Is Gareth Fatchett biting the hand that feeds him?

Show me a lawyer who'll work for 'no win no fee'.

He's only in it for the lolly and doesn't care where it comes from.

I feel sorry for the IFAs who believe he could win. He has no chance but he will still get paid.

One afternoon a lawyer was riding in his limousine when he saw two men along the road-side eating grass.

Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate.

He asked one man, "Why are you eating grass?"

"We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied. "We have to eat grass."

"Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I'll feed you,"

the lawyer said.

"But sir, I have a wife and two children with me.

They are over there, under that tree."

"Bring them along," the lawyer replied.

Turning to the other poor man he stated, "You come with us, also."

The second man, in a pitiful voice, then said,

"But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me !"

"Bring them all, as well," the lawyer answered.

They all entered the car, which was no easy task,

even for a car as large as the limousine was.

Once under way, one of the poor fellows turned to the lawyer and said,

"Sir, you are too kind."

"Thank you for taking all of us with you.

The lawyer replied, "Glad to do it. "You'll really love my place.

"The grass is almost a foot high"

Having met Gareth Fatchett a few times he seemed OK to me.

Made me laugh - many thanks

It's good to see that Regulatory Legal are being proactive in trying to help clients that have invested with Keydata.

Although I can understand some concerns about conflicts of interest , I have met Gareth on several occasions.

I am sure he will put the best interests of IFA's and clients first.

There are good IFAs and bad IFAs, good clients and bad clients, good staff at the F-pack and bads staff at the F-pack.

The point is that a good IFA can make a mistake and a bad F-pack can make a good decision.

If you are looking for justice and fairness, then it is entirely possible to sit on both sides of the fence. We are not talking criminal law where you sit one side or the otehr and may have cases asigned to you, we are talking civil law with the legal proffessional deciding (hopefully) to sit the side where the law can be demonstrated , unfortunately law isn't always about justice and that is where a judges decsion can change things slightly from where the law was to where it should be to achieve justice and his/her summing up can help put pressure on changing the law to where justice can be better achieved when teh laws have been porrly drafted. FSMA 2000 being a prime example fo where the aims were probably OK, bt the drafting poor, take the dropping of the 15 year longstop from the rulebook with no consultation, or the FSCS levy group for Keydata being at odds with it's description as a "product provider" or the fact that Financial Advice firms who do not give Financial Advice (or seperate there arms such as HL and again that is no criticism of them) fall in to the same F-pack levy group as advisory firms when the risk is different.

We all need to input comments on the restructuring of the FSCS levy so that similar business modesl go in to similar levy pools and are supervised in a similar way with cross subsidy being the exception rather than the rule.

If it is an issue surrounding N&P advice then surely DISP/FOS is the route to go down? Why launch a civil action when there is a perfectly fine route in place already?

If a client has received inappropriate advice from an adviser then that has nothing to do with FSCS unless of course N&P are in default? Why only N&P - because they have lots of complainants?

Instead of "no win, no fee" how about just "no fee". How many endowment cases were handled by third parties using DISP rules and taking huge slices of any redress due?

I have no problems with RL trying to run a commercial venture and marketing will be key to that - but lets not pretend that this is a consumer champion outfit.

The FOS is NOT an alternative dispute resolution service. It is judeg jury and executioner.

If true ADR was used, then a meeting of minds between N&P, their PI insueres (if they have one) and Keydata Victims could tease out a potential solution without the need for legal action, nor for the FOS version of injustice.

The only dealings I have had with FOS is when trying to assist clients to present a complaint to the FOS in a manner that the FOS understand. I have found the FOS crap in this way and as a result I can see good reason for a legal firm to present a case/put an argument forward for discussion.

Mr F has always liked a bit of free publicity hasn't he? I recall writing to him years ago, and not being very impressed with his repsonse I'm afraid.

And yet the FSA says we should all aspire to match the 'professional ethics' of lawyers...

I think there are some others at fault here and I applaud reg legal in fighting for the people - the But I do believe that the IFAs in question have been under enormous amounts of pressure as have all the staff at N&P.

The management teams at N&P have a lot to answer for in this case. The IFA population has been more than cut in half with no support staff and targets increased. The customer service staff were actively taught by management how to sell these bonds to clients everyone with an account over 10k - Mr/Mrs client we can get you an income/interest for 7% on your money..... When everywhere else is paying 2% if your lucky at the time!

N&P pride themselves on being the first institute to gain basle but with a corporate salesman in charge of the sales teams Mr Bullock has allowed his society to become everything he used to hate.... Product pushing, hard targets, unmotivated staff & a financial services institution being run on a shoe string.

"best building society" awards - that's debateable! And certainly from clients that have lost not just huge sums of money but their live savings!!

When on earth IS the bloody FSA going to get a grip on advisors, bank staff, senior managers of these institutions - targeting staff with sky high targets to "sell sell sell" products after products after products.

I happen to know staff at N&P being threatened with disciplinary action if they discuss the keydata debacle externally and to clients, the same staff that were told to sell this s**t to clients with a 7% return even after this investment was graded a No No they continued to plug it and Now they have to face clients every day who have lost their life savings. I don't see Mr Bullock & co sitting in front office of branches dealing with these clients.

It's a mess and his head that's been buried in the sand for a while is now well & truly on the block - and not before time I may add!

Apologies for any mistyping & spelling. So difficult on the phone email!