MoJ call to authorise IFAs for claim advice
Share
The Ministry of Justice says IFAs who give clients advice on claims against other firms must be authorised by the Claims Management Regulator.
The CMR, which is part of the MoJ, requires any person or firm that is providing a regulated claim management service to be authorised.
The MoJ says FSA-authorised firms such as IFAs do not need to be authorised by the CMR if they do no more than notify clients about the possibility of bringing a claim against a previous adviser as they will be regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act.
But it says that firms providing a claim management service for which they are paid need to be authorised.
The MoJ defines claim management services as “advising a claimant or potential claimant in relation to his claim or cause of action”.
An MoJ spokeswoman says: “If an IFA is giving claim management advice, then they have to be regulated.”
The Ministry of Justice could not provide a figure for the number of IFAs who are authorised to provide claim management services but says that 210 claim management firms are also authorised by the FSA.
Philip J Milton & Company was authorised by the Claims Management Regulator earlier this month.
Managing director Philip Milton says: “We help people where we come across potential claim cases. We have to become registered to protect ourselves.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (5)
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 12:41 pm
Rather than pay more fees for more jobsworths,
do no more than advise the client there may be a problem.
I have sorted out numerous problems like this in the past, at no cost to my client.
Those days are gone forever. No fee-no advice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 16 Sep 2011 2:19 pm
I agree 'Anon'
So many advisers past (me too) and present have sorted out the clients mess as part of the deal, unfortunately there are IFAs out there who are inviting claimants and charging for the work thinking they are authorised to do so.
Perhaps the answer is to have claims management regulated by the FSA? (Tin hat on!)
In the meantime find a claims handler who charges 10%, capped for large cases.
I like claims against banks and providers, easy peasy.
What I don't like is the claimants who lie through their teeth, in Ireland they have to sign a statement of truth, on the IOM too but not here, why?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Turner | 16 Sep 2011 7:11 pm
Because, Evan, the FSA, FOS and MOJ apparenly refuse to believe consumers lying is actually the crime of fraud.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bill Wells | 18 Sep 2011 5:34 pm
Until recently, a client who had been given bad advice by a bank or insurance company could come to me and I would happily provide help and assistance in writing appropriate letters to have matters investigated - at no cost to the client, win or lose. This was all part of the service, helping to engender trust and allegaince in the future.
Now, to keep a bunch of jobsworths and quangocrats in luxury, I have to register and pay fees - horrendous fees - for the odd occasion (maybe a couple of times a year) when my help might bring about some retribution against the wilfully crooked banks. Obviously, given that I would be unable to reclain the fees I would have to pay, I can no longer give assistance without breaking the law - another crap law ! Instead, the victim of bad advice now has to seek out a company which will charge big fees and take a percentage of the compensation which might become due. Many of the registered firms are 'cowboys' and chancers - like all the shit firms telephoning me every evening wanting to know if I have PPI despite there being a completely free complaints service available via FOS. And this is supposed to be progress. I would like to know who in the FSA thought that banning IFAs from doing this work (free) thought it would be better for the victims of bad advice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin Archer | 19 Sep 2011 9:21 am
Quite right too.
Customers who hold investments or pensions must have seen the benefits when they first took out such a plan. There not stupid. However "selective memory loss" becomes apparent when money is waived under their noses in the guise of COMPENSATION. I refuse to do any form of business with false claimants, they will do the same to you one day. So dont give them a chance.
Incidentally could a lack of money cure Alheimers??
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment