Being punished for the crimes of others

From now on, if someone buys a product on the recommendation of an IFA, and then in the future some nefarious individual steals it from him, the IFA has to pay the bill. Therefore, if I buy a car from a garage and then someone steals it, I can go back to the garage and insist they give me the value of the stolen car. In what corner of its mind does the Financial Ombudsman Shambles think that is “fair and reasonable”? Clearly acting as an expert we must be mindful of the probity of the providers whose products we recommend, but how can we possibly know if there is a latent criminal intent in one or other of its officers? Criminality self-evidently does not announce its true purpose.

To compound this double felony (theft by the scheme operator followed by “legalised theft” from the poor adviser by the Financial Ombudsman Shambles) we must note that the criminal was approved by the Financial Shambles Authority. Has it never occurred to them that it is the moral hazard created by their necessarily bureaucratic tick-box approval process that aids in these crimes?

On a personal note, I have been cautioned by my peers against speaking bluntly about the institutionally incompetent circus that constitutes financial regulation in the UK, but, as Edmund Burke, said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to [say] nothing.” And this is where I now find myself. In any event in democracy, it is the government that must be scared of the people, not the other way around. And freedom of speech is absolute.

Steven Farrall

Partner

Williams Farrall Woodward

Ipswich