View more on these topics

FOS rules against adviser in film scheme claim


The Financial Ombudsman Service has upheld a claim on behalf of five investors over the suitability of advice related to a film tax avoidance scheme.

The Financial Times reports the Financial Ombudsman Service ruled the advice given by IFA firm 20Twenty Independent to invest in Crossover Film Partnerships was “unsuitable”.

The FOS can only award redress of up to £150,000. It can advise firms to pay more but this is not binding. If investors do not want to accept the ruling they can pursue the firm in court instead. However, there have been two contradictory high court rulings recently on whether someone can accept the FOS award and pursue the firm in court for additional redress. Ths issue is set to be decided in an upcoming appeal hearing.

The FOS found investors should have been made more aware of potential losses from the scheme that could have cost three times their initial outlay.

Claims firm Rebus Investment Solutions, which acted for the investors, told the FT the win was the “tip of the iceberg” but it is understood the case is based on a speciifc product with no FOS precedent expected to be set.

Rebus head of client relations Martin Taylor said the firm was handling claims from more than 600 clients against 100 advisers with assets worth more than £40m. By the end of the year Taylor hopes to recoup £10m.

20Twenty Independent Ltd declined to comment.



​FCA sets out when it will investigate regulatory failure

The Financial Conduct Authority has set out how it will decide whether or not to investigate and report on possible regulatory failure. As the FSA, the regulator published three reports looking at the extent of its failures in the run-up to and during the financial crisis: one into the failure of Northern Rock published in […]

People on the Move

Axa UK has appointed Ian Brimecome as chairman, replacing Anthony Hamilton, who is retiring. Brimecome joined Axa in 2007 as UK non-executive director and took on the new role at the end of last month. Sesame Bankhall Group executive chairman Ivan Martin (pictured) is leaving the group. Martin became executive chairman of Sesame in June […]

FCA looks at consumer biases when buying financial products

<!– <!– <!– –> –> –> The Financial Conduct Authority has set out how it can learn from the mistakes consumers make when buying financial products to improve the way it regulates firms. The regulator has published two papers on behavioural economics, the first of which looks at how consumer biases can lead to a […]

PPI redress bill hits £9.3bn

The total redress bill so far for missold payment protection insurance has hit £9.3bn, figures from the Financial Conduct Authority reveal. FCA figures published today show firms paid out £409m in February to compensate customers who were missold PPI, following a payout of £439.3m in January. The level of redress is drawn from 24 firms […]

Sierra Leone cover image - thumbnail

White paper — Sierra Leone International Insights

Jelf Employee Benefits assesses the areas that employers should be aware of when considering operating in Sierra Leone, including healthcare access, delivery and insurance provisions. This report draws on various sources to highlight specific considerations for this emerging jewel in West Africa.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. This will be the same Martin Taylor who was happy to construct, promote and punt these schemes to IFAs whilst working for a number of film scheme providers – Interesting issue around conflicts of interest and data protection I would have thought.

  2. And if the IFA firms that sold these schemes go bust or cease trading the remaining IFA’s will always be happy to pick up the bill…again

  3. If this is the same Martin Taylor is this not the second person rebus have employed who earned of the back of selling these from the start to investors and who are now earning again at the other end.

  4. Tax Dodgers R US 17th April 2013 at 2:42 pm

    Anonymous | 17 Apr 2013 10:57 am

    In this instance there should be no claim against the FSCS if the firms were to go bust because tax advice is not a regulated activity and is not regulated by the FSA or new FCA.

    If there were claims against the FSCS then that would mean that every single accountant and bookkeeper would have to contribute towards the cost of the FSCS! Maybe this would be an interesting countersue on behalf of the IFA industry if there are claims against the FSCS.

  5. Tax Dodgers R US | 17 Apr 2013 2:42 pm

    If they received advice from a regulated firm they will be able to claim against the FSCS if the advising company is no longer trading or ceases trading due to the awards made against them.

    There is sadly a misconception that because a product is not regulated it would not impact on the FSCS.

  6. man on the moon 29th May 2013 at 10:15 am

    The ‘ambulance chasers’ have taken over the world.

    Martin Taylor should know who did what, with whom and for how much.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm