Committee rules against FSA rejection of ex-Park Row adviser
Share
The FSA’s Regulatory Decisions Committee has overturned the regulator’s decision to deny reauthorisation to a former Park Row adviser.
Money Marketing understands the adviser, who does not want to be named, must now reapply for authorisation and the FSA cannot take into account its previous concerns in considering the application.
Money Marketing also understands that at least 20 former Park Row advisers are still waiting to gain FSA authorisation more than a year since they first applied to be reauthorised. These IFAs have been unable to advise their clients in the interim period.
Another ex-Park Row adviser, who does not wish to be named, received authorisation from the FSA last week, days before his RDC hearing was due to be held.
He has so far spent £10,000 in legal fees fighting his case. He says: “The FSA is a bully. I have had to remortgage my home to survive as well as pay off four hard-working guys and endure a torrent of abuse and unfounded and unwarranted allegations from the FSA.”
The RDC hears appeals against enforcement, authorisation issues and supervisory decisions that are of “material significance for the firms and individuals”.
The RDC is a committee of the FSA board and reports directly to the board.
Foot Anstey Solicitors associate Alan Hughes says he knows of three advisers who are unconnected to Park Row that have taken authorisation cases to the RDC and won.
He says: “It almost seems like the FSA is bullying people by withholding authorisation. But if advisers stick to their guns and go to the RDC, they can be successful. In my experience, the RDC, which has the choice of taking away someone’s livelihood or not, has to be convinced there is something seriously wrong to take away an adviser’s authorisation.”
The FSA refused to comment on individual cases.
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 (20)
Anonymous | 11 Nov 2010 8:59 am
members of the RDC committee need to watch their backs now!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PensionMan | 11 Nov 2010 9:06 am
"The FSA refused to comment on individual cases."
It doesnt stop them when they have won a case!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PD Off | 11 Nov 2010 9:06 am
The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them.
I urge everyone to get on and lobby your MP before the RDR debate on 25th Nov
(unless your unlucky and your MP happens to be Mark Hoban)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
me | 11 Nov 2010 9:10 am
Is it not more aparent that the FSA are simply not treating their customers fairly.
Would the FSA allow us to take a year to deal with a complaint, NO is the answer. so why are they allowed to take a year to re authorise someone??.
I would go for a legal battle on restriction of trade and lost income.
They are taking weeks to authorise people as well. This is people's livelyhoods they are simply abusing due to their incompetence.
TCF ha ha ha
Absolute disgrace.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
IFA Defence Union | 11 Nov 2010 9:50 am
We have tried to reason with them but we really must sort this rabble out once and for all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 11 Nov 2010 10:25 am
Hector, are you proud of your regulators?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Payne | 11 Nov 2010 10:41 am
Pension man, they don't have to 'win' a case to publish derogatory comments about authorised persons. The FSA just shoots first and then relies on it's unlimited funds to bully as many as possible into submission.
Perhaps they should be required to publish details of all cases where they 'lose' with names of the FSA personnel who took the 'wrong' decision in the first place. Compensation for loss of earnings, loss of reputation and payment of all fees associated with the appeal should be a given and this money should come from the FSA 'Bonus Pool'.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 11 Nov 2010 10:51 am
"The FSA refused to comment on individual cases."
Okay ~ so how about commenting on why you've been deliberately and perniciously dragging your heels with reauthorising virtually ALL the former Park Row advisers?
The FSA is a sick and sickening monster.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
IFA Defence Union | 11 Nov 2010 11:08 am
Same principle applies to pulling permissions for not attaining retrospectively applied qualification requirements?
Regulators must look before they leap.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul jones | 11 Nov 2010 11:27 am
Most of the time the FSA just go after the easy targets and forget that people earn a living in this games, I have been visited by the FSA to review my cases and they were picking on silly errors like grammer etc one case they argued that based on the file the Client wouldn't understand the risk he was taking I agrued the fact that he does they wouldn't accept that so I asked the FSA guy to ring him up there and then to ask his understanding, the FSA guy declined and moved onto another case,.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment