Opinion  

Letters: Evidence before TSC highlights chasm in consumer protection

Financial Adviser Letters

Financial Adviser Letters

This week..

Making a fool of themselves

Regarding your article ‘Ucis investment comes to haunt adviser’ (Nov 16). 

Yet again I am reminded of the words uttered by Jim Gower who designed the original 1986 Financial Services Act. 

He stated: “Consumers should not be made fools of, but should be allowed to make fools of themselves.”

At what point does a non-advised service deviate into the advice arena? What evidence is there of ‘advice’?

This type of decision, based purely on the ‘opinion’ of a non-qualified ombudsman, reduces the potential for advisers and non-advisers alike to trust that their actions will not involve them in a complaint.

Losing money is generally what happens to foolish investors who wish to pursue the outlandish in hope of a juicy return.  

At what point will these people be deemed sufficiently knowledgeable to be allowed to be deemed fools?

Alan Lakey

Highclere Financial Services

 

Not the FCA’s choice

Regarding your article ‘FCA writes to DB advisers with new data request’ (see page 13). 

The Financial Conduct Authority is concerned that companies are recommending large numbers of consumers to transfer out of their defined benefit schemes, despite its stance that transfers are likely to be unsuitable for most clients. 

When are they going to get it into their heads that it is not their decision to make if a transfer from a DB scheme is suitable or unsuitable – it’s the client’s choice.

You can’t have pension freedoms and then not let clients do what they want with their own money.

Name and address supplied

 

Contradictions

Following your article ‘FCA writes to DB advisers with new data request’ (see page 13). 

Don’t you think that ‘treating customers fairly’ is a joke when it comes to DB transfers?

The government brought out pensions freedom and told those with pensions that they should be in control of ‘their’ money, yet the FCA makes it more and more difficult for them to access it.

At the same time, the government believes £175 per week is enough for a retired person to retire on.

Should both these parties not be working together instead of giving out opposite information to the public?

Name and address supplied

 

Missing out on help

Regarding your article ‘Significant Covid scheme fraud risk “justified”’ (Nov 12). 

I just read Chloe Cheung’s piece on the income support scheme and risk of fraud. 

I am sure all the schemes are open to fraud. You could argue that people on significant furlough taking up second jobs is a form of ‘fraud’ when compared to those completely excluded from any form of income support through no fault of their own.

As someone newly self-employed in September 2019 I have received nothing in terms of financial support, not even Universal Credit as I have savings.