View more on these topics

FSA bans adviser over Ucis misselling

FSA Front 480

The FSA has banned a director of an adviser firm after the company advised clients to invest a total of £9.7m into unregulated collective investment schemes.

In November 2011 the regulator issued decision notices against Bath-based IFA Pave Financial Management and its directors Timothy Pattison and Stephen Hocking over unsuitable Ucis sales. It sought to ban both directors and fine Pattison £90,000.

Pave, Pattison and Hocking referred the matter to the Upper Tribunal. Following the death of Pattison before the hearing had taken place, Hocking decided to withdraw his Tribunal reference.

The FSA has now issued a final notice against Hocking banning him from any regulated activity due to a lack of integrity and a lack of competence. Pave, which was declared in default by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in May, has also had its regulatory permissions cancelled.

The regulator had wanted to impose a £25,000 fine on Hocking, but in light of evidence the penalty would cause him serious financial hardship has decided to publish a statement of his misconduct instead.

Hocking was approved to act as an adviser between 1 November 2007 and 4 August 2010, and was approved as a Pave director between 10 June 2008 and 4 August 2010. The FSA says he acted “recklessly” in his advice to clients, and gave unsuitable recommendations to disinvest from existing products and to invest in Ucis.

One client was advised by Hocking to remortgage his home to raise funds to invest in Ucis and to transfer out of an existing pension scheme, despite advice to the contrary from Pave’s pension transfer specialist.

In another case, a vulnerable elderly client was advised to surrender six of her eight bonds totalling £885,000 and to reinvest the proceeds including a total of £680,200 into two Ucis funds.

The FSA says: “Stephen Hocking lacks integrity and the competence and capability to perform any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm.

“If Hocking performed any functions he would pose a serious risk to consumers and therefore it is necessary and proportionate to prohibit him from performing any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. What worries me is that post RDR, there will be people who were previously regulated who have de-regulated (20% of advisers / 44% ‘bank advisers’ from the article earlier) who perhaps are looking at UCIS as a way of staying in the fringes of the profession without authorisation.

    It is perhaps more important than ever for consumers to ask an adviser whether they are authorised, whether they are providing advice and what form of advice that is……….

Leave a comment

Close

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

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com