Fatchett seeks more money as FSCS judicial review granted

I agree completely with the legal action. Product providers, not advisers, should have carried the can.

I would like to know whether Gareth Fatchett is putting his money where his mouth is. Good luck with the fund raising though. At an average of £100 per adviser, he will be lucky to get the amount he needs.

If this succeeds (and I hope that it does) will that give grounds to have similar actions against any other unfair levies that might be attempted?

Or any other unfair levies that already exist?

Whilst everyone would be delighted if the action succeeds I doubt they will contribute such a huge amount to allow it to move forward. Bearing in mind that FSCS will use our fees to defend their view we all end up paying twice AND they will put the fees up for another spurious reason next year. No win situation despite FSCS being wrong.

Well over the years he has collected money to carry out various actions , as far as I can see none of them have come to anything . So where has all the money gone

I do not understand what the grounds is for we in the intermediary sector footing the bill for this (other than the FSCS/FSA once again demostrating that thier disconnection to this industry) surely we can only provide a client with advice once we have assesed the information which has been presented to us by the product provider (in an FSA approved way no less). If that information turns out to be flawed, theprocider is at fault, this therefore demonstrates a risk presented by the providers themselves and so the levies to compensate investors for future such instances should fairly be put on the product provder.....no i don;t have £100 to spare, though I would see victory as being a potential landmark case for IFAs

1. To right an injustice caused by an unjust regulatory system, lawyers and disaffected IFAs struggle to raise a fighting fund of £200,000. Without a rich benefactor these are the lengths an unorganised and truly oppressed IFA community (from 2000 -2010) have to go to, to see any hope of avoiding further and ongoing destruction to standard of livings and reputations.

2. In contrast Hector Sants' total salary for the year is £742,000. This is exactly how the 'legalised' corrupt world of the UK Financial Reguators works. Sants's salary and the other 200 FSA 'super' staff earning over £100,000 are already funded by fees paid by the same disaffected IFAs. IFAs pay FSA regulatory fees not through choice but to survive. In turn the FSA's unelectable, unaccountable machinery use such disaffected IFA fees (& all IFAs fees) to defend their indefensible actions, to pay for their inflated unchallenged salaries and to pay for the massive FSA machinery of lawyers instilled to protect their power and corruption and retain their status quo.

3. The FSA appears to have become sloppy in this case pinning the blame on the wrong party. Being normally unchallengable, it has no regard for negligence, its lack of corporate governance, gross misconduct or whoever it impoverishes in the IFA community. Only an all powerful and corrupt unaccountable regime could pin blame on the easiest and most vulnerable victim in the UK (the IFA) instead of the product provider without accountability for its actions.

4. In Russia and Eastern European countries, illegitimate extortion rackets do exist but unlike the FSA they do not have the backing of an act of parliament as we do in the UK since 2000. So when the ‘paying’ IFA freedom fighters (whose only possible recourse is to seek the services of a qualified mercenary up who is up for it (a compliment to Mr Fawchett) the best ‘all’ IFAs can hope for is they win the battle if they have enough funding first. As for IFAs ever winning the war against the injustice of the UK regulatory, never. To topple a bully is one thing as but to get out of a legitimised extortion racket is not going to happen unless you’ve got a larger sledgehammer then theirs (Thor or International Rescue?).

5. Taking on the FSA bully has triple jeopardy consequences if the will to win the fight is lost, if the Hitler style appeasement of the FSA is allowed to prevail or if the irreparable damage in the UK is accepted ‘North Korean style’. Not even Cameron-Clegg can directly easily oust the FSA or its remnants now irreversibly embedded in the UK let alone dictate its costs or curb salary levels which makes a PM’s salary the equivalent of a trainee tea boy at the FSA at around £144,000.

Why should we have to pay to get justice?

Seems criminals have a better chance than we do?

This is unjust and there is a clear case to be answered here and justice should not be about who can afford to pay.

Can't help but notice that the FSA and FIFA seem to be joined at the hip; unaccountable and not being able to see the truth or, if they see it, denying that they can do nything (cf Lampard's 'goal').

Judging from these posts it is hard not to conclude that some advisers are both stupid and gullible.

Of course a Review has been granted. This usually happens unless there is some compelling legal reason why it should not.

IT DOES NOT mean anything more than that. Moving to the Review itself will be hugely costly and the chances of success so small that it would make wining the jackpot lottery a distinct possibility.

If (as seems most probable) Reg. Legal looses then they will most likely have to meet the FSCS costs and we all know how adept Civil Servants are at racking up costs. The financial consequences for those on this bandwagon hardly bear thinking about. In the end my guess is that the whole thing will peter out because of lack of funds. But at least RL will have had a payday – win or loose.

Oh, and if anyone asks – we should actually be talking to the FSA instead – to establish whether there was regulatory failure in putting KD in the wrong sector in the first place.

Overall this whole thing reflects very poorly on financial services. Here we are squabbling amongst ourselves on points which are no doubt entirely beyond the comprehension of those who have actually lost money – when what we should be doing is working out how to get them compensated ASAP and after that brining Stuart Ford to a speedy account and if appropriate booking him into one of HMG Hotels for a long stay, after having sequestrated all his and his family’s and various fancy trusts worldwide assets.

I totally agree with Harry's first paragraph with the exception that I think "some" is a little light!.

The inertia amongst the IFA community is something that I have become used to over the last 20 or so years and is a continuing embarrasment to our our profession.

I have never known such a disparate, selfish and disconnected group of practicing professionals always trying to find a reason not to do something. Of course there are always exceptions.

As a "body" we have an opportunity now to fight for what we all feel is justice and bring the FSA/FSCS and others to account. We need to galvanise ourselves in a positive way, make a stance and assist Reg & Legal in achieving success. Granted, it is not nor ever will be clear cut but what hope does such generally negative attitude and approach have and indeed what did pessimism and negativity ever achieve? It is better to try and fail than never to have tried at all isn't it? Surely this is in the best interest of our community.

As for anonymous 2, not having £100 to invest in our future belies belief and suggests that his/her/their capital adequacy must be questioned? I'm glad I'm not one of their clients dealing with an adviser with such a serious cash flow challenge!

Well done Gareth and keep the pressure on.........

I despair of the future as an IFA.

If the FSA don't succeed in finishing IFAs off then they will do it themeselves.

Thank God the IFAs who are prepared to put up with whatever is thown at us were not in charge of the country in 1938/39. I have invested my savings in my business and now am struggling to keep going but I am prepared to fight for the principle of independent advice.

Those of you that are not prepared to put in £100 are a disgrace and obviously do not have faith in themselves or their advice.

For God's sake listen to youselves and fight instead of whining!

I cannot , for the life of me, see how IFA's can be placed in the same category as product providers who sell their own products by direct sale or vai IFA's . In NDFA,DRL, ARC, those companies sold their own products.

NDFA, DRL & ARC decided where they would place investors funds and had total conntrol over that placement. They did not have control over Lehmans of course, but they did know how Lehmans marketed the investments in the international marketplace.

An IFA, having carried out a client care assessment merely places a number of products before an investor, for the investor's consideration. The IFA does his research before advising, that how he earns his money. As a matter of record the guidance notes from NDFA for IFA Eyes was no more revealing than the Plan Brochures.

I am not an IFA, nor in any way connected with the IFA industry. I think that the FSCS and the Learned Judge got this wrong, but to prove this a complainant would need to go to a higher court for the ruling to be overturned. Judges do get things wrong regularly.