The Press

    Need advice, support, pointing in the right direction?

    Problems with your network? Your former employer? The regulator? The Financial Ombudsman Service?

    Key Data IFA Defence Group

    Sesame Project Minerva

    Tavistock - Financial Limited

    Look up Paul Lockyer on Linkedin, former Chief Counsel for Sesame and Misys before that, he is a former regulator, what he doesn't know about network contracts and appointed representatives

    worth knowing as they say.

    He was recently in the Sunday Times as one of the most "Vouchedfor" lawyers by recommendation in England and Wales. Any network or national IFA has the same issues.

    He said: "I'd be able to assess what would be the best settlement options or just tell the network to go away.

    I'd probably put together a list of arguments about what the advisers should/ could accept in the

    circumstances, standard reply letters and a binding settlement that would make all these and (if possible future) claims disappear."

    Claim against your PI broker - Howden, have you been missold PI Run Off cover? More than likely

    Is your sponsoring firm chasing you for money you don't owe, KeyData, Arch Cru, claims, pension review?

    DBS Financial Management PLC

    Countrywide Independent Advisers

    IFA Network

    Financial Options

    Investment Options


    Join the Positive Solutions Action Group here PosSol Action Group

    Tenet Action Group

    Regulation is all about ticking boxes, get them all crossed out and the regulators will happily walk away.

    This also applies to town and country planning and it is one of the areas covered by https://s106.co.uk

    Burn it down: Observations on the Financial Services Authority

    Suggestions from a barrister, things to do when faced with the FOS if you want to make any possible future case against it as water tight as you can.

    Qualifications maketh the 'professional'? An educationalist's view

    Their report is HERE

    ...The word is independent. There are many definitions but let's take a look at three:

    1. Not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

    2. Not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

    3. Expressive of a spirit of independence; self-confident; unconstrained: a free and

    independent citizen.

    missedtargetsFTAdviser.jpg (801826 bytes)
    05 July 2007 (3).jpg (918362 bytes)

    Evidently in response to articles including THIS ONE Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of

    the Financial Ombudsman Service gave a speech at the Association of Finance Brokers (AFB) annual dinner on 2 July 2007. Our response is HERE

    "Most regulators’ careers end prematurely in failure and disgrace." - HOWARD DAVIES : HENRY THORNTON LECTURE : CITY UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL : 4 NOVEMBER 1998

    Letter from FSA regarding 15 year long stop HERE Hirst Opinion on FOS requirement to take account of what the

    'former scheme' was required to do HERE

    Open letter from Terence O'Halloran to FSA

    FOSSY LOGIC!!   Page 1 (1MB)  Page 2  (4MB) Page 3 (1MB) Subscribe to Money Management  The original writing is HERE (HTML) or HERE (Word)

    Endowments meet their targets, what was all the fuss about? Reproduced with the kind permission of the

    Evening Standard. Copyright: Evening Standard 2006.

    LIMITATION and ANOTHER and ANOTHER (1) (2) Please take care with any opinion because that is all it is.

    Letter to John McFall HERE - Guess what - No reply

    PIA warned of PIA perils HERE 

    Robber baron HERE

    False Premises - Money Management

    The IFA Defence Union recommends the use of surveillance equipment when dealing with the regulators or even clients,

    the following story  is that of another IFA who fell under the wheels of this driverless juggernaut:

    "Totally endorse the recording of dealings with regulators

    We were terminated by FIMBRA due to false allegations by a couple of sick bully boys.

    Almost by accident I had taken a micro recorder up (my sister-in-law worked for an electronics firm). I had recorded the conversation with the compliance officer at Hertsmere House.
    When we played back the recording it bore no resemblance to the words we were alleged to have said and which were pivotal to the case against us.
    Our Solicitor let it be known that he had seen the transcript of the tape, but no mention was made at our appeals tribunal. Our

    Barrister did take the compliance officers apart and showed them up for what they were..
    There was an ex policemen that worked for the 2 compliance officers that had taken a statement from us, at the hearing he told

    the Tribunal that the written statement attributed to him and used to bury us was not made by him (he at least was being honest).

    1) What would have happened if I didn't have the proof that they were lying?
    2) Why did they lie in the first place?

    3) Why were they not disciplined for lying? (we couldn't afford to take them to the High Court)

    I am saddened by what happened, my Father thought naively that if we just told the truth we would be alright. Just as well that I

    am I bit more devious. I am still bitter for what they did to my Family (unable to work for 3 months young family to support and

    relying on state aid including milk tokens) - I wonder whether Magee-Englefield and Hamp really thought they had done a good job?

    Thanks for all the support and help. (NO need to reply as you are doing a great job into the nitty gritty)

    Best Wishes

    Yours Sincerely"

    A Member

    Important legal case HERE

    Opinion of Anthony Speaight QC:

    "There are growing concerns that the pendulum of consumer protection has swung too far in the case of

    the Financial Ombudsman Service and small independent financial advisers. The FOS appears regularly

    to be exercising its discretion to adjudicate upon claims against small IFAs up to its maximum theoretical jurisdiction of £100,000. There is rarely an oral hearing. And there are good reasons to believe that sometimes FOS makes substantial awards in cases which would be rejected by the courts. On other

    occasions compensation seems to be calculated in a more generous manner than a court would assess damages. By reason of very large excesses and other insurance shortcomings some such IFAs have no insurance which responds. There is no appeal on the merits.

    Such a system would be tolerable if the maximum award were modest say £5,000 (which is the

    maximum summary compensation under the legal professions’ schemes for "inadequate professional

    service"). It would also be tolerable if, as is the case with the summary system of adjudication in the construction industry under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, there could be

    a complete rehearing before a court. And it might even be tolerable if it were applied only against very large companies

    But an unappealable, compulsory, summary jurisdiction against small traders making awards as great as £100,000 is, in my view, both wrong in principle and producing injustice in practice."

    (No providers will be hurt in the making of this movie, in fact they can join the cast.)

    Responses to ABI Commission Consultation Document From REAL people to UNREAL people

    Repayment mortgages NOT guaranteed to repay the loan - stunning revelation, not. And HERE and HERE

    Re: Article in Money Marketing entitled "IFAs seek legal advice on misselling responsibility'. The quote in full was: "the

    IFA Defence Union has been gathering opinions from legal and actuarial experts as well as questioning the FSA. The evidence strongly suggests that IFAs have a case for misrepresentation of risk against providers with many products but accept the argument that the regulator is culpable in some areas and that the providers have a right to want to

    challenge it. IFAs cannot be held responsible for misrepresentations made by either party, they have been the whipping boy for far too long. If IFAs are afraid of taking on the providers they should ask themselves how much time and money

    they are wasting on defending claims relating to 'unsuitable advice' when the complaint is in fact about the product, the FSA have indicated that it would be appropriate to refer such complaints to the provider".

    FSA warns of high cost of small IFAs OUR RESPONSE HERE

    What a week that was NEWS

    Did you know? - Commission costs an average of 3% within investment business, compliance costs 9%... is the FSA adding value? Considering it costs investors three times more than the IFA distribution channel any sane person would come to the conclusion that regulatory interference is counter productive.   

    Falconer call to end claims culture: A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokesman said: "This is a complex and controversial issue where the Government cannot provide all the solutions". OH YES IT CAN!! Here are the simple solutions:

    Follow the lead of our astute Irish neighbours who require claimants to sign an affidavit.

    Penalise those who tell lies.

    Restore some burden of proof to the complainant.

    Charge the complainant a fee that is refundable if successful.

    Regulate the 'clams handlers' - we have already reported a number of IFAs who also have an 'unregulated' arm. How

    they can claim to be 'unregulated' is in dispute when financial advice is being provided.

    Simple solutions? Of course they are but why can't they be implemented? Why is this so painful?

    Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

    The Pensions Ombudsman and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human rights HERE If you don't have the time or the inclination to read it here is a brief synopsis : The FSMA is NOT compatible with the ECHR, we have asked for sight of

    opinion. Also see HERE

    Making a fuss about the FOS This article is published in the September 2004 issue of Money Management Magazine. To subscribe call 020 8606 7545 or visit www.FTadviser.com The only problem is a reference to primary legislation being required to amend the FSMA and rein in those empowered by it (in their own interpretation) when the fact is that the FSMA allows just one of Her Majesty's Ministers to change anything he/she wishes at any time and as often as he/she deems fit. Well that's democracy? See HERE

    We need copies of FOS decision letters that advisers feel are incorrect so please fax them to us on 0845 4585299, we will be

    compiling a database that will be used to find inconsistencies. We have quite a few interesting developments on this front, more to follow.

    FOS Jurisdiction: It has been brought to our attention that many IFAs are not aware of the full facts relating to the jurisdiction of

    the FOS for any complaints relating to advice provided before 1st December 2001.

    Many professions have their own defence union:

    Lawyers, Accountants and Doctors have a union to turn to in times of need. Now IFAs will have their very own defence union.

    In the words of Tony Blair


    The Hutton debate in Parliament and the following is quoted from Hansard, Columns 770 and 771 on 4 February 2004 - the

    words are spoken by the Prime Minister:

    *I somehow feel that I am not being entirely persuasive in certain quarters.

    We cannot have a situation in which we end up translating what we know today back into the context of what was

    known and thought in September 2002, and then reaching a judgment.*

    Only the financial services regulatory system has 100% hindsight

    The more corrupt the State the more numerous the laws. -- Cornelius Tacitus

    Click on the 'About' button to find out more and join our mailing list on the links page.



    Join IFA Defence Union group here