Aifa sets up group to add pressure in long-stop push
Share
Aifa is launching a working group to campaign for a long stop for IFAs.
The statute of limitations, which provides legal certainty for firms on the time in which complaints can be raised, applies to all industries except financial services.
The group will develop a campaign plan and meet with politicians, the FSA, the Financial Ombudsman Service and consumer groups to deliver a solution that protects firms and ensures that clients’ rights are protected.
All Aifa members are invited to join the group. Last month, Aifa called for a shake-up of the FOS, including the introduction of a long stop for IFAs and a no-loss, no-fee payment system.
The Ministry of Justice is currently consulting on changes to the statute of limitations that will see the 15-year long stop shortened to 10 years.
Director general Chris Cummings says the general election will provide an opportunity to address the long-stop issue, regardless of what party comes to power.
He says: “Consumer research by Aifa as part of the RDR showed strong support from consumers to have the statute of limitations applied to the IFA profession. IFAs should not be penalised because consumers do not trust banks and want to keep them responsible for their act-ions. Regulatory actions should be able to differentiate between markedly different sectors.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (5)
Cortesin | 18 Nov 2009 1:51 pm
This is good news but only to a point. How many IFAs will suffer or even go out of business while the group, yet to be convened, starts to develop strategy.
What is needed is some firm action, now, possibly legally based, to put a freeze on all 15 year FOS cases until a fair, reasonable and legally correct outcome is achieved.
Show some commitment Chris, you have made a start but I would ask that you get your revenge in first and strike a solid blow for the fight for fairness- NOW!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
alastair lyon | 18 Nov 2009 2:06 pm
Everyone else is going on about the basic unjustice of debriving the iFA of the long stop.
The FSA is demanding evidence to justify its reinstatement.
May we please see the evidencce and legal justification by its removal by the FSA. Why should we have to work to prove our case without chalenging their right to remove it in the first place.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 18 Nov 2009 3:16 pm
The only course of action in the face of the FSA's complete and ill-reasoned intransigence on this issue (apparently endorsed by Mark Hoban) is a judicial review. But even if that finds against the FSA, the FSA will drag out the matter ad infinitum with endless appeals, all funded by the industry itself. It's all so pernicious as to be positively Kafkaeseque. The FSA screws us and then uses our money to defend its position of screwing us. And we're supposed to be living in a parliamentary democracy? Whatever happened to citizens' rights?
All we can hope for is a completely new FSMA to put an end to this malicious persecution. But, if the drafting of a new FSMA is overseen by the likes of Mark Hoban, there can be little prospects for a just outcome even by that route.
Still, at least AIFA seems to be doing its best.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fagin - You've Got to Pick-a-Pocket or Two | 18 Nov 2009 5:38 pm
In law if a thief steals your goods and then passes them on to a new recipient then that new recipient does not acquire a new of better title. So to the Long Stop. This is a right stolen away by a thief and it is not for the thief to ask the true owner to prove the legitimacy of their title.
Fagin is alive and well st the FSA siging: You've Got to Pick-a-Pocket or Two!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Castle | 18 Nov 2009 7:08 pm
I have been explaining the longstop issue to my clients for a couple of years now all think we should have one and most think it SHOULD be ten years from when we last provided them with advice (Not when the contractw as arranged).
I am MY consumers champion and since hearing about the MOJ's plans to reduce to 10 years explain to them that the house of Lords got the balance right at 15 years and we should whilst campaiging for the return of OUR rights campain for our clients right for the longstop to remain at 15 years for everything else. It will be rediculous to have something like a double glazing guarantee or an NHBC warranty expire at 10 years at the same time as a shortened longstop.
Lets put ourselves in teh shoes of our customers whilst asking them to stand in ours and perhaps the consumer will be betetr served as aresult.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment