View more on these topics

FSA bans and fines IFA £10,500

FSA Financial Services Authority 480

The FSA has banned an IFA and fined him £10,500 for misleading clients and failing to have the necessary competence to provide financial advice.

Adrian Mosley, sole director of West Yorkshire-based firm Mosley & Company, has been banned from holding a significant influence function or acting as a sole trader.

The FSA found Mosley made potentially misleading statements to customers about their rights and told some clients his services were execution-only when they were advised sales.

He also encouraged clients to sign a waiver declaring that they ‘could see no wrongful advice now or in the future’.

Mosley also failed to adequately research products for clients and failed to assess clients’ personal circumstances and record why recommendations were suitable.

He recommended and arranged regulated mortgages for his customers, despite not being qualified to do so. He also failed to ensure an adequate complaints handling process was in place.

FSA head of retail enforcement Bill Sillett says: “In taking this action, we are protecting the public from an IFA who misled his customers and was neither competent, capable nor qualified.

“Mosley has now been banned and fined.  This should act as a message that the FSA will dedicate time and resource to punishing misconduct across all areas of the financial services industry, whether the firm is small or large.”

Page Russell director Tim Page says: “The combined mix of arrogance and ignorance shown by this adviser suggests he would not have been one of the many firms looking to comply with the RDR. Hopefully the RDR will root this kind of adviser out, although unfortunately there may be a few who still get through.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 10 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. If this is the standard then we need to raise standards across the industry and that includes both IFA’s and bank advisers.

    I’m glad that this individual has been removed from the industry but to my knowledge no bank director has had a similar punishment with respects to PPI misselling.

    Stop the double standards and hand out equal punishments is my message to the FSA.

    I await to see whether there are any banning orders and indeed prosecutions of bank employees.

  2. @Peter Herd – the problem with PPI mis-selling is that where policies were sold in compliance with the regulations at the time, the FSA has deemed it fit to apply new rules retrospectively. How can you ban Directors who were operating under the rules of the handbook? The only reason why this is such a big issue, is because the courts ruled that Principles could actually carry more weight in law than the rulebook – all at a time when there was little emphasis on principles-based regulation, and even though the rules permitted activity contrary to the Principles. That’s not to say I disagree with the fact that some of these policies were mis-sold (many a time I had to take up cases for my clients for policies deliberately mis-sold by IFAs & Bank Advisors alike, where it was clearly the wrong product for the consumer), but I completely disagree with this retrospective application of the current rulebook. In my view, someone from the FSA should be banned for failing to properly supervise and amend the rulebook to ensure consumers were better protected.
    There is a very big difference between deliberately acting outside of known rules (as this IFA appears to have done), and selling a profitable product that you believe to be of benefit and within the rules, only to be told later that the goalposts have moved.

  3. I would be interest to know if this guy was through a Network – If so who – or Directly Regulated.

    I hope RDR will provide a stop to this. And I don’t mean ‘bad eggs’ all industries suffer that – just general incompetence.

  4. @Chris Sheppard.
    How would RDR provide a stop to this?
    RDR or indeed any type of rule /regulation will not stop Rouges will it.

  5. @Richard Wright 30th July 2012 at 1:59 pm

    I did point out that a don’t expect RDR to rid the industry of ‘bad eggs’ as whatever industry despite the professionalism there will still be some element of this. However at least the post RDR world will require people to be able to engage their brains – this chap clearly didn’t here.

  6. man on the moon 30th July 2012 at 2:03 pm

    tim page quoting that there is too much of this thing going on.

    tim page rises up google search rankings.

    nuff said

  7. Anonymous | 30 Jul 2012 11:44 am

    Total rubbish – the rulebook has always stated that a policy should be fit for the purpose that it has been sold for. Therefore it was always contrary to the standards laid down by the FSA since 2000 and in my opinion since the creation of previous rules.

    It is not ok for bank directors and IFA’s to say that rules have changed when in fact we have always had to justify our advice and when banks in particular have sold products en mass without checking that they are correct for the client, this is obviously a major failing, verging in my opinion on being a con. The people who made the decisions at the top should be held to account, after all the person who has been massively conned in all of this is not only the consumer but the poor old shareholder who is now going without dividends because of these poor decisions.

    I remember working for a major bank and when I refused to sell what I deemed to be dodgy policies I was threatened with disciplinary action particularly if my yearly results were below target. Surely somebody should face action for that culture.

  8. @Peter Herd – really? Not fit for purpose? How come miliions and millions of pounds have been paid out in PPI claims then? How come people are crying out for something to replace it, with so many homes now at risk through having no ASU protection? I agree some products were inherently bad – eg single premium PPI added to mortgages, but there were also some damn good products out there – many of which I have happily bought myself in the past.

    I have seen no evidence of banks en mass selling of products ‘without checking that they are correct for the client’. Banks are subject to the same, if not more regulatory scrutiny on their sales/fact-finds etc than any other adviser. I speak from experience – I wonder how many bank adviser fact-finds you have looked at to qualify your statement? Too many people are happy to get on the bandwagon, without being in posession of the facts.

    I also worked for a major bank and was threatened with disciplinary for not selling endowments. I didn’t mis-sell, I just said, so go ahead, discipline me. The person who makes the sale is responsible – they can stand up and do the right thing, and engage the regulator to stamp out these practices. Did you report it when you were threatened? Or did you just become an accessory to that culture, like so many others.

    It’s easy to point the finger, but maybe harder to look in the mirror.

  9. Anonymous | 30 Jul 2012 4:00 pm

    When I say a policy is not fit for purpose I mean that it was not tailored to the individual persons needs e.g. a PPI policy recommended to a self employed individual with unemployment cover included or PPI insurance being sold to a person who has sickness cover at work and the liklihood of the PPI insurance paying out is slim.

    The fact is that these policies were sold en masse without proper checks being carried out and a decision to do so came from the senior managers and directors within the banking world. This was in contravention of existing financial services rules that state that we should get to know our clients before setting up insurance or investment policies.

    As we have seen from the above case it is unacceptable for any organisation to put the onus on the client particularly as many of these clients thought that they were receiving advice.

  10. I got sucked into this, defending the indefensible.

    Must have “sucker” written across my forehead…

Leave a comment