Earlier prevention needed
Regarding your article ‘Firm fined £130k over unsolicited pension cold calls’, (Sep 10). How on earth can that happen without someone in authority knowing at a much earlier stage and preventing escalation to this level? Where are the safety nets?
We seem to check the stable door not immediately after the horse has bolted, but rather when the horse has damaged someone. In fact, in this case, many people.
We need now to get to grips with what those in authority perceive is the next stable door waiting to be prised open. This is so unfair on the genuine and honest [advisers] within our industry, of which there are many.
Name and address supplied
Employment luxuries
Regarding your article ‘MPs told self-employed tax discrepancy “hard to justify”’ (Sep 17).
Nobody seems to have mentioned that self-employed people do not receive holiday pay, nor sick pay, and when they don’t go to work on national bank holidays there is no ‘company’ behind them paying for such luxuries.
Furthermore, nobody seems to have mentioned that the self-employed are not given generous final salary or money purchase pensions. Nor are the self-employed privileged enough to be given huge death-in-service benefits or private medical care for themselves and their families.
Simon Evans
Shorestone Financial
Nothing beats the personal
I read with interest your article ‘Regtech aims to put an end to “bad advice”’ (Sept 10), which features plans for an automated compliance process that claims to guard against mis-selling. This seems at first sight a good and worthwhile idea. But will it work in practice? I see potential stumbling blocks.
Will the algorithm require a huge amount of input before coming to a conclusion?
I don’t know about others, but I found that fiddling with a computer while having a client meeting wasn’t the best way of going about things.
Also, if something does turn out badly in the end, it will hardly be an acceptable excuse to blame the programme.
I might be old fashioned, but I believe there is no substitute for knowing your client than getting up close and personal. Computers are a great boon, but they are not always the best way to go about things.
Harry Katz
HA7 Consulting
Adviser rights
Following your article ‘Jumps of 160% as fees go under the microscope’ (Sept 17).
There are two problems here. One is the obvious matter of the good guys picking up the bill for those who have defaulted. The second is that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is enabled by Financial Conduct Authority rules to ignore any time-bar.
For years advisers have raged at the lack of a 15-year longstop, a legal defence that every other UK citizen is able to call upon.
However, the Financial Ombudsman Service does at least abide by the three and six-year rules as set out in the Limitation Act 1980 and Latent Damages Act 1986.
The FSCS has confirmed that compensation rule 8.2.4 in the FCA handbook expressly allows it to disregard limitation issues where it is satisfied that is reasonable to do so.
So, we have a system where we pay ever-increasing fees, have no legal time-bar defences and no right of appeal.
Alan Lakey
Highclere Financial Services
Tax elephant in the room
Following your article MPs told self-employed tax discrepancy “hard to justify”’ (Sep 17).
There is a very good and quite obvious reason why self-employed workers should be taxed differently, and I’m at a complete loss as to why it doesn’t occur to all of these advisers and supposed experts.
The self-employed do not get any paid holiday, nor receive any sick pay. It of course would be fair to pay the same amount of tax if the self-employed were then also entitled to a tax break equivalent in value to four or five weeks’ pay.
HM Revenue & Customs and the government, deliberately one assumes, ignore this key point as it would offset the extra tax they are seeking to levy under the IR35 changes.
Surely this is the real elephant in the room?
Name and address supplied
Forgotten details
I have read with interest your article on the suggested discrepancy in the tax levied on the self-employed. (‘MPs told self-employed tax discrepancy “hard to justify”’, Sep 17).
It appears the people and MPs quoted in the article have overlooked several factors that impact on the self-employed that do not impact on the employed.
The reason national insurance for the self-employed is lower is that they do not qualify for many of the benefits that the employed receive – the first that comes to mind is sick pay.
In addition to the above, the self-employed have only ever received a fixed and lower state pension compared to the employed.
Then there is the issue that the self-employed have none of the security and rights that an employee benefits from. If an employee is terminated from their job they have rights that allow them to claim unfair dismissal and redundancy.
Comparing the self-employed with employees is like comparing apples and pears. On the surface they look similar, but there are many differences.
If this or any government over tax the self-employed they will find there won’t be any small businesses or innovation left in this country.
Name and address supplied
