Joint committee on human rights drops long stop investigation
Share
The joint committee on human rights has dropped its investigation into the lack of a 15-year long stop for advisers, concluding it does not constitute a significant human rights issue.
Highclere Financial Services partner Alan Lakey wrote to the committee last December calling for an investigation into the lack of a long stop for complaints against advisers.
In May committee chairman and Labour MP Andrew Dismore asked City minister Lord Myners to justify the FSA’s stance.
Then in August the legal adviser to the committee found that the lack of a 15-year long stop is not “sufficiently significant” for the committee to pursue.
In a letter to Lakey, sent last week and seen by Money Marketing, Dismore says Lord Myners provided “sufficient justification for any discrimination against financial advisers” in his explanation that it is necessary to maintain consumer confidence.
He adds: “The committee has decided that the lack of a 15-year long stop on the FSA’s discretion to extend the time limit for investigating a complaint in exceptional circumstances does not raise a significant human rights issue for it to scrutinise further.”
Lakey has written to Dismore and Conservative MP for Hemel Hempstead Mike Penning saying Myners “misled the committee” by claiming the long stop was debated by parliament and the FSA consulted extensively on the issue.
He adds: “The committee seems to believe that the failure to accept a longstop defence only applies in exceptional circumstances. This is not the case. Every attempt to deny FOS jurisdiction by dint of the 15 year longstop is denied.
“The exceptional circumstances rule is in place to allow an extension of the claim time period due to the complainant being in hospital or indisposed in some other way. It is wholly incorrect and ludicrous to use this facility as a basis for denying the longstop defence.”
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 (13)
Rod Leonard | 27 Oct 2009 2:24 pm
Hello any one with an ounce of common sense out there?
The words exceptional circumstances.
are not what the problem is the words lack of ANY 15 year longstop, is the problem.
god help me!!!
The committee has decided that the lack of a 15-year long stop on the FSA’s discretion to extend the time limit for investigating a complaint in exceptional circumstances does not raise a significant human rThe committee has decided that the lack of a 15-year long stop on the FSA’s discretion to extend the time limit for investigating a complaint in exceptional circumstances does not raise a significant human rights issue for it to scrutinise further.”ights issue for it to scrutinise further.”
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Hughes | 27 Oct 2009 2:28 pm
A frustrating issue with this debate is that the FSA and FOS now continually ask the adviser community to provide concrete evidence to justify why a long stop should be imposed.
Given that the 15 year rule is enshrined in law the "default" position should be that there is a longstop, with the FSA and FOS required to provide concrete evidence why the longstop should not apply.
On that basis FSA and FOS would find it difficult to justify the lack of a longstop and a bland reference to "consumer confidence" would surely not be enough - if it were that argument could be used to justify removing the longstop in almost any circumstances relating to any claim by an individual.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Oct 2009 2:50 pm
Fingers in ears-"we're not listening, nah nah nah nah".Terrible cop out. Still guilty until proven innocent then.
Unlike every other UK subject.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Oct 2009 3:16 pm
But the legal profession can have long-stop. Hmmmm ......if it looks like fish and smells like fish, well then.
Yet more utter rubbish from the FSA. Come on Tories, boot the lot out!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Oct 2009 3:16 pm
The FSA, backed by scared politicians, are completely out of control. There is no one in the land who can bring them to heel.
Virtually NOTHING produced by the FSA is for the benefit of the consumer, or in reality to retain consumer confidence. It is all about
1) Protect the FSA from having a finger pointed at it in case of a financial failure
2) Protect the Government in the same circumstances
3) Empire Building
For example, when the FSA makes a mistake, even a simple mistake, it insists on a lenghty review proceedure. A barrister is required for this process. Yet there is no ability to recover costs from the FSA, even when they have been shown to be wrong. This makes it impossible to hold the FSA to account letting them get away with reputational murder and gross incompetance (Equitable).
An inadequate, inefficient, bureaucratic thug, the FSA will be responsible, aided by a few of our more well known politicians, for the economic death of the UK.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stuart Rathbone | 27 Oct 2009 3:20 pm
The usual political expedient of sacrificing the rights of the few and removing the responsibilities of the many, irrespective of natural justice never mind the law of the land. It’s been done many times in the past by much greater exponents of the art than Brown & his cohort with a much more devastating effect. Is only when we all start to notice our rights & freedoms being curtailed that the many will see the error of debunking their responsibilities to the state at the expense of the fellow citizens. With any luck that will be sometime in the spring.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Oct 2009 3:23 pm
The Tories have said they will introduce a long stop. You know where to vote people!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Oct 2009 3:31 pm
Now I seemed to miss something here...'sufficient justification for any discrimination against financial advisers'
So in this letter Myners openly states that there IS discrimination against financial advisers?
I don't believe it. Perhaps a reporting error there. he'd have to be barking to have said that...oh dear what have I said?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ewart Matthias | 27 Oct 2009 4:43 pm
I have been told by a Tory front bencher that there is NO opposition to the removal of the Long Stop on the Tory front bench because it is "in the consumers interest to follow the FSA stance" however there is a great deal of sympathy for its retention within the back benchers and that our campaign is "pushing at an open door and we should continue in our campaign"
It would appear the committee have not understood the rule of law and that the FSA are acting outside of it. You cannot have a rule for some and not for others, it is above all else discriminatory.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SIMON MANSELL | 27 Oct 2009 4:46 pm
The 15-year Long Stop is a right that has been stolen and those that deny these rights are thieves!
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. (George Orwell) -
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. (Edmund Burke) -
Hell is Truth Seen Too Late. (Thomas Hobbes)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment