Other Citywire websites
Stay connected:

View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a639498

Apfa hits out at FSCS over £7.7m Keydata legal costs

by Jun Merrett on Dec 03, 2012 at 14:19

Apfa hits out at FSCS over £7.7m Keydata legal costs

The Association of Professional Financial Advisers (Apfa) has called for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) to show evidence of how cost effective its legal action against Keydata-selling IFAs is.

The trade body responded to the FSCS's half year review in which the scheme predicted an increase of its budget from £3.9 million to a new revised figure of £7.7 million to pursue recoveries for 2012/2013.

Chris Hannant (pictured), policy director of Apfa said the budget had almost doubled which was in addition to the £7.9 million the scheme had spent last year on recoveries which will mostly be spend on legal fees.

'These are significant numbers for the profession, but the worst of it is that we have no idea of how cost effective legal action has been. The FSCS’s half year review gives no detail at all as to what money has been recovered from legal actions so far. The Financial Services Authority must look closely at this issue. The FSCS needs to demonstrate that these recoveries are warranted and cost effective.

'Furthermore, there should now be a process for bringing an end to actions against advisers with a handful of cases.  It cannot be cost effective to use City lawyers to pursue claims worth small amounts.'

The FSCS also recently revealed that investment advisers face being hit with a further £28 million levy due to the collapse of Pritchard Stockbrokers and Worldspreads.

Last week, the scheme called in a £25 million interim levy for the investment intermediation sub class and an additional cost of £3 million as a result of a redistribution levy because of £36 million shortfall in FSCS funds.

2 comments so far. Why not have your say?

FSCescious via mobile

Dec 03, 2012 at 20:55

If course it pays!

report this

Julian Stevens

Dec 04, 2012 at 09:37

Why isn't APFA demanding that the FSA explains the basis of what seems to have become its standard policy of instructing the FSCS to short-circuit and, at huge expense (to us), bypass the normal, established consumer complaints process? Why the rush to pre-judge liability on a blanket basis and to hand out wads of compensation like Monopoly money to all and sundry?

If customers aren't satisfied with a rejection of their complaint, they have the right to refer it to the FOS. If the FOS upholds the complaint, it then becomes a matter for the firm's PI insurer ~ isn't that how system was designed to work and the way in which it has worked to date? Why isn't that good enough any more?

Or, as the evidence tends to suggest, is this new policy part of a premeditated pernicious agenda against small IFA's ~ the very thing that Hector Sants claimed before the TSC in March 2011 that the FSA doesn't have?

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

Opportunities emerge as production moves back home

As the UK coalition government strives to rebalance the national economy, so called 'reshoring' looks set to play an increasingly important role in economic recovery.

Today's top headlines

A spotlight on Alastair Mundy

Alastair Mundy met Citywire's Daniel Grote at the London Stock Exchange Studios for a detailed interview about the Investec Cautious Managed fund.


Succession acquires Hertfordshire-based IFA for £4.9m

by Rosie Sells on Jul 29, 2014 at 13:53

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet