View more on these topics

Ucis misselling firm triggers £734k FSCS payout so far

FSCS-office-alternative-2013

A collapsed adviser firm sanctioned by the FSA for “reckless” misselling of unregulated collective investment schemes has triggered a total compensation payout so far of £734,000 with half of claims still to be decided upon.

The regulator sought to ban Bath-based IFA Pave Financial Management in November 2011 over unsuitable Ucis sales, ban its directors Timothy Pattison and Stephen Hocking and fine Pattison £90,000.

The case was referred to the Upper Tribunal but following the death of Pattison, Hocking decided to withdraw the reference. The FSA has now banned Hocking from any regulated activity. Pave has also had its regulatory permissions cancelled.

Since declaring Pave in default last May, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has received 61 claims against the firm. Of these, 29 have been paid compensation totalling £734,000. The FSCS says it is unable to provide an estimate of the total value of claims.

Pave advised at least 65 of its 200 retail clients to invest a total of £9.7m in Ucis. At least £1.2m was invested in Ucis that have since been suspended or liquidated.

The FSA’s final notice against Hocking says he acted “recklessly” in his recommendations to invest in Ucis.

In one case an 88-year-old widow was advised to surrender six investment bonds and reinvest £680,200 of the proceeds into two Ucis funds.

Page Russell director Tim Page says: “Your heart just sinks when you hear of cases like this as it ends up with the rest of us picking up the bill.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I guess this is only the tip of the iceberg. I am sure we will be hearing of more case like this and the people who have not been to truth full of the risks.
    Greed is a terrible thing.

  2. industry observer 3rd April 2013 at 5:22 pm

    Yet another intermediary doing something naughty that costs everyone money and guess what, it isn’t one of those naughty banks that are constantly pilloried on these forums – of course they have to cough up themselves for their mis-selling rather than claiming on the FSCS

  3. Oh so while I fret over making sure my files are complete and my suitability letters are concise … Some other adviser makes a fortune selling double glazing to igloo owners … It’s shocking …. Maybe crime can pay

  4. Fed up to the back teeth of criminals in our industry that leave us to pick up an ever increasing bill from the FSCS that is the biggest threat to our profitability every year.

  5. Rebus Fortissimus 4th April 2013 at 11:05 am

    The more these storied get out into the open and highlight that not every investor persuaded to put inappropriate sums of money into inappropriate schemes was a wealthy fatcat with scope to lose a decent wedge. Yes as an industry get behind the need to expose as much as possible as quickly as possible so we can do our job of providing good advice on appropriate investments.
    The Age of Scrutiny will do this job – but we also need to acknowledge the need for UCIS type schemes – where risk is balanced with reward. That doesn’t mean blatantly flout the Treasury incentives. Nor does it mean sell them to anyone who has a sniff of a dowry/nest egg/early career fund. Check out the sports industry noise about to get really raucous…

  6. Mike Fenwick predicted all this back in 1985.

    It has indeed become your prison, and ‘theirs’ too.

  7. RegulatorSaurusRex 4th April 2013 at 3:48 pm

    If I wasn’t extinct I would have them locked up.

Leave a comment