View more on these topics

Trade body IFA Centre to close

IFA Centre is to cease operating as a trade body after failing to secure enough members.

Managing director Gill Cardy says the organisation’s membership of 238 individuals across 102 firms means it lacks the necessary funding to continue to act as a trade association representing advisers’ interests.

She says: “After over two years of personal and financial commitment IFA Centre’s membership does not provide the financial resources for my full-time commitment to protecting advisers’ interests, let alone the resources to provide research, policy development and a member events programme. 

“Worse, irrespective of our funding, with so few firms prepared to stand together to improve how our businesses are regulated, I simply do not have enough members to provide the decisive mandate needed to provide the representation that independent advisers so badly need.” 

Cardy adds : “IFA Centre was only launched because so many IFAs were unhappy with existing representation and told me how important trade bodies with knowledgeable, experienced and passionate leadership are. However, many of these advisers have not joined and I am forced to review what services IFA Centre can continue to provide to IFAs.”

IFA Centre will continue to operate as a not-for-profit organisation, but will offer resources and events for members rather than adviser representation. Any members who choose to cancel their membership will have any overpaid subscriptions refunded.

Cardy is to join IFA network ValidPath as network development director.

In July, Money Marketing revealed that IFA Centre needed to reach 500 individual members before the end of the year to avoid being shut down.

Former Professional Partnerships principal Cardy set up IFA Centre in September 2011 as a trade body purely for independent advisers in an effort to rival Aifa, as it was then known.

In November 2012, Aifa formally rebranded as the Association of Professional Financial Advisers and began accepting restricted advisers as members. Cardy argued there was a need for a body to solely represent IFAs’ interests post-RDR but concerns were raised about funding the new group.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 32 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Pity that it did not attract enough support.

    That’s not the end of it – those advisers that were in IFA Advice need to transfer their allegiance and membership to APFA immediately. Those advisers who used the multiplicity of representative bodies not to join anything (and yes you know who you are!) need to make the same commitment.

    Get behind APFA who seems to have remembered how to fight for advisers

  2. I just wanted to say I wish Jill all the best as she has tried to represent the IFA community.

    At least you gave it a go!

  3. How very sad. I joined as soon as AIFA dropped the ‘I’. For Gary to imply that APFA is the right place is not necessarily correct. I still am a member of that organisation, but am not convinced (by far) that it promotes anything to do with Independence.

    Yes APFA may be worth joining as a voice for practitioners as a whole, but I don’t see how they can possibly espouse the Independent cause as it so obviously conflicts with what they are about and their largest subscribers.

    Essentially Independent advisers are now without representation. It really is odd that membership didn’t grow exponentially in view of the numbers who consistently maintain that they will be preserving their independent status. One might conclude that the non-joiners are a right bunch of Muppets.

  4. @Harry Fully agreed that an Independent body would have been better that the chance of that happening at scale went with polarisation

    Suggest all independents flood APFA with their memberships. Elect directors who will put their point of view strongly . You get a trade body who has the funds to be a proper job and the drive to represent the Independent view.

  5. A few thoughts.

    IFA Centre was doomed from the outset. This has nothing to do with Gill or her policies but has everything to do with the bulk of the adviser (in this case IFA) population which steadfastly refuses to put its hand into its pockets or provide support other than rants on blogs.

    Derek Gair, Steve Farrell and myself started Adviser Alliance and unlike Gill we did not need an income from the body. We found the same indifference inasmuch as everybody has an opinion but few are prepared to offer real support.

    APFA could be a body that will achieve suitable outcomes but a dose of reality is required. Regulators pay lip service to adviser bodies. They like to have them around as it offers the perception of consultation and cohesion.

    The truth is that as an unelected, unaccountable leviathan with no constraints, checks or balances it can do pretty much what it wishes regardless of APFA, IFA Centre or any other body. The proof is the dismissive gesture to the TSC when that committee suggested postponing the RDR for 12 months.

    We must also shed this IFA v restricted notion. This plays the regulators game and divides advisers unnecessarily. generally, what is good for IFAs is good for everybody. Each individual firm/adviser can explain its/his status to clients without having to ‘fight’ those advisers not sharing the same advice niche.

    As Julian Stevens never tires of saying, until some independent oversight body is able to make the regulator heel then these kinds of discussions will continue ad infinitum.

  6. I Dont ever wish anyone bad tidings and I dont want to say I told you so but this was always on the cards. I went to Gill pre RDR with information and quotes showing how most clients would be worse off post RDR with Bond products. Not only Did Gill (who contacted me in the first place after comments I put on these pages, and asked me to send all the Info to her) do nothing, she didnt even have the courtasy to tell me she had done nothing and i had chase her many times until I had a short email telling me she was now too busy!! Only a few weeks ago there were articles on these pages which suggested to me that she was more the FCA’s friend than she was an IFA’s champion. I cant think of anything that IFA center has done for the IFA except take fees from them.
    The Industry needs to stop being YES men and get some teeth and backbone. One man who I’ve always said should be leading the advisers cause commented at the top of the page. Garry Heath- come back – the industry needs you !!!!

  7. Neil F Liversidge 11th December 2013 at 7:05 pm

    @ Richard Wright: If you’re not an APFA Member Richard, please join. I’m nobody’s ‘yes man’, likewise my colleagues. APFA has changed a very great deal from where it was 4 years ago. The Chatham House rule forbids me from saying specifically who what or when but I can assure you that only recently the regulator could have been left in no doubt at all as to advisers’ views in general, IFAs in particular and small IFAs most of all.

  8. Gary Heath, Evan Owen, Alan Lakey & Gill Cardy. It was worth a try Gill and no one can say you didn’t give it your all.
    Back to plan B.

  9. As an Arch Cru investor I am grateful to Gill for the work she has done in raising awareness of how BOTH IFAs and investors have lost out through this debacle and that she has spread the word through her IFA network that investors can join legal action being taken by Harcus Sinclair against Capita in order to at least attempt to get more of our money back through the courts than Capita are offering. A precedent may be set which will benefit IFAs who have paid out already over Arch Cru.

    A shame other trade bodies haven’t yet stepped forward to ensure more investors know about this case. http://www.archcruclaims.org but it is never too late! As investors we rely on IFAs to be aware of our options.

    Good luck Gill in your new role.

  10. @Richard Wright – If you are NOT a member of APFA already and have never been a member of IFACentre, Adviser Alliance or IFADU, then what are you bleating about?
    When Gill asked me BEFORE IFACentre was launched if I would join, I said NO. Mainly because I was still waiting to see the wood for the trees with the FSAs Independant/Restricted situation. Once I had decided to remain Independent (and no disrespect to Alan Lakey who was a friend at both IFADU and AA before that) having decied that with Gill’s help (and IFACentre) it was possible to demonstrate Indpendance even at a small firm provided we got our processes right, I joined IFA Centre and have bene a vocal supporter ever since. I let my membership of AIFA lapse to focus more on IFAC, but will now rejoin and MAINTAIN my membership of IFAC as well now that without Gill’s full time support, it will not be attempting to represent IFAs to the regulator.
    As Alan will tell you Richard with IFADU, AA and now APFA, you can ONLY attempt to push the regulator on one or two issues at a time. Gill focused on things you didn’t want to i.e. ArchCru which was in the interests of both consuemrs AND advisers which is something which only applies to Indepndants and NOT restricted or vertically integrated firms and you appear not to have realised that the coffers were not being filled enough by IFAs to fight on too many fronts. 238 members at about £17 per month even at the end only equals £48k to run the thing and pay a salary. If you pay peanuts, you either get monkeys or as has happened with Gill, you have to draw the line at some point when you are leading the horses to water and they simply are not drinking.
    I do hope that in view of the change at IFAC, either APFA will amend it’s structure to have a college approach within as I think harry Katz suggested so that interests applicable to IFAs are argued by the college OR that overtime numbers at IFAC will become sufficient for Gill to return to IFAC full time (with the blessing of ValidPath who I believe have been and remain very supportive of the IFA model even if they are a Network 🙂 Joke…….)
    Suppose I better phone AIFA whoops APFA and get my rejoining sorted…….

  11. @ Neil Liversedge – Yes I am a member, Can I ask you to have a meeting with Garry Heath and convince him to get on board? If you were successful your membership will swell!!
    @Philip Castle- See above I am a member and I dont Bleat!! I quite openly admit I have a low opinion of Gill Cardy and IFA Centre – If a client rang you to provide services and you requested Info from the client which was duly sent and the client never heard from you again the client would rightly be a little upset dont you agree? This Industry needs a tough no nonsense leader not a friend of the FCA. Advisers have been walked on for far too long – no other industry in the world would have allowed what we have had to suffer these last few years. Its time ALL ADVISERS ( dont let the FCA divide and rule) banded together as one and stood up to the regulator. What would they do if none of us paid their fees – they couldnt jail us all could they.
    Garry – rally the troops – Neil Invite Garry for lunch!!

  12. Richard

    Why is the regulator always the enemy?

    Your standpoint is if you’re going to war rather than working in partnership with the regulator to try and improve the situation for everybody. You only have to look over the last 30 years of the financial service industry to realise that our profession cannot be left alone to regulate itself. I know there have been considerable mistakes on behalf of the regulator particularly when we look at bank advice but we get the regulator we deserve.

    Until we as a profession take responsibility and put client outcomes at the forefront of all that happens within financial services we will be stuck with bureaucrats dictating useless rules to us.

    When I look at some of the feedback on some of these articles particularly that people’s attitudes towards clients I shiver. Nobody likes customer complaints, or even bureaucracy that takes you to 4 hours or more to do a simple ISA sale, but I think you have to ask yourself how we got here.

    Gill as far as I’m concerned has tried to educate the profession to be as professional as possible and if she did forget to get back in touch with you regarding RDR information may be you would like to walk a mile in her shoes trying to run a busy trade organisation. I think you may have a slightly different tune or I hope you would.

    Nicking the words from President Kennedy and modifying them slightly.

    Ask not what the profession can do to you but what you can do for the profession!

    It’s not about rallying the troops is about working together to try and get better outcomes for the consumer and most importantly raising professional standards.

    It’s a shame that IFA Centre has closed as I was going to join it in 2014.

  13. @ Richard

    Garry Heath was involved as widely reported in this and other publications with Adviser Alliance when Alan Steve and myself set it up.

    If Adviser Alliance failed (when there was genuinely no salary overheads given that those involved were practising advisers) what chance the likes of IFA Centre which was set up to produce amongst others things Gill Cardy an income ?

    If a trade body is to succeed it must by definition have a critical mass – APFA does not have that (nor has it had that for donkeys years) currently any more than those that tried and failed previously.

    Unfortunately, we get precisely the representation we pay for and as a result deserve !

  14. @Derek – Well said.
    @ Peter, no excuse for not joining in 2014 then is there as it hasn’t stopped it just cab’t act as a representative of IFAs with only 238 members.
    As Derek said AA with no staff overheads lasted about the sametime as IFAC as a representative trade body. FCA will not take anyone seriously without a large enough proportion of the relevant group signed up. Alan and Derek tried their best with AA, but if you can’t beat them, sometimes you have to join them as Alan did with AIFA/APFA.

  15. There are some very kind comments on here. – Thank You

    Neil L and I had that lunch at least 3 years ago at which I volunteered to be helpful.I believe that there was some discussion at AIFA Board level but I suspect that it would have been too much for some at AIFA to bear having me re- involved given they were set up to be an antidote to me!

    Renamed and with added vigour APFA may think differently. Always up for a lunch!

    Didn’t get this size eating Muesli
    G

  16. @Peter Herd

    The refreshing voice of sanity. For far too long the only way many have thought to engage with the regulator is by means of bellicose hectoring and whinging. The voice of diplomacy has been constantly shouted down. I joined AIFA as soon as I understood Paul Smee. He and his successors have all been diplomatic and smooth operators that know their way around. Chris Hannant, Chris Cummins, Stephen Gay and now Gill have all been hampered and pilloried by those who want their spokespeople to wear boxing gloves.

    For the critics who say they didn’t get anywhere – they would have got even less far with a combative attitude. Sure I’m not advocating a spaniel like roll over, but there is the middle ground which when negotiating with what in effect is an omnipotent dictator (not meant as a criticism, but merely a statement of fact) is really the only way forward. That the dictator is now appearing somewhat more benign is cause for some hope. A willy-nilly full frontal attack is more likely to see a hardening of attitude rather than progress along the present path.

    The RDR should have sorted some of the wheat from the chaff and we should be left with not only better qualified more TCF advisers, but one would hope more savvy ones as well. Reading some of the posts one has yet to see some evidence of this.

  17. @Harry – That’s why I valued Gill’s attempts, Had it been me I would have strung someone up from the FCA/FSA like Mussolini by now. I may yet do so 🙂

    Gill is/was a little more diplomatic.

  18. @ Peter Herd- Because Peter we do not need this tough regulation any more. Would twice as tough regulation have stopped the guy killing his client and stealing his Money, Would it have stopped the guy who has just been caught getting his client to write a cheque payable to him and spending it? NO!!! The FCA is a business, it will always have to justify its existance and its fees by conjuring up more and more daft rules to pay their inflated saleries and £450.00 per night Hotel stays all of which you and I pay for. We Pay for the MAC, for each failed compay that we have no connection with and never have and never would have recommended their products -Its a total joke. So Peter you delude yourself and stick with your Neville Chamberlin approach that things will get better if we befriend and “work With” the FCA. It wont and never will, we are their Cash Cow, that is Until we stop being weak and rolling over to everything the regulator throws at us and come together as a strong and united group and say enough is enough!!!

  19. There are some very interesting points of comment in this article and many that need addressing !

    But we first have to get over Peter Herds statement ! “we get the regulator we deserve” ; do we ?

    This obvious sentence is so far wide of the mark it beggar’s belief ! I tell you for why

    I would say from around 2004 onwards (maybe even before then) the regulator (then FSA) became far to political, a very valuable tool to control the industry as a whole (not just us little IFA’s) and one that the government could have complete denial (as its independent and not funded by the tax payer) why in heavens name do you think they are given such powers ? we know accountability is some thing they flit in and out of when it suits !! or when it suits the treasury

    Do your really think they (FSA) were/are totally unaware of the problems suffered over the past 10 years or so ? or were they told to back off in the vain hope it would all come right in the end (Nick Leeson style)

    The vast miss-selling, LIBOR, rate swap & lending scandals were just a consequence of this, was any-one at the FSA held to account for missing any of this ? no they moved on to good jobs and even one got a knighthood,

    The FSA/FCA are not, I repeat are NOT a regulator they are a revenue collector, judge, jury and executioner, they are just in force to manipulate and give the government complete deniability.

    Let us not forget how important the UK financial system is; not only domestic but foreign, and the treasury & regulator can steer this in any direction they what.

    Using the fines they (FCA) collect for the armed forces is an inspired idea from Osborne, one that has given the government huge popularity, but look behind the curtain and you see how morally wrong this is ! (not for the service men and women; who should not have to rely on fines to top up or fund them)

    The RDR was never about being more professional getting rid of commissions etc etc etc it was about revenue, and asserting dominance (a public display of dominance) !

    Again we do NOT get the regulator we deserve !! we get the regulator who the government tell us we are going to have !

    Any trade body IFAC, AA, APFA etc etc or any new ones that may spring up are useless for this reason and this reason alone,
    Blowing sunshine up our own arse’s and spouting on about lobbying this, writing about that, and look we can enter constructive negotiations with the regulator if we had the money, frankly is crap
    We know the FSA/FCA will throw us a bone every now and again, that will never change, in lobbying them you are in fact lobbying government and they will do exactly as they please.

  20. @Peter – I agree with you there BUT all we need to do is play the FCA by their own rules. They write them but don’t read them, they have their personal predjudices. Work to rule is much more effective. Smile and agree when appropriate and then snarl and hold them to their own rules when they try to act outside them.

  21. The voice of sanity indeed!

    In a reasonable world where both parties are prepared to listen and accept the validity of each others cogent arguments then the idea of ‘working together’ has appeal.

    The jury is still out on the FCA but, if we look back at the FSA, we see an organisation that broke the law, ignored the industry, waved two fingers at the TSC and in a Stalinistic fashion determined that its unproven theories and desire for more stringent regulation were the solution to the industries problems.

    The fact that they located problems that didn’t exist and then created new problems by trying to solve them gives a clear indication of despotic inclinations, stupidity or a mix of both.

    Constructive dialogue can only go so far and then only if both parties are prepared to take it seriously.

  22. @ Harry & @ Peter

    You two are funny – rather you didn’t go into bat for me with the regulator thanks.

    Look this is simple, I agree the jury is out on the FCA but the fact is that the only way to negotiate is from a position of strength – that means where necessary you test the FCA and get legal – that costs money and that is why they hold the higher ground – they get legal ALWAYS if you dare to question.

    As Alan has said much of what FSA did was questionable legally but because we never get our act together we just capitulate. We desperately need representation we have done for years but until we get our act together we will always be at the bottom of the hill looking up and having smelly stuff thrown down on our heads. History teaches that to get to the high table you need to fight Nelson Mandela was a ‘grubby little terrorist’ according to Thatcher then when he got to the high table he was big enough to negotiate peacfully and WIN but that was after the fight.

    PLeeeeze Harry, Cummings, Gay, – dont make me laugh ! Gill Cardy needed an income – tried – diplomatically and failed !

  23. I agree with Alan Lakey | 13 December 2013 9:56 am and with Derek’s last comment “Gill Cardy needed an income – tried – diplomatically and failed !” I supported her in the hope that the FCA might just accept someone’s opinion who’d been on the FSSPP opinion, but unfortunately even if they would have, not enough advisers got behind IFAC, hence why I’ll be rejoining AIFA, sorry I mean APFA as the only representative body for advisers now, whether restricted or Independent.

  24. The irony with all these comments is that Harry, Peter, Phillip and Alan are all correct in their assertions… and also wrong.

    Talking in a constructive way with the regulator will only get you so far. Likewise the boxing glove approach. The end result is about the same so it’s more about style.

    From the inception of the FSA (and their predecessors for that matter) I have worked closely with many individuals from the regulator. There have been some wonderfully constructive and understanding individuals who were practical, objective and focussed on what was important. I’ve also met and dealt with some idiots whose only role seemed to be swelling their own ego. As with all organisations of a certain size there are good’uns and bad’uns.

    However, the real problem right now is the regulatory culture and the political context in which it operates. For the last 4 or so years the regulator has been very aggressive in its pursuit of firms. Why? Because financial services has publicly failed and it happened on their watch so it was this or put their own hands up and take the Government with them.

    That’s all well and good except that their aggression has been indiscriminate which has alienated the good guys. This manifests itself in a marked shift in the way firms approach compliance. It’s now much more defensive and about keeping the FCA happy rather than about the client. The FCA are at least partly aware of this but I’m afraid it’s of their own making and they might care to take a look at their own behavioural naval. “Floggings will continue until morale improves” sums it up nicely.

    Until there is a shift in political context in which the FCA operates there will be no change and no amount of talking or gloves-on fighting will get much done. The loser in all this is the client. Billions are spent on more and more pointless compliance rules and processes because, for the FCA, being seen to do something trumps really doing something. It would be a brave and independent step for Mr Wheatley to cut through the crap and address the real issues, engage with the industry and create a regulatory regime that works for clients and rewards honest firms that act with integrity. The latter would be only too happy to help weed out the bad, fraudulent and downright evil.

    Rant over, have a good weekend!

  25. @Derek

    Did I ever offer to ‘go into bat’ for anyone?

    @ Grey Area

    I too have met with some very sensible people from the regulator, both past and present. But at my level these were not the policy makers and I have often felt that the regulators on the front line were just as lumbered as we are. Essentially we were (I hope no longer are) in the same boat – “Lions led by donkeys”. The big salaries at Canary Towers were (as we can all attest) somewhat less than ideal and a lot less than competent.

    I find it more than mildly ironic that poor old Hector as given up because of stress. Perhaps he now has some idea of the stress he put us under. We of course are made of sterner stuff, but then he may never have come across the saying “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen”
    Frankly I have never been much of a joiner of anything – let alone Trades Union. But on the basis that the organisations don’t cost that much I may as well pitch in – otherwise how could I possibly criticise when I’m not a member!

    In the last analysis I’m a great believer of rubbing along. I don’t like many of the rules of HMRC, but I comply and work within the system to achieve minimum aggro (and Tax!). The same goes for the regulator. I can change neither so it is much less time consuming and stressful if one just gets on with it. When I really stop to reflect – what is it that I can’t live with under current regulation? Answer nothing – I can manage it. If that is a case of ‘haul the ladder up Jack – I’m alright’ then so be it. I can’t worry about the World and what I know I can’t change. (That’s why I don’t vote!)
    If the rest of you want to change the world and tilt at windmills – enjoy!

  26. @Grey Area – I think we are at the stage where those of us who remain need to say to the FCA “do your worst” as my clients interests come before yours and enough is enough.

  27. “Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility”
    George Orwell

  28. @ Phillip
    True and probably the only way to forward.

  29. Grey Area

    You say that financial services fail on their watch meaning the regulator.

    I would have said it was on ALL of our watch – we all carry the blame even if we did nothing wrong because WE did not speak out loud enough.

    Even if we did speak out how many times did we say that someone else will sort it.

    How many times did you see something going on in financial services and not speak out, some on here state that we don’t need regulation or a regulator. That may be the case that them as they are doing a good job but how many individuals are not doing a good job. Regulation isn’t there to stop the honest consultant it is there to try and minimise the risk of the bad. The joke is that often the regulator doesn’t pay heed to be honest consultants, bankers and auditors its often blinded by individuals who seemed to say the right things and have an illusion of success.

    When you look back at Fred Goodwin for example did we see an evil individual intent on beginning a bank to its knees? The answer to that in question is no – what the regulator should have been interesting as the culture of the bank the direction is taking not whether it can pass a so-called appropriate persons test just because somebody came up with that particular piece of jargon. Stop blaming each other because in the eyes of the general public with all to blame and we will continue to be blamed until we put our house in order.

    Apart from that Grey Area I would agree with you, whether we run a bank the financial services firm or even a comparison site what should come first is the consumer no amount of regulation can enforce a firm to do that it has to be written into the companies cultural DNA. When we look at the cultures of the banks and building societies with a high-pressure sales techniques and remuneration systems are we really surprised of the merits of mis-selling. How can a regulator claim that they are fining companies retrospectively when they down well knew at the time these companies operating these cultures and did NOTHING.

    As I stated we are all to blame!

  30. There is one statement in this blog from Peter Herd that need careful consideration !

    “we get the regulator we deserve” ?

    This couldn’t be farther from the truth and so wide of the mark it laughable !

    I will tell you for why

    The FSA/FCA is so politically motivated and controlled (as implied by Grey Area) and has been since the powers given to it under FSMA, it then in turn renders it useless and “any” trade body does not stand a chance, they can lobby, shout and scream all they like but real change will be futile, sure they (the FSA/FCA) will throw them a bone every now and again to give the appearance of “we do care and we do listen” ppffttt !!!
    IFA’s are just a small part in the financial engine (if you will) but its London that is the stronghold in the industry as a whole and wields a lot of power, and importance; both domestic and foreign and when things go wrong the regulator gives government complete deniability. That is why its independent of tax payer funding ! that in turn means we bark silently

    So we do NOT get the regulator we deserve ! we get the regulator the government of the day gives us !!

    One last thought ! do the FSA/FCA “regulate” ? or are they a source of revenue, judge, jury or executioner ? bit of all me thinks !!

  31. @Peter Herd

    How many times have I notified the Regulator about wrong-doing? Many times…

    PPI – I had very detailed discussions with the firm’s relationship manager in 2004 (yes, 2004) about the abuse of single premium PPI on mortgages and the way in which regular premium was being sold. Result? It was acknowledged but they did nothing.

    Fraud – Following an internal investigation I sacked and reported (to the FSA) an individual for attempting to de-fraud a number of clients. Result? They were re-employed less than a year later by another firm despite me sending a detailed file to the FSA on request.

    Financial promotions – lost count of the number of inappropriate ones I have seen and reported. Result? Some have been changed, many not.

    Dodgy investments – a few. Result? none that I am aware of.

    And on.

    I can’t be the only one. The regulator does get quality intelligence but in my view they don’t have the infrastructure to act on it. Either the information gets lost or it never reaches the right person. A department dedicated to collating information received and empowered to act or get it to the attention of the CEO could make a real difference. I’d even offer to run it…

  32. Grey Area

    Have done the same myself many time but everyone in financial services has to do the same or it will never improve.

    We talk about integrity, but setting up a firm to miss sell policies on a mass scale and effectively defraud millions of people does not land you in jail???. Yes the FSA was not fit for purpose and we will have to see whether the FCA is. It just seems to me that some individuals seem to blame the regulator for everything and never recognise that there are reasons why we need a regulator. I’ve said it more than once that we need the same rulebook to be applied evenly across the industry and to make integrity and professional standards to be at the cornerstone of financial services.

    Personally I would like to see a public enquiry into PPI insurance, miss-selling with the ability of that enquiry to refer individuals for prosecution if necessary under the fraud act. You can’t tell me that some bank, building societies and direct sales forces didn’t know what they were doing was unlawful.

    Was not having a go at you personally but at the people that did turn a blind eye!!!

    Sorry if you took it the wrong way that was not my intention.

    Peter

Leave a comment