Regulatory Legal gets discount on FSCS review costs
Share
Regulatory Legal has negotiated down the Financial Services Compensation Scheme’s costs for fighting the judicial review over the Keydata interim levy from more than £300,000 to £210,000.
Regulatory Legal challenged the levy on intermediaries on behalf of around 200 advisers.
Last July, the law firm assured IFAs that advisers making donations to help fund the judicial review would not face extra legal costs and pledged to cover the FSCS’s legal fees if it lost.
In January, High Court judge Mr Justice Beatson, sitting in Birmingham, ruled that the FSCS was justified in classifying Keydata as an investment intermediary rather than a provider.
Regulatory Legal director Gareth Fatchett says: “We are pleased to have settled the adverse legal costs on the judicial review with the FSCS. Alth-ough the claim was ultimately unsuccessful, we believed it was worth running.”
Adviser Alliance founder and director Alan Lakey says: “One of the reasons the FSCS and the FSA are rarely challenged is because people cannot afford to do it. Regulatory Legal felt the case was worth it.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (7)
Adam Smith | 17 Mar 2011 8:50 am
Am I the only one sitting here wondering whether Regulatory Legal made a net profit out of running this case?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17 Mar 2011 9:26 am
Do you work for free adam?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CH | 17 Mar 2011 9:34 am
Has anyone seen the judgement on this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Exasperated Me | 17 Mar 2011 9:51 am
Thank goodness for ATE insurance, when it pays out that is!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17 Mar 2011 10:15 am
What you should be wondering is how the FSCS will fund the £90,000 gap it's just agreed to create?
Most likely adding to the 'Management' costs portion of the levy to be shared across the industry so that everyone except Regulatory Legal pays. Much like the advertising spending that many have criticised for being an unnecessary addition to the levy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Norm d'Plume | 17 Mar 2011 11:15 am
Firstly how in Heaven's name did the FSCS's costs reach that stupid figure?
Secondly, those IFAs who criticised Gareth Fatchett and his firm shoul now hang their heads in shame!
Over the last 39 years, firstly as a company man, then as an IFA I've seen reinforced time and time again that you couldn't get IFAs to agree on a joint course of action if their lives depended on it, along with those of their families. Egos get in the way all the time.
Is it any wonder that FSA, FOS and FCS ride roughshod over us all?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adam Samuel | 12 May 2011 1:08 am
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/18.html - for those who want to read the judgement. It concludes that not only did the FSA and FSCS act lawfully, they had no choice without first changing the rulebook definitions of the fee-blocks. For that, a fresh consultation would have been necessary.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment