PosSol business review 'pulling firm apart'
Share
Positive Solutions’ advisers have attacked the firm’s review of past business, claiming it is “pulling the company to pieces”.
Money Marketing revealed last week that Positive Solutions had hired KPMG to check its partners’ pensions and investment sales.
Some are now being asked to pay hefty compensation to clients in cases where no complaint was made and the advice was pre-approved by Positive Solutions.
Advisers have also attacked Positive Solutions for contacting their clients directly to offer compensation.
One adviser says he saw around 20 Positive Solutions’ advisers at a recruitment day for True Potential.
He says the Positive Solutions partners’ message board is flooded with posts from advisers who say they are leaving and some who are seeking legal advice.
One former Positive Solutions’ partner, who left following the review, says: “They wrote to my client telling him he was due almost £5,000 because the charges in the new contract are slightly higher.
“He called me up and asked me where he should invest it. That is how galling it is. I have never had a complaint and now I am being castigated. Positive Solutions should be paying the redress. This really is pulling the company to pieces.”
An existing partner told Money Marketing: “There has already been a mass exodus. Everybody is unsettled and afraid to give advice in case the compliance guidelines change again.”
PosSol refused to confirm how many advisers are in the process of leaving the network.
Chief executive Jim Reeve says: “We want to ensure our clients have received advice to the high standards we expect of our partners and we will make improvements if appropriate. The process will involve writing to some clients, asking them to provide us with more details on their circumstances or to confirm they are satisfied with the advice they have received.
“As you would expect, this exercise has been conducted by Positive Solutions in close collaboration with the partners concerned. The process and standards being applied to case reviews are those set by Positive Solutions and we are managing this process to our timelines and our plan.
“We are absolutely committed to ensuring Positive Solutions is in a strong position to capitalise on the market opportunities that lie ahead.”
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 (26)
Evan Owen | 1 Jul 2010 1:26 pm
Another shambles.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 1 Jul 2010 1:30 pm
I forgot to mention that these people do not need to recompense their host firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Wright | 1 Jul 2010 1:38 pm
As a partner of Positive solutions, I would like to take issue with the idea that this Past Business Review unsettles us all. The management of PS and Jim Reeve in particular have been articulate and open about the reason and rationale behind the review and I would suggest an equal number of partners are delighted this review is being carried out as there are disgruntled ones. Positive solutions has been and remains a great place to conduct business as an IFA, we are being given enormous help with regard to the changes and challenges RDR brings, including free training and examinations. Jim Reeve took a great deal of time last year meeting personally with every PS partner who wanted to meet with him and answered all of our questions regarding where the company was going and why this review was necessary. As an industry we would be better placed working in unity against the ridiculous regulation regime in which we operate than castigating an organisation for wanting to ensure it maintains the highest possible standards of consumer protection.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Jul 2010 1:42 pm
Dear PS advisers, be very very careful where you may decide to end up. I've heard from other IFA's that one particular directly regulated service provider is promoting the fact the FSA havent got time to keep an eye on you if you go directly regulated and compliance is "flexible" This particular firm is also promoting you set up a limited company so that you can dump the liability when you retire !! How unethical is that!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stan Kirk | 1 Jul 2010 2:02 pm
Full marks to Positive Solutions for owning up that their compliance regime had been too lax and allowed unsuitable transfers to take place in the past and taking voluntary remedial action. Query why didn't the advisers themselves notice there was a problem? Would they have still done the business if it had been there own money?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ken | 1 Jul 2010 2:03 pm
Anonymous @ 1.42.
the advice to set up a limited company is good advice,and with said benefits of dumping liability at retirement its better than sole trader route where liability,and PI have to stay in place for just about forever.
Interesting that you seem to think a limited company,along with the benefits are unethical,would you agrea then that Positive sols are being unethical to its partners in its actions?
Positive sols should remember which hand feeds it,and whilst im for client protection,I dont think hiring another comapy to review the back sales,and contact "any effected" clients direct is a positive thing at all.Indeed,retrospective advice is usually a bad thing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Jul 2010 2:15 pm
sometimes networks get it wrong - eg Sesame Network. They too invited clients to complain. As it turned out, my clients did not complain and they thought Sesame was petty. My clients were actually better off by making the switch I recommended. I am so glad we left them; best move we ever made!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Jul 2010 2:22 pm
as a PS adviser. The main issue with the advisers are, before we wrote the business, we got pre approval by Head Office. They look at the case with all the info they required. Then head office okayed the buisness and we got a reference number. Then we submit the case. KPMG, came in. Looked at the case, and in most cases, say to the adviser - bad advice here. no feed back etc.. Then the adviser has to pay up to the PI excess. Thats the main issue here. So whats the point of getting head office to pre approve the case. As RI's of PS, PS takes the rap for this. But oh no, they take your money and when a case is looked at , they do not want to know- even though Head office pre approved the case - in which high risk biz is pre approved, On this point, head office have no answer to give. The silence is deafing. Thats why 100's of advisers are leaving. Have you ever known a company where 100's of advisers are leaving and they do nothing about it ?.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rhodri Gronow | 1 Jul 2010 2:32 pm
Well I'm glad that I'm not a PS Member. I pay my Network a great deal of money to provide me with a Compliant Infrastructure to do business with my Clients.
I'd say if there was any Client Redress to be paid out, then it should come out of PS's own pockets since they have failed to provide their Members with the Compliance Service that they have paid for!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon | 1 Jul 2010 2:33 pm
As a PS partner I don't think anyone is at the point where compensation has been offered or reeived by anyone so the Money Marketing article is not correct- very easy for an anonymous source to say anything they want as nobody can go back to them on it. MM got a lot of this wrong. I do think PS HO could have handled the review better in the way those affected have been communicated to but as is usual other companies and individuals with their own agendas try and take advantage for their own purpose. The grass is not always greener on the other side.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment