View more on these topics

FSCS chief: Everything we do is subject to ‘value for money test’

Everything the Financial Services Compensation Scheme does is “subject to a value for money challenge”, FSCS chief executive Mark Neale says.

In his latest blog post, Neale says the organisation’s commitment to value for money “is more than a pious expression of good intent”.

He says the FSCS achieves value for money by outsourcing the majority of claims, which allows it to deal efficiently with claims volatility.

Neale says the FSCS also ensures it puts only “proportionate” efforts into contingency planning and pursuing recoveries.

He says: “We ensure that the effort and resources we put into planning for each eventuality are proportionate. We do not lavish resources on contingencies that are very remote or which, though more likely to arise, will have limited impact on consumers and financial stability.

“Equally, we only pursue recoveries where it is practical and cost-effective to do so.”

Neale adds: “The other safeguard is that we keep a firm grip on FSCS’s core costs.

“Value for money matters to us. And our commitment to it is more than a pious expression of good intent.

“Not everything we do is readily measurable. But everything we do is subject to a value for money challenge.”


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Value for money??

    The FSCS is a complete and utter failure, it doesn’t meet the legitimate expectations of either side of the “gap”, the ever decreasing number firms who pour their money down its drain or the luckless victims of unsuitable advice.

    It hasn’t worked, it can’t work and it won’t work. All it does is keep these numpties in a job.

  2. correlationstreet 27th March 2014 at 10:32 am

    Light the blue touchpaper and stand well back………………….

  3. Grey Haired Underwriter 27th March 2014 at 2:52 pm

    The guy’s a Civil servant – say no more!

  4. MIssold Investor 27th March 2014 at 4:44 pm

    Does the value for money ethos extend to Mark Neale’s £280k remuneration package as head of what is, afterall, a relatively small, pseudo public sector department? Or does it extend to the average payroll costs of £67k, for what is largely an administrative workforce? Or is it more about keeping the industry levy as low as possible by making claimants jump through hoops to get their money?

Leave a comment