This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

Alan Lakey: The careless use of language

  • Print
  • Comments (17)

The Christmas and New Year interlude offered an opportunity to reflect on the past year and particularly the struggles that honest advisers have with their regulators - the FSA and the FOS. It also afforded time to catch up with various articles where it became readily apparent that the careless use of language is in danger of doing us all a disservice.

Misselling is a word that has inveigled its way into the mainstream. It is accepted as a description of financial wrongdoing and is used by the regulators and most journalists without compunction. You will note that one never reads about “misadvising”. It is an unstated assertion that advice is good and selling, well, it is a bit suspect, isn’t it, and causes complaints and stuff. It will be most revealing to see the post-RDR complaint figures. Presumably, investment and pension complaints will magically end in 2013 because it will all be about advice.

I also pondered on the differences between the freedom and assistance afforded to consumers compared with regulated firms. The FOS explains that it provides “a free, open and accessible public service available to everyone”. Contrast this with the situation that firms encounter when they believe the FOS has dealt them a bad hand.

Consumers are free to level complaints with impunity and they are never punished or censured for opportunism, fraud or libel. If the complaint is rejected, they remain able to institute court proceedings.

How about advisers? What if they are unhappy about a decision by the FSA or a determination by an ombudsman? The only option available is a judicial review but there are many difficulties to overcome. First, a judge has to agree to JR, something that will automatically be opposed by the £500-an-hour barrister representing the FSA/FOS. Second, the cost of a JR can easily exceed £100,000, proving emphatically that only the very rich can afford justice. The third problem is that a JR can only look at if due process and the law has been followed. It is not able to look at illogicality, stupidity or any other unreasonable regulatory behaviour.

Keeping to this theme, the Ministry of Justice (another one for the trade descriptions guys) advised me that it can only accept complaints about claim instigators from those that use their services. Advisers who have been defamed and suffered attempted fraud cannot pursue justice via the ministry responsible for justice.

I have also noticed that the mood of advisers has soured regarding the RDR and the FSA. Many of those who sat on the sidelines, including many who initially supported the RDR, have latterly seen it for the incredibly expensive fiasco it is. They have also finally realised that their regulator is uncontrollable.

What has it come to when an unaccountable industry-funded leviathan is enabled to stalk the financial services landscape with such impunity? It is protected by statute and is uncontrollable, even by the body that created it. Mary Shelley could not have foreseen that her nightmare fiction would assume flesh, as it were, in the 21st century.

Alan Lakey is partner at Highclere Financial Services

  • Print
  • Comments (17)

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

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (17)

  • anonymous @4.19

    Curious how people see things differently. I have never met Alan but after 25 years in the business, he strikes me as one of the advisers I would happily refer a client to. Why? He obviously lives in the real world and cares about what he does and how he does it. Keep up the good work Alan. Bit scary you don't get to pick your article titles mind, just hope you don't get 'Alan Lakey to launch naked RDR protest at Canary Wharf next Tuesday'. It could prove fatal in January.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Dermot Brannigan. If we're on the subject of misspelling Dermot, 'flack' should be spelled 'flak'. It's a contraction of flugzeugabwehrkanonen - the German for anti-aircraft gun. (Note the absence of the letter 'c'.)

    I agree with alan, incidentially!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is one logical extension of Alan's remarks. If it is the selling that causes the problems and not the advice, stop selling the products. Sell the advice and then allow consumers to buy on the "open market".
    Of course, the response to that is "What open market?". The Office of Fair Trading would then have to address its responsibilities under the FSMA 2000.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Usually i wouldnt be so anal but bearing in mind the title of this article i was amused to read an inaccuracy in the first paragraph - the FOS a regulator? I think you'll find there is a difference between a regulator and an ombudmen, who effectively act as an arbitrator.

    Lets try to be more accurate if we are going to jump on our soap box shall we?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Big Ears

    If you haven't yet realised that the FOS is a regulator then you haven't been paying attention.

    When Walter Merricks was hauled before the TSC on 8 June 2004 he was told by Norman Lamb MP, "You make quasi-judicial decisions that can affect people's livelihoods".

    The effect of FOS adjudications and Ombudsman final decisions is to define the rules we operate under which, in my book, makes them a regulator.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have had the pleasure of having lunch with Alan Lakey,and i can guarantee you i have never met a more straight and genuine man,who cares passionatly about this industry , and the people who work in it.

    Alan Lakey stands by his principals,he does not bend or change direction ,he does not run with the herd ,just to get a quite life.

    take care Alan.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To add to the semantics I would question Mr Lakey's phrase "to define the rules we operate under". If the FOS actually did anything with sufficient consistency to allow one to come near to the concept of "define" I think most advisers would be a lot happier.
    Even the FSA's 3000 page book manages to leave quite a margin for interpretation, with the interpretation inevitably resting with the FSA.
    I thoroughly agree that the FOS is part of the Regulatory hierarchy. One just wishes it was nearer rule by consent or rule by precedent than rule by chance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick


Do you see the value in adviser trade bodies?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments