This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
Money Marketing Cover
Categories:Other,Regulation

FOS stats are not enough

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Processes are very important but they must be sensible. We were trying to cancel my late mother’s house contents insurance, only to be told that the cancellation could only be carried out by the policyholder. This was obviously problematic but that did not occur to the person that we were dealing with. In the end, our solicitor had to intervene, proving that some processes can be critically flawed.

More recently, my attention has been drawn to the various people, firms and associations making submissions to the Treasury select committee’s RDR consultation.

Many contain the volatile combination of unsubstan-tiated statements and dodgy statistical analysis. There is a world of a difference between the raw data and data that reaches publication. Extrapolating headline data is not just unsafe, it is plain daft.

I refer of course to the continual promotion of the statement that IFAs evidently have a low level of complaints compared to the banks. There has been far too much emphasis on this particular point and we should consider why this percentage is so low, instead of accepting statistics at face value. Having studied statistics to degree level, I could not understand people extrapolating statistics without having reviewed the raw data or the appropriate-ness of a single source.

With such total reliance on these Financial Ombudsman Service statistics, is it any wonder that people have not thought about the fact that those IFAs who have failed would all fall in the compensation scheme, yet many would have ended up at the FOS if they had survived.

As such, I would suggest that it is unlikely that they would form part of the FOS statistics. To simply focus on one set of stats can give a completely misleading impression. I could be completely wrong about this but I suspect that the more you lift the stone, the more you start to see more relevant statistics.

I was recounting the house insurance cancellation saga to one of my friends. He had a similar problem in that he had wanted to make some changes to some investments but had been told he had to bring his father with him, despite the fact that his father was dead and despite the fact this institution knew that.

I asked him if his father had been buried or cremated. He told me his father had been cremated.

As soon as he answered, he paused for a moment and then said: “You are a smart guy, and I will try it tomorrow”.

The next day he headed for the bank carrying the urn containing his father’s ashes. When asked if he had brought his father, he said yes and plonked the urn on the counter. Admittedly there was some screaming but I think he got his point across. Process, like statistics, is very important, but you have to take into account the other party’s perspective.

The submissions to the Treasury select committee must include supporting research, if not, they are pointless. We can criticise the FSA research, we can say it is ill-founded, we can say it is badly done, but ultimately if we do not have anything of our own to counter it, then we are likely to be rejected out of hand.

Robert Reid is managing director of Syndaxi Chartered Financial Planners

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (3)

  • Let's be clear - both the FSA and the majority of advisers work with statistics.

    We all know that they can be skewed to suit any particular argument and we would expect the bad apples to do this to satisfy their agenda.

    However, we do have a substantial amount of information. There are the FOS and FSA complaints statistics, there are the product sales data published regularly by the FSA and hidden away on their website. There are the regular tales of bank misadvice and also confirmations of the high up front commissions they generate as a regular feature of their 'advice'.

    When we look at all this a clear picture emerges and whilst one can never positively correlate this years complaints with last years advice there is a pattern which repeats at every juncture.

    This pattern is also repeated when one accesses the FSA consumer satisfaction surveys.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What concerns me about the "statistics" argument is that I don't know any IFAs who truly want to be compared against the Banks. We all know that the quality (and in some areas the quantity) of what IFAs do is significantly better than the poor standards represented by the damaged brand of the banks.

    But you only have to take a look at the Final Notices issued by the FSA to see how often IFAs continue to promote inappropriate products in inappropriate ways to some consumers.

    Frankly we should ignore the Banks they are rapidly exiting the advice market and collectively concentrate on improving what we all do in the independent sector

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Have you ever seen what the banks get up to Robert? If you have please send me your thoughts, that goes for the rest of you.

    If anyone have cases which should be made into a claim against the banks or any direct sales outfits 'independent' or otherwise please send them to me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you agree with calls for a flat 30% rate of pensions tax relief?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments