View more on these topics

Adviser firm struck off for failing to conduct skilled persons report

The FSA has cancelled the permissions of London-based investment adviser Omagis Capital for failing to be “open and honest” in its dealings with the regulator.

The FSA says Omagis breached its rules because it failed to pay a skilled person to conduct a 166 skilled person report, resulting in the skilled person’s review not being undertaken.

The regulator also says the firm failed to provide information despite “repeated requests”.

FSA head of retail enforcement Tom Spender says: “Skilled persons reports are vital to identify when and where consumer detriment has occurred and the level and extent of redress that might be due.

“By failing to work with the skilled person and the FSA in an open and co-operative way, Omagis stood in the way of that process.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 8 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. How much is a skilled persons report?
    Who is considered a skilled person in the eyes of the fsa?

  2. Skilled Persons Reports are the equivalent of asking a suspect to pay for his police investigation.

    If the report finds you innocent, you don’t get a refund. It’s effectively a fine of £10K or so just because the FSA doesn’t like the look of you.

    I realise that £10K is only around a weeks income to Hector, but out here in the real world it is a severe penalty.

  3. You’d be getting off lightly if it was only £10K

  4. The legal definition of an ‘expert’ is ‘the most knowledgeable person in the room at the time.’ Unless and until the FSA comes clean on the qualification levels of its staff, it is reasonable to assume that we know at least as much (and judging by the continuing level of cock-ups) probably much more that they do.

  5. An S166 report is conducted by organisations which FSA consider to have the skill set (Inc knowledge/experience/qualifications etc) to conduct such an investigation. Funnily enough, these people can be barristers with financial services experience, senior compliance staff from Compliance consultancies, Actuaries, pension consultants etc.

    These reports take a lot of time and a lot of resources, from organisations who charge professional fees for these services.

    Someone has to look at the damage!

  6. “open and honest”, eh? Not exactly watchwords for how the FSA conducts itself, are they?

  7. Oh come on guys.

    When you become authorised you agree to play by the rules and regulations set down. S166 is a power conferred by fsma on the FSA.

    Your asked to do a skilled persons report its because something is probably amiss. A skilled person is likely to be a solicitor, accountant or actuary epending on the nature of the supposed issue.

    What sort of message would it send if the FSA turned a blind eye to them ignoring a direct request to conduct this.

    Sorry you want to be in the game you play by the rules.

  8. The skilled person report was £7,500. What would be really interesting to know is what the trigger was for the skilled person report. Naive as I may be, the requirement is not usually handed down without reason. If I was handed a s166 with no ground for suspecting failings, there would be an appeal, a complaint and lots of press.

    At a guess, given the type of work the firm advertised for, and given the recent FSA announcement on wealth management failings, I suspect there may be a link. If that was true, an s166 would seem to be reasonable, and anyone unwilling or unable to provide for such, is best out of the industry and not tarnishing everyone who remains.

    I’d be interested to know what people in here would think as fair grounds for a s166.

Leave a comment