Nedas criticises Mint over Integrity compensation

I'm sorry, but Paul is talking out of his hat.

I have little time for Networks like Mint, and even less for the so-called Integrity scam...but if the Network makes an offer to a client under the auspices of the FOS procedure (i.e. it must satisfy the adjudicator that it's a reasonable attempt at putting the clients back into the position they would have been in), that's not exactly 'unfair' behavious by a firm - especially if, as the Adjudicator points out, the Ombudsman himself might overturn the decision had Mint put up a sufficient fight.

You refer to "the formula", but the truth of investment complaints is that the redress amount varies depending on the baseline of comparison chosen e.g. cash rolling up at bank base rate versus a suitable managed fund etc.

This is hardly 'abuse'. The clients need not have accepted it. It's not as if the Mint Compliance Department was round there twisting the clients arm...

Actually most of the clients are in such a bad way, suffering from shock because

an IFA who they trusted advised them to purchase this investment telling them it was low risk and had " guaranteed returns", when it turned out to be high risk

The investment had the backing of the Bank of Scotland so was foolproof

The advertising material was clearly misleading and produced by a firm that boasted being regulated by the FSA

These people are likely to settle for a low amount just to try and get an end to their nightmare. So yes abuse is a good word to use

Well, without seeing or knowing the formula, it's difficult to comment. As someone who has been 'abused' by the whole Integrity debacle, I'm just pleased to see someone getting some financial re-dress. On the wider issue, it's the lenders I'd like to see in the firing line: BoS have got away with being involved with these supposed investment scams for too long.

Who is the Man in Black, who thinks I'm talking out of my hat?

In fact, he appears to be unfamiliar with the facts regarding the FOS procedure:

1. Client submits complaint to FOS

2. Adjudicator collects facts

3. Adjudicator issues decision which may include an amount or in this case a

formula. In fact, neither the Adjudicator or the client knew the £££ which

would have resulted from the calculation of the formula.

4. The Adjudicator plays no part if provider makes an offer which is less than

the sum of the Adjudicator's formula.

5. The client can either accept the offer or ask for the complaint to be referred

to an Ombudsman for a final decision. He will be warned by the Adjudicator

that there is the risk that the Ombudsman may reverse the adjudication

and therefore the client may end up with nothing.

It is on this basis that Mint's clients accepted the derisory offer.

I still believe that this action represents abuse of both the client and the FOS Complaints procedure.

Man in Black, or anyone else, is welcome to contact me for further information: Paul@WealthManagementForce.com

Well here we go again.

The blog submissions from Mr Nedas appeared to have dried up after I asked a simple question on another thread. Perhaps he was busy studying for CF2?

So I'll ask the question again.

In the interests of credibility, and to set everyone's mind at rest, perhaps Paul would like to let us know exactly what financial services qualifications he currently holds?

I'm sure that this, together with a potted bio detailing FS industry experience will help to discourage those who have stated that he is nothing more than an ambulance-chaser.

Hi again, back on the blog.

In all fairness, Claims handlers don't have to be skilled or knowledgeable about Financial Services to assist clients, it does help, but they operate under Ministry of Justice rules, not FSA rules.

That said, I am sure he is correct in his assumptions about how the clients above were treated by mint, I have a case going through FOS at present about a mortgage arranged by one of their advisers so that in conjunction with the infamous IFA P R, allowed PR to sell the Integrity GTEP plan to them, this case is well covered in previous blogs.

Despite firm documentary evidence submitted to Mint FS Ltd, that the broker in question had submitted an application form to a lender on a self cert basis with totally incorrect and false income information, they rejected the clients claim and it has had to go the FOS, which has taken some months to get to the stage where an adjudicator has been appointed to investigate it.

Networks and those who are the subject of Integrity mis selling claims will in my experience do everything possible to delay settlement, in the hope the clients get dispirited and go away or just give up and settle for less than they are due.

The DOS and FSCS compensation award limits are too low and it is galling to see that IFAs are being levied by FSCS for what was in effect a provider issue concerning both the construction of the product plus the apparent and quite blatant unsuitability of the product to the major portion of those it was sold to, usually elderly, retired and asset rich, income poor.

I note Gareth Fachetts condemnation of Mints failings, he also has a case in hand representing an iFA, which has gone to final decision accepted by both client and adviser and has as yet not been settled due to a problem the adviser has stated regarding his PI Insurer and their denial of liability due to alleged non disclosure.

As there has been a final decision, which is now enforceable as if it was a CCJ, I have advised those two clients to issue a Statutory Demand for payment against the adviser and his firm, rather than get involved in being co litigants against the advisers PI insurer. They are pursuing that option.

Anyone who has had a FOS final decision needs to consult a solicitor to get the Statutory Demand procedure up and running asap.

I note that Intrinsic appears to have taken Mint FS onboard now, maybe we will see some progress now, or they could just do what A2O did and close it down leaving us once again with the compen bill to pay via an additional levy.

Until someone with common sense is in charge of the regulatory body (not the current management whose only issues are saving face with regard to RDR) then not much will change, IFA firms will go to the wall left right and centre due to these horrendous issues and of course, many people like me at 61, may well say, enough is enough and take up woodturning as ahobby.

Ah well, soon be Xmas!!

I can then take a couple of weeks off and take part in some goodwill.