Dear oh dear, the point is not who is being pedantic.
The FCA letters to be sent to clients who invested in the funds were poorly written and biased and a lot of advisers would have liked to make the amendments that gave clients the opportunity to opt out of the review as well as opt in.
Now, notwithstanding the fact that the letters were badly constructed and clearly biased towards encouraging an opt-in, advisers whose clients did not reply are now required to submit client data to the FCA so the regulator can call them and ask the clients themselves if their advisers contacted them about the redress scheme.
To create a system which is biased, which doesn’t create the results you want and then to continue to pursue firms because the right result didn’t emerge is so wrong, every adviser should be up in arms about it.
And if you didn’t advise on Arch cru you should still be up in arms about it because you do not want them to do the same the next time.
I have met clients who have had very poor advice and those advisers should be taken to task for their failings – but I have also met clients who received perfectly suitable advice.
The point of all of this is that where advisers gave poor advice they should be called to account for this. But no adviser should be made to pay for the sins of the product providers.
Please try to separate the question of poor advice when you are thinking about this otherwise it leaves the door wide open every time for advisers to always carry the can for provider failures.