Park Row advisers face FSA delays
Share
The re-authorisation of former Park Row advisers with Personal Touch Financial Services has been delayed because the FSA is treating them as non-standard applicants and asking for extra information.
Money Marketing understands that some of the former 240 Park Row advisers have not been able to do business since they were de-authorised on November 13 because the FSA has not yet re-authorised them under their new networks. Park Row is still under investigation by the FSA as part of a review into its systems and controls.
The majority of Park Row advisers are transferring to Personal Touch Financial Services, with some going to Tenet, after parent group Royal Liver agreed the networks could present their propositions to its advisers in October.
Tenet says that the regulator is taking an increased interest in the transfer but it has not led to delays for the network. Money Marketing understands that transfers to Personal Touch have been delayed, although no one at the network was available for comment.
Tenet sales and marketing director Keith Richards says: “The FSA have taken an increased interest in the application process of ex-Park Row advisers, which, from our perspective, was fully expected.
“They are asking for information on their previous supervisory arrangements and they want to compare this against the new supervisory arrangements that have been put in place. But we are not aware of any delays in the process.”
Royal Liver decided to close Park Row after the firm sustained heavy losses in the past two years and posted a deficit of £2.17m for the first half of 2009.
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 (42)
Mr Smug | 10 Dec 2009 9:54 am
What the FSA needs to remember is that while they are posturing there are real people with families, mortgages and commitments waiting for their next pay cheque. I know nothing about Park Row and maybe the advisers were all crooks but I very much doubt it. I suspect the problems were managerial, as with all large and slightly crappy IFA's. Christmas is coming - have some pity FSA and re-register these guys. Monitor them closely if you're worried, but let them build their businesses again. Even if they run wild they cannot do the damage you allowed the banks to do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 10 Dec 2009 10:09 am
Some firms couldn't supervise a booze-up in a pub, expect more of this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Miguel M | 10 Dec 2009 10:11 am
Treating Customers Fairly- the mantra which is regularly trotted out by the government bureaucracy, state agents and bully boys known as the FSA. What about treating advisers fairly? Livelihoods are at stake here and, in a pretence of caring about anything, the despicable FSA drags its feet, shuffles its papers, and moves at a snails pace to authorise individuals to earn a living. It is part of their unholy alliance with the product providers to drive out the middle man. This is a scandal and the wretched FSA must be stopped now and disbanded before more damage is done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil F Liversidge | 10 Dec 2009 10:18 am
The delay in authorising ex-Park Row advisers is inexcusable. How can a person go from being considered fit and proper one day to being considered questionable the next, just because they have been made redundant? I doubt that any employee of the FSA would be happy if they had to endure a non-earning interval and an enquiry into their conduct when transferring betwen departments. The difference of course is that the FSA jobsworths who are depriving these people of their living are guaranteed to pick up their paycheque at the end of the month regardless, whereas advisers have to go out and earn their living. If there were supervisory issues at Park Row then surely that is an issue between the FSA and Park Row's owner Royal Liver. Tenet is authorised and will be responsible to the FSA for their ongoing supervision. Why victimise the advisers?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10 Dec 2009 11:29 am
I am one of the ex park row advisors and this is the worse experience of the FSA ever. It has taken them over a month to write to Park Row requesting this further information and repeated attempts by advisors and management have been fruitless.
They have only asked for a SAMPLE of advisors further information such as KPI's from Park Row which I believe to be around 90 advisors, however the remaining advisors are left in limbo.
Clients are leaving and business is being re-directed due to this mess and quite frankly shocking behaviour by the FSA.
Don't dare try and pick up the phone and challenge them as you are met with the usual systematic responses.
Treating customers fairly ? Not a chance.
Every advisor registered under Park Row was fit and proper and authorised to do business up until the 13th November and the transfer process was started back in October and we were assured that by choosing to go either Personal Touch or Tenent then things would be fast tracked as the FSA had a preference for us going to a smaller group of networks rather than all advisors go their seperate ways.
The FSA should hang their heads in shame but that is asking too much.
It's now approaching a month where advisors have been unable to conduct new business whilst expected to financially maintain general living expenses whilst our applications sit on some jobworths desk waiting approval.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Payne | 10 Dec 2009 11:30 am
Large regulated firms continue trading throughout one, two or more years of an FSA investigation, at the end of which they may have a '30% discount for co-operation' fine imposed. Large enough to get a headline but taken as just another business expense by the transgressor, tax deductible anyway old boy! Their senior execs. then remain in post, move directly to another high paying post or get taken on by the regulator. All this after regulation breaches that could have affected thousands of customers.
IFA's or Broker's however, the foot soldiers, are immediately assumed to be guilty of something, the FSA doesn't quite know what, but thats a small technicality so no matter. Then, just because it can, it takes away their authorisation and thus their livelyhood anyway.
Or perhaps the FSA is just scraping around for evidence of supervision breaches and is using the slowing down of the re-registration process to pressure the IFA's. If this is the case then this is unforgivable.
The regulator obviously doesn't actually give a s... about an even handed, level playing field approach to regulation or that 100's of thousands of customers are disadvantaged by the large firms
Because the background of most of the people at the regulator is large firm, bureaucratic and systems box ticking then the villains of the industry, in their eyes, must be the self employed or people who get paid 'commission'. Ooops sorry to use such a rude word!
Without such entrepreneurs, in the wider sense, there would be no enterprise, no job creation and therefore no money to pay their, or any other, administrators salaries.
So perhaps the regulators can just stop throwing their toys about, put them away in the box and let probably hard working, honest professionals get on with their job of helping and advising their clients.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Gleeson | 10 Dec 2009 11:55 am
God I am so glad to be out from under the cloud that this once proud industry lives under now. I was directly authorised until Feb of this year when due to ill health I relinquished my authorisation. I have no problem sleeping nights now and the amount odf stress removed from my life is amazing. There is life after financial services. Good luck Guys and Girls.
Jim
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10 Dec 2009 12:05 pm
It is my understanding that the FSA are having to deal with masses of 'sale and rent back' applications totalling a lot more than was anticipated. Having set themselves unrealistic deadlines to review and approve these - in most cases newly regulated firms - they have had to re-direct all their resources to the task. As a result their usual timescales for authorising IFA firms and advisers has been hugely affected.
Have the FSA got their priorities right?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10 Dec 2009 2:08 pm
I'm glad the earlier respondent sleeps well at night, but what about the poor souls who may have been given 'shoddy advice' with catestrophic consequences...not an overstatement either. The FSA do well to pay special attention to some of these so called advisers.Having experienced at first hand(during my time in the compliance dept. at PR) some of the standards adopted by these 'advisors' (oops there I go using that word again, they'll have me under the trade descriptions act!!) I can only assume the regulator has opened the proverbial can of worms following their visits.One 'advisor' even admitted conducting a fact find at the bar at half time at elland road..vmmmmmmmm
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10 Dec 2009 3:04 pm
Quote "The FSA do well to pay special attention to some of these so called advisers.Having experienced at first hand(during my time in the compliance dept. at PR) some of the standards adopted by these 'advisors' (oops there I go using that word again, they'll have me under the trade descriptions act!!) "
Well Anonymous if your post is correct you should have been whistleblowing or flagging up the problems whilst at PR....and not waiting until now to post some anon supercilious remark on here.
THIS POST SAYS MORE ABOUT YOU THAN ANY PARK ROW ADVISOR!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment