FSA censures Integrity but waives £350,000 fine

Have they also censured the UK Integrity group? If not what's the point of censuring a company in liquidation if they can carry on as normal selling the same things under a differant guise?

The FSA are in effect admitting they were at fault in not spotting this at an early stage and they hope this empty gesture shows them in a good light as appearing to be both firm but fair.

To paraphrase the Bullseye slogan-''Here's what we could have fined you''

Doesn't this also make a mockery of the various individual Controlled Functions that the FSA tell us are so important.

There is little point wagging a finger at a brass plate, when the directors have taken their ill gotten gains and are then re authorised by the FSA to carry on behind a new Limited Liabilty facade.

Companies don't make decisions - the people controlling them do.

Geared TEPs sold to retail customers?

Was everybody on the good ship Canary Towers asleep?

It sickens me when firms like this are allowed to peddle their scummy wares with no regulatory comeback.

Perhaps the FSA may wish to ponder the remarkably similar histories of the Registered Individuals of Integrity and conclude that some car crashes can be prevented.

Maybe not.

A firm in liquidation with over 100 complaints outstanding and, as sure as eggs are little chickens, more to come, and the directors and controllers get away scot free.

Somebody will have to fund the client's compensation and it does not require too many guesses to come up with the answer as to who that might be.

The Integrity plans were promoted to me by a former colleague, in another life. He had no faith in them but said that as long as he could put me on his called sheet he would be in line for a bonus. He had the good sense to leave them once he had picked up his bonus.

I, naturally, rejected the plans. I'm surprised that other IFAs even gave them a second look. as they were, so obviously, very high risk. I may get brownie points but, as night follows day, there is an FSCS invoice being prepared as I type.,

As the failure here was clearly one of regulatory oversight should not said invoice be directed to the FSA?

Will the individuals charged with authorising Integrity be censured?

Immunity from the charge of incompetence means the FSA will always get it wring.

wrong

Integrity - Who is culpable-

The FSA have dipped out here. There is clearly a need to censure those who designed this product. They cleverly set out to deceive and they are still active as The Integrity Group. The whole structure of the investment was designed to confuse as to responsibilities and the FSA appear to have bought it.

There is also the position of the lenders who facilitated this, they also must have a position of blame which the FSA is blatently ignoring.

Whilst the decision is welcome there si more they could have done and should do.

Can any one think of another "Product" provider whose products were traded life policies? No.... what about Keydata, the non product, product provider who the F-pack tell us was an intermediary and hence falls in the intermediary levy, hence our FSCS interim levy bill. I've just read the FSA's decision on Integrity http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/integrity.pdf and nearly all the words refer to "product" in that one, so does that mean the FSCS levy for it WILL be on product providers this time or once again Intermediaries?

Can the F-pack explain (in leyman's terms please) why integrity was a product provider, but Keydata an intermediary?

Explain the difference in FSCS stance?