Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the case involving former BBC presenter Christa Ackroyd and HM Revenue & Customs, it might have been wise for her and others in similar positions to take specialist advice on their legal status (ie employed or self-employed) before embarking on the contracts concerned and, had that advice proved faulty, at least there would be some means of recourse. This kind of thing is indeed a minefield, which makes the need for seeking such advice all the more vital.
As it happens, I did the same thing in reverse many years ago in respect of an employed contract of service that I believed should have been a self-employed contract for services and, having taken legal advice, I applied for a secretary of state’s decision on the matter, which came down in my favour; when Inland Revenue (as it was then) later challenged me on my self-employed status, I was able to supply a copy of that decision as evidence and it had to accept it.
Alistair Hinton
Scrutinise the FCA
Having just read the story on FTAdviser (October 28) I feel angry that the Financial Conduct Authority could ask for more money from the financial services industry to pay for their uncontrolled spending practices and recruitment policy.
Is the FCA there to protect the industry, or is it trying to bring it to its knees, forcing many qualified and experienced advisers out of business, which will ultimately affect the end user [customers], as accessing good, sound financial advice will become unavailable/unaffordable as increased costs will eventually have to be passed onto the end user.
We have all seen over recent years the effect uncontrolled business rates and rents have had on retail businesses and High Streets, decimating an industry that the famed British economy was built on.
MPs seem to have no idea of what the world outside the ‘Westminster bubble’ is like for retailers, advisers and everyday folk trying to earn a living.
It is about time the FCA was put under more scrutiny regarding its actions and costs, as it has become an uncontrolled monster wreaking havoc within the industry it was set up to control and ultimately protect.
Only a short time ago fees that we were paying towards the running of the FCA were an annoyance but affordable, yet year on year, fees are increased to such a level that the average adviser is paying in excess of £10,000 each a year towards this out of control quango.
In no other industry or business can a regulator set its own budget without having to justify it to a higher body – in the FCA’s case it should be hauled in front of a select committee to answer such questions.
But there is the problem: it would be scrutinised by the people who set them up and rely on them to generate extortionate fines that prop up the governments tax receipts.
Name and address supplied
Attitude to AI
As the chief executive of an artificial intelligence business that serves regulated markets, I enjoyed Imogen Tew’s article on robo-advisers.
It appears to me that the decision to favour AI over human interaction is a function of consequences, of which age is certainly a factor.
We have had planes that can fly themselves without any human intervention but the vast majority of the public is unwilling to fly without a qualified pilot (or two) on board, just in case.
As somebody in his 50s, my appetite for financial risk is reduced and the consequences of getting investment decisions ‘badly wrong’ are severe, so I am always going to err on the side of caution and preference face-to-face advice over robo-advice.
Younger investors probably have a more ‘sporty’ appetite for risk and thus probably see robo-advisers as more acceptable.
Ergo, client age profile most likely defines risk appetite which defines acceptability of robo-advice.
Adrian Harvey
Elephants Don’t Forget
Hargreaves’ due diligence
As one of the many Hargreaves Lansdown HL Sipp customers caught up in the Woodford debacle and having worked for a very long time behind the scenes in financial services, I am quite clear that no advice was given.
However, the fact that HL continued to include the Equity Income fund in their wealth list did give (false) comfort that they had been closely monitoring the fund and, by continuing to list it, they believed it could and would turn around.
It seems that if they were actually performing this level of due diligence on their listed funds, they made serious errors of judgement or, maybe, they just chanced it?
After all, dropping the fund from that listing might have prompted investors to switch out, making it worse for those that remained.
I hope that HL can evidence those numerous decisions to maintain the fund in their top 50 until the very end.
Unfortunately, Woodford’s transparency has helped the short sellers who have no doubt made huge profits at the expense of small investors like myself.
I doubt that factor was seriously considered so maybe that is a lesson for the future, assuming a balance can be struck between the need for consumer transparency and the fund manager’s need to be able to manage, with some degree of risk-taking.
This unfortunate episode should once again bring home the true risks of market exposure.
By deciding to close the fund, losses will be crystallised. However, it does seem that there was no realistic prospect of a recovery in the short to medium term, so disappointingly, that’s it.
It is especially hard for those who were approaching what should have been time to retire.
We now need to carry on working (if we can) for longer than we had planned, or face an impoverished retirement.
Although far from happy, I do not feel the need to point the finger of blame, but would very much like to see evidence that all parties involved actively did their utmost to avoid this unhappy ending.
Mandy Orchard
