Your Shout: Letters to the editor

Financial Adviser Letters

Financial Adviser Letters

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?

Article continues after advert

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”.