Keydata action group calls for judicial review of the FSCS
Share
Keydata action group Keydatavictims has called for all investors in the secure income bonds 1-3 non-Isa plans to unite in calling for a judicial review of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme’s position on non-compensation.
The group says the difference between an Isa and non-Isa investor is “quite simply wrong and is based on an extremely tenuous legal basis”.
A statement released by the firm says: “We are looking for SIB1-3 Non Isa investors who have had their claims rejected by the FSCS to support this activity. This does not require any assignment of claims to redress. Under civil law there is a finite period to lodge an appeal and given the clock is ticking we urge investors to act now.”
Advisers recently questioned the FSCS decision not to compensate non-Isa investors in certain Keydata plans after pledging to pay out on a number of other plans.
The FSCS has rejected compensation claims in non-Isa secure bonds 1-3 as it as it cannot establish that the apparent misappropriation of underlying assets results in a liability on Keydata’s part.
Last month, the FSCS told Money Marketing it was dealing with claims on a case-by-case basis but is unable to confirm how many standalone non-Isa claims have been successful. It has paid about 3,000 Keydata claims and has rejected around 130 claims.
It said: “Although we consider it is possible that Keydata breached contractual and other legal obligations owed to non-Isa investors, we cannot be sure on the evidence currently available to us that any such breaches caused a loss giving rise to a valid claim for damages.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (2)
Incompetent Regulators Award Team | 15 Apr 2010 9:37 am
This may be an opportunity for all regulated firms affetced and maybe outside of this remit who have been served with an interim bill from the FSCS to withold it, until the case has been settled in the courts.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Waswarned | 15 Apr 2010 10:51 am
Well they have gone and done it now facing the threat of a judicial review from both investors and advisers who have to pick up the bill! It is asking for trouble when the regulators chose to demonise whole product categories, refuse to recognise caveat emptor and then let off the real culprits on the basis that it is not "in the public" interest to pursue them.
They won't be happy until they have bankrupted the whole industry!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment