N&P chief defends Keydata advice
Share
Norwich and Peterborough Building Society chief executive Matthew Bullock has defended the advice given by his staff which saw around 3,100 customers invested in Keydata, following this week’s Financial Ombudsman Service decision.
Earlier this week, the Financial Ombudsman Service ruled that N&P must payout a claim for £28,000 relating to its sale of a Keydata Lifemark product. But in an interview with BBC Radio Cambridgeshire yesterday, Bullock defended his advisers’ actions, instead highlighting the ongoing Serious Fraud Office investigation into Keydata. “Our analysis of the product was that it is a very stable product,” he said.
Bullock said Keydata was “run into the ground by the management” and N&P has been left to “pick up the pieces”.
He said: “There are other products of this sort in the market which are performing extraordinarily stably. I wish we had sold those products rather than Keydata products, because people would be very happy with those.”
Bullock admitted that some of the 3,100 affected customers may have been misadvised by N&P staff but said he hoped the Financial Services Compensation Scheme would award customers up to £50,000 in compensation when it decides whether Lifemark investors can claim next month. But he also said N&P was “not going to run away” from its own responsibilities if the FSCS does not payout.
He said: “We’ll have to sort out those people who think they’ve been misadvised by us and those people we don’t think have been misadvised by us - we’ll need to sort sheep and goats. I’d rather the FSCS stepped in than us try and sort out who we think we’ve mis-sold to.”
An N&P spokeswoman says the mutual will not pay out any individual settlements until the FSA has made its decision on the relevant Keydata products and the appropriate levels of redress.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (2)
Anonymous | 20 Aug 2010 12:50 pm
It's sad to see another example of a well run firm, that has survived this economic storm, yet again having to pay-out for the failings of a poorly run one that is no longer around to face its responsibilities.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hoping for Change | 20 Aug 2010 1:05 pm
From the FSA Web Site…
“The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has five objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system.”
Comment.
Market confidence is low.
Public understanding of the financial system is pitiful and resonates with the FSA’s own apparent lack of understanding of the financial system.
Securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers. Please!
Fighting financial crime. In most peoples eyes the payment of FSA bonuses is a crime waiting closer scrutiny.
Contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system.” Roughly translates to reactive overkill in mitigating former failures.
Thank you FSA.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment