Advisers left in limbo plan to take legal action against Park Row
Share
A group of former Park Row advisers has set up a fighting fund to launch legal action against the firm.
A group of former Park Row advisers has set up a fighting fund to launch legal action against Park Row as they have been waiting months to be reauthorised and are still unable to service clients.
The group of 28 IFAs headed by ex-Park Row adviser Matthew Berry has contributed £7,000 so far to fund possible legal action through law firm Foot Anstey.
The law firm is investigating the possibility that Park Row misrepresented the position of advisers looking to transfer to new networks following a proposed sale of the business.
Foot Anstey partner David Turner says although Park Row is no longer authorised, it still exists as an entity that advisers could pursue for damages. He says: “The position that advisers find themselves in is awful. They are qualified people and cannot practise due to a combination of the FSA’s over-regulation and Park Row’s alleged misrepresentation.
“If the group can show there was misrepresentation on the part of Park Row and they were in breach of contract, damages will be the lost opportunity to earn commission or revenue.”
Many of the 240 former Park Row advisers have been waiting since November to learn whether or not they will be reauthorised under new networks. The FSA is expected to reauthorise straightforward cases in the next few weeks, but other advisers will face further delays as the FSA reviews them more rigorously.
A spokesman for Park Row parent firm Royal Liver says: “Park Row is not aware of any legal proceedings, nor does it believe there are grounds for such proceedings. We sympathise with the advisers concerned but do not comment on speculation.”
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 | 50 per page
Readers' comments (22)
mark | 21 Apr 2010 12:53 pm
There’s no smoke without fire!
Aren’t the advisers themselves under investigation for giving bad advice? A case I looked at recently would say they are, or at least some of them are.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 21 Apr 2010 12:55 pm
They should think carefully before they waste money on legal advice, first problem is who do they sue, second problem is who pays if they win, then they should consider who pays if they lose.
Any adviser who is not directly authorised could find themselves in the same position because they would be expected to jump though the regulatory hoops created by the failures and inadequacies of the authorised firm. In effect they might not even meet the regulator's requirements and have to start all over again from scratch.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 21 Apr 2010 1:17 pm
The question in my mind is just what is it that the FSA considers these people to have done wrong, on the basis of which it is effectively obstructing their reauthorisation?
Without explanation from the FSA (as far as we can tell from what we read in the press), their livelihoods have been confiscated for an indefinite period, which is about as severe a sanction as can be imposed, short of a hefty fine. So what have they done wrong?
And how can it be taking so very long for the FSA to obtain and publish clarification?
Surely, these people have a reasonable right to know just what actions are being held against them by the controller of their livelihoods?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Charlie Chester | 21 Apr 2010 1:30 pm
'A fighting fund of 7,000'.? I'm sure that'll go far! Why aren't they joining the FSA into this action on the grounds of bad faith. Oh, I forgot, daren't upset the FSA who they want authorisation from! Get real guys!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 Apr 2010 1:39 pm
The FSA could not give a monkeys uncle about these poor people. There may be problems but these should be laid at the door of the FSA and Park Row. There probably may be a few consultants who gave bad advice, but after all this is what Park Row were paid to sort out. Park Row will not be the last network to go belly up so does that mean that it will be difficult to get those guys reauthorised. Is this another way of the FSA getting rid of people by delaying things and hope that they go away. Of course in all of this clients are being deprived of advice unless thye go elswhere, which will decimate the ex Park Row consultants client bank.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 Apr 2010 2:51 pm
The problems here are with park row and the FSA, but are being pinned on the advisers. - Bear in mind that almost certainly all the bad case advisers were re-authorised before the closure of park row.
:- FSA, why are they just looking at these now - all the information and articles indicate they are only now categorising the cases and the advisers, taking a view on risk, - Dont they have a 3 month time limit to address these things, yet if we look back, what was done in that initial 3 month window, nothing ?? if something was done, why were no advisers authorised or rejected (as the case may be) within that time frame ? ? only now are decisions being made for a lucky few.
Park Row - would have taken a % of all income earned throughout the advisers time at the company, for case checking and compliance. It is now clear that they didnt do this, or were told how to do it properly by the FSA and ignored this guidance. - continuing on as they always did, and ultimately leading to this mess. In addition, they had advertised to the advisers, that they would move swiftly and a "5 star" service to the companies they have since moved to - yet 6 months later, they are still not authorised. What kind of 5 star treatment is this ? ??.
The fund they seem to have put together is not alot, but im sure it seems much more to people who have been unable to earn a living for 6 months, that to those of use, who are able. - Perhaps the FSA should have stopped paying the authorisations department until things were sorted either way. - Even if the advisers were to be rejecting authorisation, it would still be better to know and they can move on,. but surely the fact its taken this long, and very few have been rejected, would indicate that there is very little problem with those left, but they are simply being made to pay the penalty. on this basis, it would seem to make sense that the legal avenue does hold some merit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom IFA | 21 Apr 2010 3:40 pm
You never hear of investigations into the compliance officers of these companies who allowed misselling under their watch. Will they be held to task?
Mark don't be so bloody righteous - what do you do in Financial Services and for how long? I have sold and been accused of Pensions, Endowments now Mortgages and next year something else Miselling. If it is sales and advice you are in and you intend to stay in this business as long and you in anyway are succesful just beware before you start throwing stones!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Donaldson | 21 Apr 2010 4:15 pm
Now you are authorised now you are not!
If they were authorised prior to leaving Park Row and are simply joining a new firm, then surely they should have stayed authorised and it should be the new firm that is being vetted for authorisation. Or, surely it should be up to the new firm that is taking them on to take references.
I fail to see how you can be authorised one minute and deauthorised the next by the FSA.
Can someone answer me that please!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin Wright | 21 Apr 2010 4:41 pm
Just to point out that Park Row Associates Limited is still officially an authorised firm, according to the FSA Register.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter H IFA | 21 Apr 2010 4:41 pm
As always the FSA will take their time to go through the eye of a needle. Why should they rush to do anything, they`re sat there getting their salaries come what may !! Perhaps they ought to try a spell of being paid solely on a results basis, maybe they`d develop a sense of urgency for once and see what the real world is like. I feel sorry for the majority of Park Row advisers, a few bad apples and slack compliance mean they are seeing their livelihoods decimated.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment