Towry Law granted injunction against ex-Edward Jones advisers

It's about time that the issue of advisers taking confidential client information with them when they leave a company is addressed. For far too long there have only been mild threats of action but a court case, if successful, may well make others think again.

I wonder whether Towry Law really own these clients? Or were these client relationships that had been developed by the individual advisers?

Many advisers at M2 Financial had this issue. Clients that had been with them for 20 years, long before M2 Financial was dreamt of, suddenly 'belonged' to M2 Financial when the advisers chose to leave the company.

Bully-boy tactics from Towry law or legitimate?

These adviser actually knocked on the clients doors to initially get their business.

The clients bought into the advisers themselves, not necessarily the company they worked for.

If the clients wish to remain with the adviser what is the problem?

If TL provide such a great service then they should have nothing to worry about.

By taking this action, TL are intimating that they cannot compete with the personal service provided by the client's former EJ advisers and are just trying to bully their way into obtaining clients.

Come on TL, try competing on quality and service.

From what I can gather the EJ model of getting clients in the first place is that of the old fashioned boots on the ground, walk and talk to people.

So if I was a former EJ advisor in a new job I would be inclined to tread the same path as previous and if it so happened that the same individual welcomed me into their home to discuss their financial arrangements, then that couldn't possibly be construed as adviser's misusing confidential client information.

Ultimately, the client doesn't belong to the company or the adviser working for any given company. The client has the freedom of making their own decisions as to who advises him/her and should not form the basis of some convoluted legal argument that only serves to feather the nests of the lawyers.

I am in mixed minds.

Confidential information should not have been taken and that is a Data Protection issue too.

A contract is a contract... I don't know what the EJ contract said.

There is a big difference between soliciting clients and clients coming to you, there is also the issue over how long anti soliciting can be prevented using information in the public domain.

In order NOT to accidentally solicit a former client with a general mailshot or decline to deal with a former client, one would have to have kept a list of clients.

This could prove quite interesting, but not very nice for those caught up in any legal action. What will the FSAs stance be on this in the interim as if they suspend authorisation of advisers pending legal action to be fair and reasonable, then surely Andrew Fisher and the senior management of TL should be suspended in the same way pending the outcome!

i would expect anyone looking at an interview with them to cancel

A firm employs advisers to attract retain and service clients.

The adviser signs a contract to the effect that the rights to these clients are owned by their employer.

The adviser takes no risk at this stage, but gets paid for their work.

When they leave the clients remain with the employer.

Or do they also think they should keep their company cars because they've got used to driving them?

Its breach of contract. If they want their own clients they should set up their own company at the outset.

If the contract to buy EJ handcuffed existing advisers for 3 years (perhaps a contract of employment "forced" on the advisers in the immediate turmoil) then no court in the land should enforce it unless it was accompanied by some very hefty consideration from TL - which seems doubtful.

Interesting that the report suggests the "crime" is use of data rather than solicitation of clients - is this a clever way of policing an unenforceable contract - otherwise you would just leave it to the Data Protection Commissioner? Bully boy tactics indeed.

If those whose date was "abused" assuming it was not all in the advisers head are not bothered - which perhaps they won't be - what's the crime?

TL has very materially changed for the worse the terms of service for Edward Jones clients - I imagine without cutting charges - in it's drive for profit - although perhaps that's confidential aswell!

Perhaps Mr Fisher is hoping the clients won't receive advice and that the trail commission will be lumped in with the other £6m pa his company get for doing nothing.

Is a contract in restraint of trade ( ie saying that an individual cannot practice his profession) enforceable? I doubt it.

The other difficulty TL will face is one of proof. If the EJ advisers were smart all communications with clients would have been verbal, and, if as is likely to be the case, the client relationship was with the adviser and not the firm TL are going to struggle. .

Where clients join firms through acquisition, they have the right to choose whether they retain the services of their former or new adviser. There may be good relationships, trust etc. that clients wish to retain. Leaving advisers however do not have the right to actively poach clients with the express desire of preserving their own interests.

I'm fairly sure about four things;

Names addresses and phone numbers are not confidential information

Most agency contracts contain clauses which are unreasonable and therefore, unenforceable.

Restraint of trade actions are all about intimididating the few in order to send a message to the many.

Injunctions can be obtained on very flimsy evidence and are a form of intimidation whch can be often be easily overturned (at a price)

ie How big are your balls?

"As part of the deal, the contract also stipulated that any Edward Jones employee who left the firm would be unable to work in independent financial services for the next three years or ‘entice’ clients or advisers from Towry Law."

If this is true then anyone who signed it must need their head examined. In effect they are agreeing that if they leave EJ/TL then they will not work in FS for 3 years. What are they expected to do for 3 years? I do wonder if this is a "restraint of trade" and possibly unenforceable.

What about the clients' rights? If they want to stay with a particular adviser why should they be barred from following the adviser when they leave a firm? I asked the FSA for their advice on this when in a similar position some years ago, and in their usual spineless fashion their (eventual) reply was that 'they would not seek to interfere between a firm and the advisers.'

Doesnt that just go to show how they really value the ideal of treating customers fairly?

This is crazy, if this goes to court I cannot wait for the outcome. To say that someone cannot be involved in their trade for three years will not stand up in court.

I hope that T.L. lose the case and the advisers are heavily compensated, by at least three years of income, definate bully boy tacticts.

As an ex-BOA of Edward Jones (who I would have been happy to work for until I retired, great firm) I decided to move my investments away from Towry Law. I know my Financial Adviser and he knows me. The new Adviser taken on by Towry Law doesn't know me and he was probably only taken on by Towry Law because so many of the first phase, the good advisers, had left the firm, unwilling to work under the new conditions. I am furious to think that I, as a client, am expected to move away from the person I trust. The point is that I have my advisers phone number so I can choose to contact him. I got my letter from Towry Law and it just confirmed to me that I don't want to be a client of theirs as I don't like their terms and conditons. No-one can tell me who to invest with. That is my business. As for telling FAs that they can only work with Towry Law or leave their profession as they cannot work as an FA for 3 years, I can only say it stinks. About as much as the takeover did. I expect huge numbers of clients will also have telephoned their FA when they got their Towry Law letter through. Don't blame the FA. My FA didn't raid the records. He was above all that. In fact, that is what working for Edward Jones was all about. Being trustworthy and ethical. That is why I joined the firm.

As an ex EJ (Seg 4) who left under the existing EJ contract. We are not held to a three year "no Compete" clause. The guys that stayed and excepted the TL new contract are stuffed!.

The contract does state that we cannot solicit clients away. However, it does not state that we cannot accept business from the EJ clients. As a previous comments states, we gained this clients trough self generated contact, and had seen them regularly for years. These clients have recently be given new T & C from TL that state there will be no regular reviews and most of the services we offered will be stopped.

For those of us that have stayed local and have kept up our marketing and public face the clients have tracked us down. Therefore unless confidential info was used to make an "ingoing" call to an EJ/TL client it is surely a case that the clients have chosen who they will continue to take advice from.

TL have a much lesser presence in the community than we had at EJ (and have continued to have), and have closed offices all over the country. They should just accept that the clients bought us and would not neccesarily have chosen TL for advice.

Good luck to the guys that are being sacrificed!. But TL this is doing you no favours with the few EJ clients you have left!.

Even a one year non practicing clause would probably not stand up to legal scrutiny, let alone a three year one. Six months paid gardening leave max.

Knowing the Mom 'n Pop way EJ worked I find it highly unlikely that any EJ client feels that they belong to TL.

A three year lockout would only be deemed possible if an adviser had voluntarily signed a contract agreeing such terms - not if if the terms were agreed with EJ. If EJ did sign such a contract they were acting ultra vires. If any EJ advisers signed such a contract they are certifiable - but it is still an overarching restraint of trade under UK law, and under EU law is probably on a par with shooting puppies.

If any ex EJ advisers have any hard copy - paper or digital - client details, which do now belong to TL, you must destroy them. Any hand written client details, for example in a personal diary, are demonstrably your own. Work your way through them from the top down, and use the phone. Once they have signed transfer of brokerage agreements any relationshi they may have had with TL is gone.

Watch out for some Life Companies - Skandia, Prudential - who won't act on client transfer authority. Otherwise good luck.

I have heard of the tactics employed by some advisers who did make the move from EJ to TL and would sugest they follow the old saying regarding life in glasshouses and the random distribution of large hard ground dwelling objects!

I don't think this has been reported entirely accurately... from following the EJ stories since the beginning, it sounds like the contract with TL was just an extension of the pre-existing EJ contract (which I used to be bound by a few years ago) which did have the standard non-solicitation clause found in most contracts.

However, I don't believe TL really had a clause saying advisers who leave can't work in FS for 3 years - as many have commented, this would never stand up. And besides, I know of plenty of ex-EJ advisers who have left and stayed in the industry, gone to competitors, set up own companies etc. and not been sued! I believe if you went back through the Citywire stories you'd find that part of the £1 sale agreement was that Edward Jones the company would not try to come back to the UK and set up business again for at least 3 years - not that advisers were barred for 3 years.

I think this might just be yet another case of questionable Citywire reporting... remember, the more hits they get from people leaving comments here, the more they can say to their advertisers "look how many people read Citywire...". It's in their best interests to sensationalise a story... just like any other news publication... (i.e. keep a pinch of salt handy).

All EJ advisers that pre-dated Dec 2005 had signed new contracts that restricted them from 'Soliciting Business' for one year from when they resigned. It does not stop the client dealing with the ex-EJ Adviser if the client wants away from EJ/TL, as long as the client made the first move.

My EJ business card had my own personal mobile phone number. Any client that wanted to continue a relationship with me after I left EJ simply phoned my mobile phone number and many have. I have not contacted any of my old clients on the basis that my contract doesn't allow it and if an old client hasn't contacted me, it means they don't want me to continue as their adviser (or the TL adviser has pulled the wool over their eyes - some of the claims TL advisers are making are outrageous and bordering on being libellous).

I have been told that the injunction has been served against a certain US Stockbroker with an UK arm (no it isn't Edward Jones!) This company targetted the EJ advisers that had greater than £10m AUM. Their business model seemingly been based on moving assets away from EJ. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

As my next door neighbour (and client) says, it's my money and I'll decide who looks after my interests, not Ian Fisher.

Andrew Fisher you really are showing your true colours now and showing what a crock your company really is! Think of me as a client of Edward Jones reading this now??!!! where do you think I would want to put my money? with somebody i have built a relationship with for 3 years who I trust, like and see regularly or transfer my assets to a firm that is going to sue the advisor i have been with before if i take my business to him???? Does that sound like you have faith in the quality of your firm I think not!!! If Towry Law really are the firm that clients should be with why don’t you let them vote with their feet. Are we forgetting about TCF??? The issue of data protection is ridiculous the data on the EJ systems was obtained by the advisor knocking on doors do you not think he knows where his clients live???!!!! I hope this becomes an embarrassing case for you Towry law!

Mr Fisher why incur all the legal fees, if you are so confident that TR are such a "quality firm" then let the clients decide. - But I think you know what the outcome of this would be.

Go on Mr Fisher change the habit of a lifetime and put the clients first, you might be surprised, but I doubt it.

Most of my old EJ clients have contacted me directly via my personal mobile phone- a number they have had, in some cases for 9 years! and also confirmed in writing that they want to retain myself NOT TL as their advisor. One of my clients has been told verbally by a TL advisor that "she cannot deal with myself as financial advisor for 12 months", to which the client reminded the TL advisor of her freedom to choose whoever she likes as her FA.

(The client was then told that TL has reduced their minimum DIM portfolio level from £100k to £10k- Smacks of desperation i think!!

In processing transfer out paperwork TL have sat on ISA transfer out requests for approx six weeks,,and non ISA transfer requests for 7 weeks!! Which clearly breaches FSA guidelines- what about best execution??. Mr Fisher -What about TCF- Principle 6- You are clearly preventing clients moving to other Companies. I think Mr Fisher should look closer to home at such breaches, and provide better SLAs in meeting clients requests to transfer funds away. But then he does have friends in high places at the FSA!

So glad i didn't join such a shambles, i hope these chaps win their case.

I left EJ at takeover time, very mindful of my contract. However 80% of my clients have contacted me saying they would prefer it if I dealt with their affairs. I have gladly brought them in and not charged them for their existing investments.

Most of them have not been appointed a new adviser, despite TL telling them in January this would be done. Some has pension contributions and ISA contributions to make and realised they were not being cared for.

If TL is making such a fuss perhaps it should be taking better car of its 70,000, yes I said 70,000 'orphan' clients. ie those they cannot be bothered to service.

With all the criticism of EJ that has taken place you cannot fault EJ advisers customer service or dedication.

On the point about delays in transfers. this is very much the case. Usually the transfer is submitted then TL phone the client trying to persuade them to stay. I have one client who decided to close his accounts, sell his investments and asked for a cheque. This is a clear SELL order which has not been executed.

What kind of an outfit are they?

Quiet day for news. Most likely Mr Fishers early morning call to Nicholas Paler. Is it 6 advisers or one American Firm.

Maybe he wants to to search closer to home for what is not acceptable. How about his advisers lying to clients about how long they have been with TL (Jones) . An 18 month adviser told a client he had been with Jones for 6 years. Or the other adviser who spent 5 hours, yes, 5 hours in a clients house in order to get a signature. Lots of stories like this.

Let the clients decide. They dont belong to anyone, let them vote with their feet. And roll on early 2011 when we can activley contact clients who went to TL, only to find they are being charged handsomley for a fund of funds by someone who is no longer with them. Talk about low hanging fruit.

Three year rule. Not in my contract.

Everyone has their opinion of Andrew Fisher, not much of it good, and rightly so. This is the man who writes to clients to say:

1) There will be no changes (in Nov). Mis truth, we will write to you in April and tell you about all the charges we will impose.

2) Things are progressing well, and we are sorry we havnt been in touch> (Feb Letter)

It should have read: so many people have left, we have too many clients to service, but the few we have left are focusing on people who are way more important than you are, so if you are fortunate enough to have enough funds to be of interest to us, we will be in touch soon, if not only just to tell you how we will charge you for sneezing!

3) We have retained the vast majority of our experienced advisers!! April letter.

Should have read: we retained many good people about 120, but wanted to retain 240. Sadly the majority of the experienced people saw through me and my management team and resigned. Oh, by the way, please read the new T&C's, and if you really want to move, we will charge you £20 per line, but only when we can be bothered to process it. We beleive in TCF and timely execution.

I like your style

John Burchett is correct. Advisers for years have solicited clients on the premise they are theirs. They might have made contact with them, took them onboard, provided valuable advice but they are still not their clients. On whose time, resource and support did they use for this ?

Yes, clients can decide who they wish to deal with, but former advisers cannot solicit them.

Any article on Towry gets the usual suspect throwing mud and petty comments. If someone left your own business and starting poaching and enticing clients of your firm what would you do ?

I may not be a massive fan of Andrew Fisher but he is acting as any normal businessman would act in protecting his investment. From the words and comments left on this site - it is clear that most of these people haven't run a business themselves but seem happy to go from firm to firm (how else can they have acquired such an indepth knowledge of contract and employment law!!!).

Who takes on all the risk and costs of supporting advisers within a practice? The business owner so why shouldn't he move to protect his investment?

All the bad mouthing of former employees etc does lead me to ask how they will service their clients going forward? Maintaining the existing investments and charging a fee for planning and monitoring purposes? Or will it be a switch of investments because that is the only way to get paid going forward? If I was FSA I would be looking at all ex-EJ advisers and not just those who now work at TL.

With £100m a week currently exiting EJ Mr F has to do something.

As for client data there is absolutely no defence for taking that and if you did, then on your head be it.

However with the records I have of the number of clients that contacted me via my personal mobile phone (always on my EJ business card) there was absolutely no need to take any data. If TL really wanted to keep the clients they should have been talking to them.

As it is the only contact a lot of clients have had is a letter informing them of the take over, a letter closing any account with no nominee assets and a letter with new terms and conditions not exactly customer service (esp. as these are HNW individuals).

No wonder clients are leaving in droves - without inducement, persuasion, soliciting or anything else that may be restricted.

This is also FOA John Burchett & Paul Barnard.

The issue I have with the client confidential information is that I went past the old EJ Lytham St Anne's branch the other day whilst on a bankholiday outing (that TL closed) to find blue bags in the window piled high with client confidential information on display!!! Slightly worrying!!!!

The landlord of my old office contacted me as he found confidential client details left over from the new adviser sent in their when I left & after they had shut that office down.OOOPS!!

We don't need to take client information they are left for public consumption!!!

Maybe the issue of client confidential information should be taken more seriously by Towry Law!!

So no we don't believe its right to hold confidential client information. Most of us haven't need to contact our clients they are contacting us which isn't hard as our mobile numbers were on our business cards!!

Maybe if TL acted in clients best interest, liase with them and build relationships and offer the service they have been used to people wouldn't be as keen to follow their previous adviser!!!!

if the EJ adviser can no longer service a clients need who will, a Towry Law adviser, on a self employed contract it will be the client who suffers.

I have in fact run my own IFA business for 15 years. Up to March 2004 we had been networked and went direct just in time to miss our erstwhile network falling into administration. So we survived but I learnt an awful lot about contracts.

Edward Jones was always a different business model from that of most IFAs. Stockbroker/Adviser in the retail space was something many people scratched their heads over. Office provided? Yes. PA provided? Yes. Clients provided? No.

The EJ advisers had to acquire clients the hard way, by knocking on doors. There was no marketing to the general public, no cosy deal to provide advice to affinity groups, no telesales dept and no orphan clients. Desk, phone, get on with it.

The provision of an office and a secretary was in fact easily paid for by the very low commission split that EJ gave its advisers.

Towry Law bought a failed company and the right to talk to the advisers about moving to TL. Nothing else. Clients deal with people, place their trust in people. They do not tend to care very much who a parent company might be as long as their chosen IFA works on their investments. That is why attempting to corporatise an IFA model will always be doomed to failure.

In this instance it would appear that very few EJ advisers have made the paradigm shift to TL. It would follow then that the advisers clients went with them. The fact that personal mobile numbers were on EJ business cards is very funny.

We have had a number of advisers work for us and then move on. In every case I did not want their clients and chose to novate all clients to their new authorised entity. This of course will not happen with TL as they need the renewals to stay afloat and what they thought of as a £1.5bn client asset pile to churn into TL DIFs. Only now the asset pile is walking out of the door, because this is a people business and Mr Fisher forgot to engage with the people.

Firstly, let me get one thing out of the way, if people have taken client information from their offices and used it to entice client's away then they are stupid. At best they have been naive.

I decided early on that Mr Fisher, Cowan and Middleton weren't people I wanted to work for and so, as was my right under my existing Edward Jones contract, I resigned and served my appropriate notice period as 'gardening leave'.

I soon found out that as an adviser from the original batch of 220 offered contracts, my actions were the same as the majority. My guess is 60-70% of people left.

The people that left were all 'experienced' advisors with years of tenure so I would be interested to hear the ambiguous definition of 'experienced advisors' who stayed in the letter mentioned earlier that was sent out to clients in March.

As previously stated by others, my mobile number was on my card and clients have contacted me that way, but also I had many clients through networking groups (promoted by EJ as a way to get clients) such as rotary that see me every week anyway and have approached me through those avenues.

It shouldn't come as any surprise to TL that some clients were unimpressed by the prospect of moving from a company that prided itself on personal service, relationship building, dealing in individual shares, gilts, bonds and all the other products you would expect from a financial advisor to a company of homogenised discretionary management (with the charge of 1.5% initial fee and up to 2% Annual Management Fee) and no individual advice on current portfolios that weren't changed to TL's system.

Mr Fisher made it clear in a meeting I attended, that he felt that it didn't matter which advisor visited a client because they dealt with 'the company' not because of a relationship with an individual.

All I can say Mr Fisher is, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Oh and by the way, what has happened to the $75 million Edward Jones put aside in the US to 'ease' the transition to necessitate the extra money you had to borrow from another American company in February?

I guess the transition isn't going as well as you expected.

The contracts state you must not solicit clients whilst working in a similar role ie IFA it does not state you cannot work in financial services.

From my understanding these ex EJ advisors and 'others' utilised client files & IT information lists to utilise contact of clients and prospects.

One advisor was found trespassing on EJ/TL property after they had left both companies. Now that is breach of DPA and criminal breach of legal processes not just contracts.

Another ex advisor requested the transfer of assets direct to his new company and emailed Mr F when the transfer wasn't happening quick enough?? Would love to know who that was - what a bright button you are??

Now I fully advocate client freedom of choice that they are not owned by anyone etc etc.... However I cannot agree with this constant bitterness from ex ej towards TL - EJ was £35million in debt a sinking ship get over it now - ex BOA - there was no great EJ it was a great client proposition which by the way thousands of IFAs provide every day, but a truly s***t business model with clowns running the circus!

What you going to do bang on about the great EJ forever, I sincerly hope your marvelous advisor has built you an excellent portfolio - as I can't imagine many employers being too interested in you when your heart still lies with a deceased company!

Anyway back on track - I sincerly hope TL win the case to teach all advisors and financial services employees throughout the country that they are NOT a law in to themselves.

Come on FSA get some balls & prove your true worth!

Have a nice day!

After reading the comment from the ex EJ/TL.I rather saddened me the attitude you have adopted.

Firstly remember who gave you the opportunity to build a business in Financial services. Not only the company Edward Jones but the other advisers in the field. We were all together when we heard the news of the take over and all ready and willing to assist each other & give advise and support .

Given that you are now working for Towry Law I would imagine you had only been with EJ for a short period of time/ Hadn't the ability to go on your own or wanted to use them to gain further qualifications!!

The people you are wishing to ruin probably mentored you, offered you their office to work from and gave up their time to share good ideas with you!!!

Just shows what kind of people Andrew Fisher has working for them!!

Good luck trying to keep your well expereienced advisers clients and meeting your targets!!!!!! & also moving on as your contracts are far tighter than ours were!

Well haven't I upset you.

Firstly: Not all ex ej advisors who stayed with Towry Law are inexperienced and hadn't Been with jones long.

Secondly: EJ did not 'allow' me the opportunity to build a business in financial services among lots of others I had a very successful career in financial services before I joined EJ and didn't build my business door knocking either I had excellent KRCs & experience of building a business by working smarter not harder.

A lot of EJ advisors were spoon fed - 20k Newton 20k coca cola bond 20k tesco shares - I've inherited hundreds of clients with the same portfolio - not much financial 'advice' there.

Now your second point I do not have an 'attitude' and want to see anyone brought down quite the opposite in fact I'd like people to get on with whatever they want to achieve. Some stayed at TL for whatever reason - some left for their reasons. But I am bored and sick to the back teeth of all this bleating by the little lambs that have felt sooo hard done by at TL if he hadn't bought the company the clients at EJ would have had no-one and defentily no EJ it was done/over/finito before it even started my mistake wa listening to the clowns in the circus with their horse manure!

Now lastly I do not wish to see anyone being taken to court etc... But I cannot/will not condone breaches of contract law and criminal law - they are again giving financial advisors a bad name wide spread throughout the industry like many many others the banks etc etc and the FSA need to get of their backsides and do something about it.

