FSCS explains change in levy calculation
Share
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has confirmed that it has changed the way it calculates the interim adviser levy from the number of registered individuals at a firm to the amount of eligible income it generates.
Advisers have reported staggering increases in their interim bills which the FSCS was levied out. The bill is up from £80m last year to £93m.
A spokeswoman for the FSCS says advisers were consulted on the change in 2008.
She says: “It was part of the funding review in 2008 which we were committed to putting in place in the next two years. Advisers were aware of this change to the form.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (7)
Anonymous | 26 Jan 2011 4:42 pm
Who remembers being consulted on this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr Smug | 27 Jan 2011 10:13 am
This is one of the few sensible things to have been done recently. It means that the levy can be afforded and it doesn't put start up firms out of business.
IMHO the levy is still blindingly unfair, especially with the announcement of a 15% bonus for FSA staff. How exactly does that work while we pay for their mistakes?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Jan 2011 10:18 am
This is a much fairer way of calculating bills based on a firm's eligible income. I am a sole trader who has been in business for only 2 years and my interim bill has reduced by 50%.
Last year I paid the same as a sole trader with elibible income of 10 or 20 times mine. I felt that that was not fair!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gareth E K Smith | 27 Jan 2011 10:37 am
I think this is an excellent way, my worry as a memeber of a network is whether they will then allocate the bill this way.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Hunt | 27 Jan 2011 11:52 am
Dear Gareth, I think as a network member you will come unstuck, my guess is that a network will divide thier total bill between its members regardless of what you have earned. I would be very pleased if someone could advise that this will not be the case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Hunt | 27 Jan 2011 11:55 am
More to the point, you all seem to have now excepted that you are going to pay this imoral illegal unfair and unacceptable charge, have you all gone soft in the head and fogot that it wasnt and isnt your fault?
I for one do not want to pay.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gareth E K Smith | 27 Jan 2011 12:39 pm
Alan,
That's my worry about the network applying a one size fits all and if they do i will be left with no choice than to seek DA status.
I like you do no want to pay but we are paying a legalised ransom for if we do not all that we have worked for through trail etc will be lost. Up until now I have just put up with it but now I will be contacting my MP for his thoughts
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment