FSCS hires law firm to defend against interim levy legal challenge

Why an American firm? No win, no fee?

We will end up paying for this through an increased levy - how mad is that!!!

"... They are spending more public money,' [Fatchett] said."

I'm a bit bothered that the position could be so misrepresented - Andy F's got it right, they're spending more of advisers' money. We're all paying for Fatchett's misguided, egotistical crusade :(

I guess our fees will increase further to pay for the FSCS lawyers as well.

God I just love this industry. Everything I read is about driving down costs and increasing benefits for the consumer (not a bad thing) but at what and whose expense I wonder?

Ultimately the consumer will end up paying more for all this additional regulation so how much has really been achieved?

Sometimes I despair!

Andy F

So what did you think would happen? It was patently obvious. We pay the levy. Some pay additional amounts to Regulatory legal, we all pay for the incurred extra expense involved for the FSCS.

So you all got wound up to 'stand up and be counted' what you didn't realise that the counting was the counting out of fivers from your wallet as they disappeared down the toilet.

That is ever the cost of 'a point of principle'. I hope those who funded Regulatory Legal will feel satisfied that they have received good value.

For those of us who didn’t wish to partake – will we get the additional cost that the FSCS will sting us for refunded? Dream on! Thanks guys for the unsought for extra expense.

Perhaps I am wrong but did AIFA not explain a legal opinion that quite reasonably went against going for a JR as it would fail at the first hurdle. If I am right then it begs the question as to why Gareth Fatchett would want to pursue such a course with the resulting expenses, or otherwise.

I cant believe the continued comments from people not being prepared to invest a few bob to make a stand.

Those of you who roll over and let the regulator and others tickle your tum to keep you happy are so short sighted.

Invest a bit now to stop the continued long term abuse of IFSs by the 'abuse of power' merchants. It is because we dont stand up for ourselves that we are the easy target and 'banker' to losses in these situations.

For gooness sake, act now to stop it.........

........or keep rollong over everytime something else like this happens.

Keep it rolling GF, I know you sometimes wonder why you bother, but there are some of us who understand and back what you are doing!

"... it begs the question as to why Gareth Fatchett would want to pursue such a course with the resulting expenses, or otherwise."

Could it possibly be because he wants to make a name for himself? His behaviour often reminds me that of of the eponymous hero of Migel de Cervantes'

"The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha"...

Just like the FSA ~ you pay us to screw you and, should you dare to object to being screwed, we'll charge you extra to cover the costs of defending the basis on which we're screwing you. Heads we win, tails you lose, so just pay up or pack up.

Seriously, though, is this not a classic example of the iniquities of a regulatory system based on unelected, unaccountable and totally unregulated quangos? They just do whatever they like and anyone or any body that dares to stand in their way is simply trampled on and crushed underfoot like some irksome and inconsequential insect. That's what we've become ~ irksome and inconsequential insects in the face of regulatory tyranny.

And the most amazing thing of all is that these bastards actually believe they're doing a good job.

"... it begs the question as to why Gareth Fatchett would want to pursue such a course ........."

221 x £200 = £44,200

Costs (if defeated early) = est £10,000?

Profit = £34,200

Nothing wrong with making a healthy profit though, and there may also be some risk because I presume RL will have to pay the other side's costs if awarded and it's more than the fighting fund?...lets hope it doesnt just add to future levies as feared...

As unhappy camper rightly points out ,the FSCS is not spending public money it is spending our money!

Is it not worrying that Mr Fachett does not appear to realise this?

What a bunch of pathetic , sanctimonious & negative comments about the legal challenge! How on earth do they know it wont succeed & if it does it will succeed in proving that the system that we all submit to like lambs is flawed.

If it does succeed as I would hope will Mr Katz & the other abstainers who benefit agree to reimburse the few who have taken up the challenge - I think not but in the event they will be happy to benefit !

I don't actually care if I am wasting my money paying RL's fee. I would rather pay something voluntarily and loose than assume the position and have a royal shafting without at least biting back. Yes it MAY cost me even more, but the point is we have seen nothing but being shafted for the last 9 years under FSMA and personally I have had enough......

If the FSCS want to stick to their guns, there needs to be some kind of accountability from their end too and they need to release the information upon which they base their decisions so they can be challenged.

Isn't David Barnett right-aren't the FSA above JR?

Whatever happens there will only be two winners in all this, RL and Bingham McCutchen

There are few lawyers that do things for the sake of good/victims or the interest of justice etc.

They are there to make a very good living out of what ever situation arises.

My friend is a 'keydata victim', they have also been approached to line the lawyers pockets on a 'fighting fund', now who could that be....ah yes, RL

Firstly in response to Mr Fenton. I have already said in another blog on this site that even if I’m wrong (doubtful) I won’t be whinging for a refund.

More important that they settle with the poor clients (a point which seems to have escaped most of you). What is happening is that we are getting levied AND they refuse to pay out – because Key Data could not have foreseen the fraud. Now it looks as if (if one deal is accepted) it may take 14 years to pay out the clients. Do you wonder that so many people won’t save?

Just imagine the fantastic publicity IFAs could garner if we fought the FSCS on this point – rather than moaning about our own interests. We would be hailed as heroes and really wrong foot the Regulators whose task it is supposed to be and at which they lamentably fail. If you want a contribution for that campaign – give me a call.

Secondly – if (and here I respond to you Phil) you want to splash out money in order to hit out at the Regulator – then contribute to something that has a more realistic chance of winning. Tony Shearer - the ex CEO of Singer & Friedlander - is preparing to take the FSA to Judicial Review (out of his own money). Read the details – my view is that he has a pretty good chance of pulling their pants down. Contribute to that – at least you stand a chance of getting some satisfaction.

I’m the last one who enjoys being shafted, but I like to think I’m a realist. Give me a real prospect of winning or inflicting some real damage and I’m your man – I just don’t believe at tilting at windmills.

The idea that RL are doing this to to generate fees is pretty pathetic, and those who have commented to that effect should be ashamed of themselves.

Everytime you arrange something for a client you put some very important things on the line, your reputation and integrity. For RL this is just the same, to be seen to be entering into spurious actions simply to generate fees would only work once!

It's exactly the same basis upon which we do business with our clients, you benefit from the client's trust and if you abuse that precious commodity then you will lose your client.

Harry, how do you know we're tilting at windmills, and how do you know that both the RL action and the S&F action you refer to cannot both succeed, they are not mutually exclusive?

Totally agree as I indicated yesterday - I think the word "sanctimonious" that I used suitably applies to Harry!

Here's living in hope that others see sense & support this action.

the issue around Keydata Victims is actually more important than the relatively small amount my firm ahs been asked to pay towards the FSCS Levy and when or if we need to help fund action against the F - pack for Keydata Victims, then I will do so as I think they have been treated very shoddily by the system. I have helped several non clients on the issue already where I can and try to help where I can with comments on the Keydata Victims site.

The main problem is the lack of accountability for actions (or innactions) within the whole of the F-pack system. They loose nothing f they make a bad decision or even worse an illegal one.

As and IFA I pay the FSCS fees, pay for legals actions of Fatchett, then pay the FSCS defence and win or lose I pay for both sides.

It makes me sick.

Gordon's FSMA 2000 is CORRUPTION TO THE CORE!

I agree wholeheartedly with Phil Castle, everybody is worried about shelling out a few hundred quid whilst many people have lost £10,000's, in some cases their life savings.

My mother invested in Keydata because she believed that the FSA and associated recommendations was in effect a guarantee, how wrong she was, whilst people continue to bleat and blame everybody else, the public will soon treat IFAs with the same derision as estate agents.

She now has the decision as to whether to entrust her hard earned money via a financial advisor or hand it over to Gordon and Alistair, at least the money will be safe there if not making earth-shattering interest.