View more on these topics

MPs push for Arch cru Parliamentary committee

MPs want to create an Arch cru Parliamentary committee to push for higher levels of compensation for investors.

The Financial Mail on Sunday reports that Conservative MPs Guy Opperman and Alun Cairns, Labour MP Tom Greatrex and Jim Shannon, from the Democratic Unionist Party, are calling for a cross-party Arch cru Parliamentary committee to be formed.

This follows last week’s Westminster Hall debate, organised by Greatrex,  which saw MPs raise concerns about the £54m compensation package the FSA has agreed with Capita, BNY Mellon and HSBC Bank. The package means that alongside distributions already made and remaining assets, investors should receive around 70 per cent of the value of their funds when the range was suspended in March 2009. Investors wanting to take their complaint against these firms to the Financial Ombudsman Service will have their potential payouts capped at the levels agreed through the package.

Responding to MPs’ concerns last week, Treasury financial secretary Mark Hoban repeated the FSA’s assertion that investors could take action against their IFA to recoup further assets. He also rejected calls for a Government inquiry into the debacle.

Speaking to the Financial Mail, Opperman says: “We need to assist our constituents to get the best outcome. This is an issue that is apolitical and there is a common interest in getting financial justice for Arch Cru investors, many of whom are pensioners and have lost a big slice of their retirement savings. An all-party select committee will assist this process.”


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. “Treasury financial secretary Mark Hoban repeated the FSA’s assertion that investors could take action against their IFA to recoup further assets.” I am at a loss here. How exactly are IFA’s meant to repay investors? PI renewals exclude any Arch Cru claim, so, anyone want to buy a Kidney?

  2. Supporting the above anonymous reader’s comments, I’ve got a case study where an IFA’s Professional Indemnity was not valid for the Arch cru funds because the problems lay under Capita’s nose, not with the IFAs.

    One only had to read the parliamentary transcripts to read how Capita and the FSA failed IFAs and investors alike.

    So, for why it is pointless for the FSA to target IFAs see:

  3. Based on what Chris Clark has said above (assuming it is correct which I have no doubt) then if Mark Hoban repeats commits encouraging pursuing ALL IFAs who sold Arch Cru (I sold none, but I am sure there will be some advisers who sold a modest amount only and did sufficient due diligence for small sums that I could support)
    If Mark Hoban repeats commits of that nature OUTSIDE of parliamentary privalege, then he may be committing a criminal offence.

Leave a comment