Adviser pushes Cru claims towards A20

Advice your clients to go into an investment and then ask them to claim against a defunct entity meaning the costs are passed through to FSCS. No doubt then gripe about the absurdity of fee increases.

I wonder whether Mr White would have been so considerate to the clients he had (mis)advised had he a) still been part of an ongoing network and b) directly authorised.

As for Mr Fatchett........

The question on my lips......... Is this free or will clients be asked to pay again to get something from this.

Derwent Bell is also now defunct so they aren't footing the bill

Pay to get in, pay to get out. Who benefits, clients or White/Fatchett.

Also, does this not conflict with Mr Fatchett's crusade to win redress from Capita et al.

Advice suitability vs Corporate mismanagement.

Seems to me Mr Fatchett is aiming at an easier target. The advisers he was looking to protect!

to all clients of Derwentbell now Whitehall - dont give this man anymore of your money, claim for free against the FSCS or pursue those responsible such as Capita and the fund managers.

What amazes me is the FSA sIt on their hands doing and saying nothing, and let other takeover advantage of clients.

Come get off the fence and take action against Capita, Arch, Ernst Young, Bank of New York.

What happened to Gareth Fatchett champion of the the consumer?

Am I right that this is the Derwent Bell which has just been taken under the loving wing of Mr Chamberlain and his Succession business??

Where does the liability for previous advice lie?? On a claims made basis, which is what PI does, then the clients claim against the adviser today and against PI policies in force today regardless of when the advice was given.

Or perhaps this DB isn't legally the same as the one which advised the clients??

It intrigues me to know why an adviser would use a lawyer to encourage his clients to claim against his own advice, almost certainly in breach of PI policy conditions, unless this is legally no longer the same company.

Of course, the argument could be that A2O said the company was ok and the adviser relied on their assessment - which wouldn't sound too good to me if I was a client ...

Whatever the truth, perhaps the answer is to prevent consolidation / succession firms taking businesses on and benefiting from their assets without also taking on their liabilities.

If RDR does lead to further consolidation and if our IFA and legal colleagues are actively encouraging it, then the FSCS problem will never get better and can only get worse.

Gillian, I underdstand that 'Derwent Bell Financial Management Ltd' has been/ is being wound up.

Derwent Bell Ltd, is a new company. It is set up to take introducer fees for transferring clients from Derwent Bell Financial to Whitehall for whom Mr White is acting as an 'introducer' but obviously and quite convieniently carries no liability

I dont think that Succession have got anything to do with any of it anymore.

I assume Mr White has now left the industry after the realisation of his incompetence folowing his advcie to clients to invest with Arch Cru.

FSA state that an adviser should only recommend a product it understands yet Mr White merrily went ahead recommending products he clearly didnt understand, then after realising his error, decides to invite all his clients to claim against him. Of course he knows he will not have to foot the bill, this will be passed on to the rest of us to pay on his behalf.

I doubt he has handed back the commission he has earned for his miss-selling.

The industry really needs people like you Mr White. Hope you feel very proud of your contribution to the IFA community

This whole article leaves a bad taste.

An IFA encouraging clients to claim against FSCS and claiming that they are acting in their best interest.

A lawyer, apparently stuck in a Grisham novel, encouraging anyone with couple of hundred quid to sue anyone interested.

It's not clear whether the headline grabbing article is meant to be ironic.

Whats that in the background ? the financial planning process...............ha ha

I do hope that Iain Martin put up this piece in order to invite approbrium.

Mr White is obviously a man without shame or scruples.

Gareth Fatchett is in danger of compromising his opposing case that redress be sought from regulators and providers.

It stinks.

As Gill Cardy points out, DB (in whatever guise) was one of four firms brought into the Succession stable last year - I'm sure the clients will be relieved to be enjoying the benefit of that investment process.

Succession - isn't that where Stuart Anderson (former CEO of Cru Investment Management) has ended up?

What a small world it is.

do not tar succession with the same brush as White.

Succession principles would have prevented a clients having exposures to CRU.

As they use Independant Highly regarded in the industry fund auditors to assess their investment solutions.

Mastering your business?

CW Dec 14 2009.

Laugh.

I thought that Stuart anderson was at Succession too but Register says no!

Thoughts?

Simon - I'm not sure Succession is a regulated business so no reason to approve individuals. Why bother getting regulated anyway?

Isn't Paul Tebbutt, of Millfield fame, there?