Tories will not overturn FSA's long-stop stance

DO NOT VOTE TORY

SIMPLES

"Linda Woodall, head of investments at the FSA told Castle: 'While we have no wish to restrict innovation in the marketplace, using a ToB to selectively disapply or amend our Handbook requirements will always be unacceptable and we reserve our right to take action against any firm doing so."

What?

Has this Guardian Reading Waste of Space ever actually read the FSA Handbook?

I would be grateful if somebody could correct me...But as I read it, there is no rule anywhere in the FSA handbook explicitly stating that firms must be liable in perpetuity.

Indeed DISP 2.8 ordinarily applies the 6-year and 3-year limitation rules to the FOS and only allows them to ignore these "as a result of exceptional circumstances" [DISP 2.8.2 R(3)]. Likewise, firms are ordinarily allowed to reject any complaint without assessing its merits where these time limits are breached. [DISP 1.8.1. R].

Where cases reach the Ombudsman (usually several years after the complaint, once lots of unqualified contract staff supplied by the likes of Momenta or Hazell Carr have lost the paper work 2-3 times), the Ombudsman is, heaven forbid, supposed at least to *take into account* the law [DISP 3.6.4 R (1)(a)]. And the law, as we all know, says the Limitation Act applies to such cases when before the courts: Shore v Sedgwick Financial Services [2007] EWHC 2509; [2008] EWCA Civ 863.

Sorry to run on about this, but...

Parliament delegates the rule-making powers of the FSA to the FSA's Board who must conduct a cost-benefit analysis, consult on proposals and issue a 'rule making' instrument confirming the provisions under which they are exercising their powers etc [s.153, FSMA]...

...It makes me SO angry when junior officials like Ms Woodall believe that they have the right to make it up as they go along. They do not - and we must make this crystal clear to them.

I recently had correspondence from AVIVA asking if I could recall the details of a sale made in 1996 when I was an AR for CU working for the Norwich and Peterborough. They had had a mortgage endowment complaint sponsored by an "ambulance chaser". I asked for the sales file and checked that all risk warnings required at the time were shown, documented and signed for.

I had merely discussed repayment or endowment, the mortgage product and term being selected by the branch manager, not by me. This particular mortgage went past the customers retirement age, but during the mortgage interview they would have discussed the reasons why. This was at a time well before any warnings were required re going past retirement by CU or the regulator; indeed, as an employee of N&P/CU I had no discretion to add my own.

Every case at the time was checked and signed off by a CU department as compliant to see that I had used the prescribed and required risk warnings.

Now, some bright spark at AVIVA wants to uphold the claim against me as they are applying today's standards and glibly telling me what I should have done 13 years ago, doubtless when they failed their 11 plus, without any regard to the facts surrounding the case/procedures at the time.

Quite how we would be able to defend ourselves in the future when the goalposts are moved is frightening.

M.P.s complain that they are being penalised retrospectively over their expenses in the Legge report - welcome to the club!

I do NOT like being threatened. This is an implied threat from Ms Woodall and bearing in mind she has refused to even read the document before saying it is unacceptable proves to me the FSA is our of control.

Either someone in the Tories has told Chris Cummings something completely different to that which they told Citywire (and Alan Lakey as I read on IFAOnline), or someone is lying. I suspect it is not Chris, nor Alan and it is time for us all to stand by our principles and NOT allow the FSA to use principles to overall our own.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/adviser/-/news/regulation-training-and-competence/content.aspx?ID=364423&ViewFull=True

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/1559714/tories-bring-stop-aifa

I doubt anyone's lying about this. More a mixture of left-hand v right-hand and the usual politician's approach to trying to keep differing groups happy.

As for the Woodall troll threatening you and then not wanting to enter into correspondence, I note from the FSA Organogram that she reports to Leslie Titcombe (who herself looks like she could never get a job in the Private Sector). Perhaps write to Ms Titcombe explaining that Ms Woodall is too busy subverting the rule of law to answer your queries, and make clear some of the points I've been putting here and on blogs elsewhere?