FSA failing to meet its own standards
Share
The FSA has spectacularly failed to meet its own service standards for dealing with applications for authorisation after revealing it was unable to deal with over three-quarters of cases within its three-month limit.
The regulator has internal service standards requiring it to process a complete corporate authorisation within three months in 75 per cent of cases but between October 2009 and March 2010, it completed less than 25 per cent of 501 cases within the limit.
The FSA also failed to meet its statutory target of processing 100 per cent of applications within six or 12 months, with 98.9 per cent of cases processed within the deadline.
Foot Anstey Solicitors associate Alan Hughes, whose firm has been representing former Park Row advisers, says the FSA has been slow in processing applications for many small IFA firms, not only ex-Park Row advisers. He says: “I get the impression that since the credit crunch, the FSA has decided to tighten up and look at applications more carefully but it appears completely unable to discriminate between high-risk and low-risk applications. It is applying a blanket approach to all applications which is completely unjustified.”
Aifa director Robert Sinclair says: “With the FSA’s new focus on having a stronger gatekeeper role, firm authorisations are taking considerably longer, with more documentation needed and senior individuals being interviewed by the FSA more rigorously.
“We welcome the fact there is more rigour around making sure that only good firms come to market but we would not want the regulator to be stopping individuals from trading where they are just moving from one regulated entity to another.”
Data obtained from a Freedom of Information request by law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain reveals that between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2010 the average waiting time for FSA authorisation nearly trebled from 7.9 weeks to 21.1 weeks.
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
Readers' comments (14)
Anonymous | 14 Oct 2010 8:59 am
No doubt those firms who are the cause of this failure in standards for having the temerity to apply for authorisation will be censored and fined.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14 Oct 2010 9:16 am
The FSA has failed again, how much more of this do we have to take? A regulator that cannot meet its own standards. It begs the question (yet again) 'who checks the checker?' Bet we all know the answer to that one!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
"we're 'avin a laugh!" | 14 Oct 2010 9:18 am
just about somes them up really!!
the termerity, i feel, lies with the FSA for being totally incompetent in dealing with complaints for and on behalf of clients and dealing with dodgy banks and brokers!!
what a shower!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14 Oct 2010 9:45 am
We now need a regulator for the regulator and shortly after a regulator for the regulator of the regulator.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anton | 14 Oct 2010 9:59 am
The thing that gets me is that the FSA puts out this tenuous Treating Customers Fairly mularchy that is only really understood by compliance bores and yet the FSA fails to treat their customers, i.e. us IFAs, fairly. Now if it weren't so serious, that would be delicious irony!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14 Oct 2010 10:03 am
Will somebody fine them for faliure to achive competant status?
Don t they need to Treat their customers Fairly or are ethics not applicable to them.
The more rules they have the more staff they will need you got to keep these failed salepeople in jobs.
What ratio do they work on it will need to be at least 2 FSA unqualified plonkers to one IFA to check .
Why does the mainstream press ignore this whole situation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14 Oct 2010 10:19 am
wheres the statutory FSA spokeman with their condescending comment/preaching?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Physician heal thyself | 14 Oct 2010 10:22 am
Physician heal thyself
TCF applies to the FSA as well as those they persecute (I mean regulate).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil Wright | 14 Oct 2010 10:39 am
I recently moved from one company to another and the FSA approval came through in 24 hours, so I can't complain really. I must be one of the 25%. It's not good enough though is it?
I'm not aware of another industry that leaves it's members in such prolonged limbo, unable to earn their crust simply because they're moving from one firm to another.
I do hope by the way, that whoever "we're avin a laugh is", he/she uses spellcheck before sending out any suitability letters. Ye gods!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14 Oct 2010 12:08 pm
If an individual is simply moving from one regulated firm to another, why are any checks needed whatsoever ?
Each individual has their own FSA number (and history attached), each firm has its own number (and history attached) and each network has its own number (and history attached). Should be a 5-minute job by some underling on minimum wage - not that anyone at the FSA is on the minimum wage !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment