View more on these topics

Independent view

Why have we as an industry got it in for the Consumers&#39 Association? I was at a meeting of compliance officers recently and someone suggested arranging a speaker from the CA for a future event.

“They should be paid danger money”, “they will need to bring tin hats” were the tone of the comments made (we compliance officers can be such wags). I cautiously raised my hand and commented that I would mostly be on the CA&#39s side. I think most people were too shocked to comment.

I have always been somewhat confused by people&#39s antipathy towards the CA. The CA is there to help, educate and champion the cause of the consumer and I feel it does a very good job on the whole. If we as an industry are at the thick end of its attacks sometimes (or even often), we probably deserve it. Maybe I now need my own tin hat. Do not get me wrong – I do not agree with everything the CA says or does. There are always exceptions. It makes mistakes, too.

The hottest topic in this field at the moment is, of course, misselling of endowments. Many firms have had the standard letters of complaint generated from the CA&#39s website. The site explains very clearly when consumers do and do not have a valid claim and provides them with the mechanism to make the complaint.

Many IFAs have clients who have been missold policies by other advisers and have helped them out as a result.

The CA is only doing the same thing but on a much bigger scale. It is entirely laudable for it to educate consumers about the situation and help them if there has been misselling. Of course, there will always be some consumers who misuse the website and make an unjustified complaint but this is hardly the CA&#39s fault.

I suspect that most of our adverse views arise out of the headlines that the CA generates. The CA – and Sheila McKechnie in particular – are often outspoken and hence get reported in the press. In the realpolitik of the media world, it is usually necessary to adopt this approach to appear in the news. These headlines tend to be sensationalist.

Fiona Price suffered from this difference recently when the headline to her comments gave entirely the wrong impression of her views and led to angry responses and even hate mail.

Clearly, headlines can never provide the full picture. They are not expected to. But they raise interest and the detail follows. The detail of what the CA produces, in particular, the articles in Which? magazine, are almost always well written and very balanced.

They adopt similarly robust research principles in their assessment of financial products as they do with washing machines and irons. They also ensure many of their articles are commented upon by practising IFAs (and amended if necessary) before publication.

This results in articles which go a long way in educating people about their finances and this benefits us directly. Clearly, consumers who are more educated about their need for income protection, saving for retirement, etc, are more likely to go and see an IFA.

There are other areas where the CA has directly helped the IFA. It almost invariably recommends that consumers see an IFA as opposed to using any other option. In addition, it has campaigned extensively (albeit unsuccessfully) to maintain polarisation.

My final point is this. As well as seeing the positive things that the CA does for us, I think we should also accept the negative comment and continue to improve what we do. It is only human to be unwilling to accept criticism – I am too prone to this myself. But this is an unhealthy response. There is usually something good to be learnt from criticism.

It is particularly important for us to learn from the CA&#39s criticism. This is because it speaks on behalf of consumers – our clients (or potential clients).

I recently read that 89 per cent of upheld complaints are against tied advisers but I think it would be missing the point if IFAs were to claim that “it was not us”.

We should never miss an opportunity to learn how we can provide a better service to our clients and consumers generally.

Rory Percival is compliance director at Fiona Price & Partners

Recommended

SFO may investigate Equitable Life

The Serious Fraud Office is expected to be asked to look into the demise of Equitable Life.According to a report in the weekend press, this is expected to happen once Lord Penrose&#39s inquiry is complete, due in the next few weeks.Policyholders are awaiting the report to establish whether there is any potential for compensation from […]

FTSE rally to last through the autumn says SVM

SVM Asset Management believes there is a growing belief in the market that the recent rally in the FTSE could sustain itself throughout autumn. Since the start of year the FTSE has experienced an 8 per cent rise with the FSTE All Share increasing by 10.5 per cent and the FTSE 250 up 26 per […]

IFAs urged to help set agenda for Treasury review of the FSA

The Treasury is drawing up the agenda for its two-year review of the FSA but is not formally consulting with the industry on what should be included in the review.The review is required by the Financial Services & Markets Act of 2000 and is scheduled to begin by December.Although the Treasury is expected to have […]

Lib Dems call for more accurate assessment of employer liability insurance

Liberal Democrat small business spokesman Brian Cotter is calling for premiums for employer liability insurance to be based on more accurate risk assessments which take into account employer efforts to minimise risks to their employees.Cotter said: “Small businesses are being strangled by the higher premiums. Insurers&#39 fear of having to fork out for potential claims […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment