Don’t fall off your chair but I do have some sympathy with the MPs’ expenses’ debate.
Perhaps now is the time to write to your local MP about the issues in financial services. Hopefully, what he/she is currently experiencing might make them draw parallels and see there are some common themes appearing.
It is often cited that the FOS bases its decisions on advice given five years ago by today’s standards. Is this not uncannily similar to an MP having to repay expenses today despite having made the claim fairly under the rules five years ago?
Some MPs (and quite rightly so, in my opinion) may challenge the legal position and head for the courts. Rather uncannily again, are we not in the same position with the RDR? Just about every other article or email I get seems to be stating that we need some legal clarification on matters and that “someone” (the FSA in our case) has gone beyond its powers.
What is rather grating is that if the affected MPs do take legal action, then they will probably get to court and have some sort of decision rather more quickly than happens with IFAs. One wonders if the only solution to some of our issues is a group approach that gets matters to court and starts to create legal precedent.
I suppose the final parallel (MPs v IFAs) is just how unfairly they feel they have been treated and the fact that they are financially disadvantaged. You can hear their anger when being inter-viewed. The parallel is clear but whereas their issue is hitting the headlines regularly, our issues of unjustified FSCS claims, an FSA that seems to be unanswerable to any higher authority and the inequitable position with the long stop are, alas, nowhere as public.
The Whitechurch Network