Yes: Claire Walsh, IFA, Pavilion Financial Services
I completely support the proposals to name and shame those to whom the FCA is issuing with warning notices, where they are behaving inappropriately. These people bring our industry into disrepute, contribute to increased costs for levies and PI and there seems little reproach.
Almost every new potential client I meet with, I am starting from a back foot as a result of those individuals who have wilfully or ignorantly mis-sold or mis-advised clients and given rise to a public perception that we are dirty, corrupt salespeople out to swindle people of their savings. People are very nervous of financial service professionals.
Anything we can do to try to stop those in our industry misbehaving has to be a good thing. The possibility of being named and shamed should act as a deterrent – people should be aware of the potential for reputational ruin and behave better in the first place.
The process to issue enforcements can take a long time and during that time the firm could still be getting more people through the door. This is simply publishing warning notices ahead of enforcement.
The FCA cannot use this power to name and shame innocent individuals or those where there is any ambiguity; the guilt will already have been established.
To those with concerns, I’d ask: does anyone know of an instance where a firm or individual has been served with a warning notice where it has turned out to have no grounding? I doubt there is any smoke without fire.
No: Blair Cann, senior partner, M Thurlow & Co
I have considerable misgivings about the name and shame procedures. Taking the presumption of innocence under English law, my model for these procedures would be that authorities become aware of an unsatisfactory situation; they launch an investigation; they report their findings to those concerned and ask for response; they decide the charges are proven (or not); finally, they decide on the corrective/punitive action.
Once all these procedures are completed, publication of names is not necessarily a contentious issue. But warning notices can apparently be issued earlier than might be expected – FCA documents talk about the position where a warning notice has been issued but it decides not to proceed. There could be several reasons for this discontinuance, but the reason will not be published; the warning notice will simply say discontinued. Surely if the discontinuance is because of a lack of evidence or an acceptance of no wrongdoing, this should be made clear on the FCA’s website?
Much is made by the FCA of the need for ‘transparency’. Is the suggestion that this can only be achieved, or enhanced, by issuing warning notices that name names?
There are further areas of concern. Warning notices on the FCA website could be extremely detrimental since many potential clients use search engines to select an IFA. In addition, the ambulance chasers who plague our industry will have a field day; can we expect “Have you been advised by xyz? Contact us, you may be due compensation”?
