IFAs have nowhere to turn,
this Union has changed all that.
All IFAs need support and
legal advice when faced with injustice and ineptitude from the:
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
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.*
We aim to help IFAs fight regulatory injustice, this Adviser Defence Union is:
Committed to protecting the interests of all Financial Advisers in the UK whether they are directly authorised or appointed representatives, in town or country, and in all areas of activity.
At a wider level, aimed to promote the interests and defence of financial advisers in Parliament, in the media, and to the general public.
1. Reform of the regulatory system under FSMA 2000/the DISP:
(a) to require FOS to apply legal principles - e.g. regarding the
quality of evidence - consistently. This would require a repeal of
Section 228 which gives FOS carte blanche to do what it likes.
(b) to require the FOS to adhere to its own rules e.g. regarding time limits for referral of complaints.
(c) to require the FOS to apply the law as it exists.
(d) to require FOS to make available decided complaints in full as with civil courts.
(e) to create an independent appellate body to whom both complainers and IFAs could appeal - such body would include
personnel from both the IFA and legal professions who are of proven experience and ability.
(f) to provide for IFAs to recover the case fee from FOS in cases
where the appellate body overturns the adjudication.
(g) to make complainers liable for the IFAs costs in the event that either the FOS or the appellate body decides the complaint is
frivolous or vexatious (but not for bona fide complaints which are rejected) but to make FOS liable for expenses in all cases overturned by the appellate body.
(h) a power, if not a duty, on the FOS and the appellate body to report to the police instances of suspected attempted fraud by the
application of false evidence.
Amend FMSA 2000 to state clearly that the FOS and the regulatory system are as subject to the European Convention of Human Rights as is any other public body and any other public Act.
3. Freedom of Information
To amend the Freedom of Information Act to ensure that the FOS
is subject to disclosure and that the fees charged are reasonable for doing so.
By identifying and focusing on a limited number of simple issues then the
campaign for reform need not to become personalised and, therefore, will avoid
the inevitable heat that personalisation will generate - thereby ensuring that
energies are directed where they are needed.
The ways to achieve this:-
1. All IFAs lobby their MP's on exactly the same terms on a regular basis. This does not just mean 1 or 2 IFAs in each Parliamentary constituency - but every single one of them. This should be done regularly and also in person.
2. Select a case for Judicial Review of a FOS decision and seek
declaration from the Court that FSMA 2000 is not compliant with the ECHR.
3. Pursue a case in the European Court of Human Rights against the UK Government re the non-compliance of FSMA 2000 -
(IFADU is engaged in that).
4. Keep lobbying every single MP - written personal 'phone and e-mail contact.
If you think we have forgotten something please let us know.