad light?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment