Open letter to the FSCS
How has the SDO2 sub-class been assembled? Why would firms which do not handle client money, like IFAs, be classed together in risk terms with firms who are stockbrokers and which do handle client money and so are surely of a different and more risky character?
Furthermore, what is the logic or the justification for IFA’s being included in the same sub-class as a product provider such as Keydata?
Who was consulted on the FSCS decisions on which type of firm was to be in SDO2? When were these decisions made? By whom were they made? Is there any forum in which IFAs’ views can be heard and points addressed on the matter of which sub-class the FSCS decides to put IFAs in?
I understand from your budget paper that the FSCS wishes to consult stakeholders on these matters. I see that in order to do so, the FSCS consults its own advisory panel which is said to include representatives from trade bodies.
I also understand from the budget paper that the FSCS conducted interviews in order to gather external views.
Clearly, this statement does not reveal a great deal about the FSCS process, so I would like to see the protocol adopted in determining the scope, number and content of these interviews please and the report made to the FSCS on these interviews which determined the outcomes
set out in the budget document.
Name and address supplied
Comments from www.moneymarketing.co.uk website on FSCS levy on advisers
We have to wake up and realise what I have said on previous occasions this is nothing to do with natural justice.
This Government/FSA has got a political agenda to see the demise of small IFAs on an economies of scale regulation basis.
They want big institutions to regulate and pay fines/income to the FSA when they have been found to be wanting on a retrospective inspection. This puts the UK financial services market in line with Europe. As a Tory, I am not sure if George Osborne agrees with the absence of natural justice applying to the rights of IFAs.
The investment industry fails to take any responsibility for its shortcomings. They probably like us fail to see why they should pay for the likes of Keydata (again, the good guys paying for the bad). Surely, it is time to have a product levy based on the risk associated with a product and the amount of issuance. Hence, all individuals investing in the product would be insuring one another.
Is this not a fairer way? A bit like the climate levy on your gas and electricity bill where the users pay for the damage that might be done.
Angry and extremely frustrated are just two adjectives, I have many more, unprintable, I would like to address at the FSCS. A mockery of justice, fairness and due process. What other time bombs are in the filling cabinet? Treating people fairly? I think not.
How much longer before we are held responsible for: 1: The disappearance of Sheargar. 2: Lord Lucan going missing. 3: Global warming. 4: The current bad weather. Last one left turn the lights out please.