View more on these topics

Wait and see on FSA harassment case

calland
John Calland and his wife outside court yesterday

The FSA yesterday once again tried to block a retired IFA who is suing the regulator for harassment from taking his case to court.

Due to the complexities of the case a verdict was not delivered on the day and a decision is expected in the next month.

In August 2011, Money Marketing revealed John Calland was suing the FSA under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, alleging the FSA, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the Financial Ombudsman Service worked together to unfairly progress loss assessments and solicit pension complaints from former clients.

Calland, who retired as principal of Calland Insurance and Mortgage Services in December 1997 and is now 73, has been involved in a 10-year battle with three authorities which has seen the FSCS reprimanded for bullying and the FOS reproached for soliciting complaints.

Calland’s QC Hugh Tomlinson alleges the contact and behaviour of the three bodies was “oppressive and unacceptable”.

The FSA’s QC Javan Herberg says the regulator was within its rights to contact Calland and that its actions did not constitute harassment.

The FSA submitted an application to strike out the case but Exeter county court rejected the application in January. AT the time, deputy district judge Karen Rea said Calland’s case is “better than merely arguable” and has “a real prospect of success”.

The regulator appealed against the strike-out decision and another hearing took place yesterday at Bow county court in east London, heard by Recorder Steynor.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 11 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Incompetent Regulators Award Team 28th November 2012 at 3:11 pm

    It’s about time the regulatory staff were made personally accountable for their mistakes whilst also taking away some of their powers.

    Starting with the 15 long stop which every other business and citizen in the UK has protection from. As a lawyert said to me the idea of the limitations act is to protect both parties and to be fair.

    FSA does not understand fair………

  2. Like Robert Maxwell and countless wealthy bullys the FSA seeks to use its financial might to deny justice.

    Whenever the FSA or the FOS is taken before a judge their pet QCs argue that there is no case because FSMA enables them to do whatever they want.

    This defence seeks to deny a heraing and therefore the potential for them to be found in breach of the law.

  3. If this is overturned, the FCA have carte blanche to do to us whatever they will. Truly frightening.

  4. I wish John all of the best, bullies should never be tolerated.
    DB

  5. Good luck John. The FSA and FOS are truly criminally unaccountable and they regularly break all of their own codes of conducts. I fear they are totally non stick. I would love to be wrong.

  6. I wish we were all as brave as John, because anybody who as had dealings with the FSA know three things about them.

    They are totally unreasonable, they will not listen at all to any sound reasoned argument.

    They do not understand the complexity of what a professional adviser does, so they take the view that if it is not the simplest and cheapest standalone Individual Stakeholder plan it must be poor advice.

    And if you dare challenge them, watch out because it is there ball, there game, there rules. and they must prevail.

    They are answerable to nobody and behave accordingly, talk about TCF, what a laugh.

  7. Has the judge decided yet John

  8. The FSA’s QC Javan Herberg says the regulator was within its rights to contact Calland and that its actions did not constitute harassment.

    If that is the case why do the avoid going to court to resolve the issue?

  9. Any news on this case?

  10. “Due to the complexities of the case a verdict was not delivered on the day and a decision is expected in the next month”
    That was more than 3 months ago. So where is the verdict? If one has not been reached, why not?
    And why is the whole thing taking so long?

  11. Why is there no decision on this case?

Leave a comment