Up to half of Money Advice Service staff to lose their jobs
Share
The Money Advice Service has put up to half of its staff on consultation after a review of its products, services and delivery channels.
A MAS spokeswoman says staff were informed yesterday of “organisational changes” that will be implemented as a result of the review.
She refused to comment further on the changes or disclose how many of the 150 staff are affected, but one staff member told Money Marketing that half of all staff have been put on consultation.
The MAS was launched in April and is funded by a statutory industry levy. It has a budget of £43.7m for 2011/12, which includes £13.5m for staff costs.
The service has spent over £2m on the delivery of its online healthcheck and a further £4m on an advertising campaign that claimed the MAS offers free, independent advice.
In July, Money Marketing revealed the Advertising Standards Authority had launched a formal investigation into the ad after it received 80 complaints, mainly from IFAs. In September, the ASA rejected the complaints.
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 (27)
Garry Heath | 4 Nov 2011 12:02 pm
This isnt the cure for which there is no disease is it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Howard | 4 Nov 2011 12:05 pm
What a waste of money and I bet they will not offer just the Statutory levels of redundancy pay.....
Huge Expense - Employing everyone
followed by a Huge Expense to get rid of a large number.
Surely, someone in MAS has a sufficent level of general intelligence to work out staff levels before spendng our money?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Herd | 4 Nov 2011 12:06 pm
feel sorry for the staff but what a waste of money
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Nov 2011 12:10 pm
What a wasted opportunity and tradgedy for those staff who are losing their jobs. It could have been an opportunity to publicise the IFA industry and explain the difference between sellers and IFA's. Another waste of fees.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Nov 2011 12:11 pm
How can you get your staffing levels so wrong in such a short period of time?
Does this mean they've already spent the entire £13.5m budget for staff costs?
Looking forward to hearing more.......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
hugh jeego | 4 Nov 2011 12:12 pm
Hmmmmmm? £13,500,000 staff costs divided by 150 staff comes to.....? Fantastic Value for us IFA`s eh?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John D Taxpayer | 4 Nov 2011 12:14 pm
That's sad - we all knew that MAS would struggle to achieve it's lofty aims and I suspect few amongst us would be sorry if it were to sink, ignominiously, forever - but these are still human beings with mortgages and families. I wish them a speedy journey to new positions
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Scott | 4 Nov 2011 12:15 pm
Whilst I feel sorry for the staff involved I do think that the powers that be should work in consultation with the industry rather than against us.
A good, cost effective MAS could benefit us all.
Unfortunately, what they chose to do was set up something that promoted itself in a very devious way that undermined those of us that pay their bills. As always its the staff that pay the price.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Nov 2011 12:22 pm
...just stick the wasted money on top of the FSCS levy, like you do everything else!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Keith Jayne | 4 Nov 2011 12:23 pm
Another expensive cock-up.
The problem is that the message to consumers was wrong.
On one hand the Financially Shambolic Authority are asking us (and rightly so in this instance) for us to make it clear between the cost of the product and the cost of the advice.
As we IFAs have all been doing a sterling job (those still in business of course) the general public is aware that ADVICE must be paid for.
So, some idiot decides to muddy the waters on client understanding by calling it the Money ADVICE Service...which is free!.
It shouldn't have been introduced at all, but as it was, it should have been the Money GUIDANCE Service.
To be honest, I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference, but I'm sure a few penpushers made a few bob out of it along the way.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment