This week..
Regulating the regulator
Regarding the story that the Financial Conduct Authority has been ordered to pay for an error on their register (‘FCA to pay out after register blunder’, Jan 10). This is not surprising. What is the purpose of the register if it’s not updated and correct?
I wonder how the regulator would view my business if I provided inaccurate data?
Absolutely shocking. It’s about time the regulator was held responsible for its actions, after all, it charges us enough.
Name and address supplied
More than ‘nice ideas’ needed
Reading the quote in the story ‘Wealth manager challenges market with ‘fair’ advice fee’ (Jan 13): “Bancroft Wealth...offers advice for a fee of £500 per year, a system it claims is fair as investors pay the same fee regardless of their portfolio size”.
It’s a nice idea, but do professional indemnity insurers base cover on the fee paid?
For small companies, any medium-size claim can spell disaster.
Clients may be willing to receive their advice digitally and over the phone, but I am sure their complaints will not be dealt with in the same way.
Robo is a disaster waiting for a date. Unless the software is regulated and the liability falls on that software provider, not the advice company, this will not be the success it should be.
Derek Bradley
Panacea Adviser
An untimely review
In the case of Neil Liversidge winning £74,000 in compensation for his client (‘Adviser bags client £74k for missold DB transfer’, Jan 8), shouldn’t Royal London have declined the complaint as time-barred?
All cases had to be reviewed at the time and inane letters were sent to ‘everybody’, even with envelopes that had the equivalent of ‘claim now’ in bold letters upon them.
So this client should have been reviewed, and if they did not raise the mis-sold plan before the Ombudsman within six months of the final letter (say) then the client cannot claim twice. Certainly the client would be unable to claim they have only now been aware of the loss.
I suspect Royal London’s problem is that despite regulations to demand such, it no longer had details of the pension review undertaken and thus could not prove that point.
That does not make it right that other policyholders at Royal London, a mutual, should be disadvantaged as a consequence of a complaint being investigated for a second time and with the benefit of hindsight.
However, on Neil’s part, he has successfully secured a large sum for his client, whether or not it was an eligible complaint!
Philip J Milton
Philip J Milton and Company
Right to reply. I am aware of the time-barring rules but time-barring relies on the company selling the plan doing what it was supposed to, ie contacting the client. Saying “would have been reviewed” is not the same as saying “was reviewed”.
This client turned over to us his entire file. Nowhere was there any letter advising him of his right to have the transfer reviewed. Had there been we would not have taken the case. We have previously refused to act for complainants who had come to us where we have seen evidence they knew of time-barring.
The client is a person with near-zero awareness so far as his personal finances are concerned and there is no doubt in my mind the first he knew of the mis-sale was when we raised it.
Whereas Royal London handled this with impeccable fairness, it seems the predecessor company responsible for the sale was less inclined to bring about a proper conclusion. We and the client are happy and satisfied with Royal London’s actions.
Neil Liversidge
West Riding Personal Financial Solutions
Right to reply. The handling of a complaint of this nature depends on the circumstances of the individual case. A time-bar will apply in some cases, but there are sometimes reasons why this would not be appropriate.
From looking at our records on this case, we could not say the transfer was in the customer’s best interests, so we have done the right thing and put the customer in the position he should be in.
As a member-owned business, we think this is the right thing to do, and it is what our members would expect us to do.
Royal London spokesperson
Pension discrimination
As women in the UK, we are still discriminated against. The ridiculous state pension age legislation done for ‘fairness’ throws up the situation with my ex-husband who, though one year older than me, receives his state pension a year ahead of me because of the state pension age table of birth dates being a case in point of discrimination replacing discrimination.
I was interested to read this article (‘Divorcee wins payout after botched pension sharing’, Jan 13).
First, the ombudsman placed a duty of care onto the pension provider to enact the pension sharing order.
Second, the provider, in this case My Civil Service Pensions on behalf of Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, was not allowed to pass off a legal responsibility to enact the PSO back to the aggrieved parties.
The article raises the entire issue of PSOs; when they were first introduced and why.
It also looks at the connection between no legal aid in divorce and the entire case of women being historically and currently financially inferior to men, therefore disadvantaged by their inability to obtain legal representation on divorce, and unaware or unable to enjoy the benefits of a PSO.
The government should have enshrined PSOs into divorce legislation the moment it stopped legal aid, to protect a sub-class of women it has created in law with state pension age changes.
Name and address supplied
