Now a retired IFA, I spent 21 years as a regulated adviser during which time the answer to that question gradually became unpleasantly clear: the protection of the consumer was actually less important to the regulator than protection of itself.
Having been licensed by Parliament to act in such a way as it thought fit, the regulator gave priority to securing its power base by making it exceedingly hard for anyone to challenge it successfully unless they had plenty of time and money. It also persuasively represented its importance to the general public alongside a subliminal insinuation that advisers were essentially dubious unless proved otherwise. Lastly, the regulator has claimed credit for its role when things have gone well and insulated itself from blame when it has been found wanting.
Not much imagination is needed to realise that if there were a cut-off period absolving advisers from longer-term liability for their mistakes, there would be a greater constant pressure on the regulator to succeed in detecting misbehaviour before the statutory period passed without which its failure might wreck its credibility. In short, the regulator’s chief concern is to minimise its resistance to attack, to enlarge its importance in the public eye, and to distance itself from genuine accountability.
Philip Binding
Binding & Williams Associates
Winscombe
Somerset