And once again to all ex ej - stop bleating on the telephone/blogs/newspapers about how great EJ were and how crap everyone else was they did no different to many many IFAs throughout the Country except maybe 'sell' a few tesco shares. If you are all that good then go make your million knocking doors again don't breach contracts and in some cases break the law.

And I apologise to the very few great EJ advisors who have started again and will have a successful business because you are simply getting on with the task in hand and not bleating about the good old days! Well done to you few that are on your own and doing well - & doing it properly you will forever have my respect!

Have a good day!

"A lot of EJ advisors were spoon fed - 20k Newton 20k coca cola bond 20k tesco shares - I've inherited hundreds of clients with the same portfolio - not much financial 'advice' there."

ok:-

So how about the tens of thousands of TL clients that are in one of the 3 main Towry Law portfolios then - Defensive, Mixed and Growth (the names may have changed recently). How much advice is that then ? I can imagine you sitting at your desk before writing a suitablilty letter to a client: "eenie, meenie, miney moe". Do you have a framed photograph of Fisher next to you ?

So if - and i say if - some EJ clients have been given the odd telephone call out of courtesy by their adviser, how many clients have objected to it ? And how many have welcomed the call and decided to stick with their trusted adviser ?

Fisher would have you believe that they are "clients of Towry Law" - if he really believed that this was the case, why put covenants into contracts and put injuncions on advisers? Because he knows the truth, that's why.

Judging by your tone and complete lack of judgment i do not believe that your respect is anything that anybody would want. Ever.

After reading your missive my immediate reaction was just to write "silly tw4t" but of course i'm far too grown up and professional to do that.

p.s. did you know that it's still the law for men to go and practice archery on the village green every weekend ? You must be very well known in your village eh ?

Let me have your name and I'll send the rozzers round.

I have been reading the posts with interest and have to comment.

I was with EJ since the begininng and have 20 years in the industry. EJ were not perfect, and it only worked for some.

But, TL promised the world to us when they were trying to keep us and promised that clients would continue "business as usual". As previously stated, all most have received are letters informing them that, small accounts would be closed, and that they would no longer receive reviews and any advice would be charged at up to £400 per hour. it is little wonder that they have been ringing us for help and guidance. i have not contacted any of the clients that I dealt with (some had been with me for 20 years). They have all called me. Some, who were going to give TL a chance have phoned me out of pure desperation as they have had no contact.

The major issue that I have with TL is that they are really dragging their heals when a client does want to re-register their money. They have taken at least 16 weeks so far, and still nothing happens, they will not take calls only e-mails and these do not get answered. With TCF being a big issue TL will very soon have a major issue as clients are being held to ransom!. They have a duty of care for "best execution", but they dont seem to care.

They are obviously just peed off because other than a hand full of decent advisers the new and unproven stayed to move money into the IIM.

There are many scarey stories about the tactics being employed by the people that stayed and they are being paid bonuses to churn. Unfortunatley these people are more than likely being squeezed against targets already.

All i am attempting to do is offer people the chance to receive advice the way they have been used to, regularly and without huge costs. I have not gone all out to move money out of EJ, but I do need to be able to continue to administer the portfolio's that is why the deliberate delays in re-registering the funds is so frustrating.

Perhaps those of us that left (350 ish) should start a court action against TL for not adhering to TCF and best execution!. There are probably a few unfair dismisal cases around too!.

As has been said before there are clients at the beginning of all of this and they are the one's who will ultimately suffer, it was not their fault that EJ sold, and they should be able to chose what happens with their own money, TL should NOT be able to hold on to their funds like this, and should be grown up and let the transfers happen.

Rant over!.

Speaking as a client:

I do not have any money with TL or any other IFA, my money is handled by my bank. We get to see our advisor once a year or less, or, if something comes up, we make an appointment to get specific advice. Like going to a doctor for a checkup or for a specific injury or illness. I am happy to pay, secure in the knowledge that my doctor actually has qualifications and didn't simply quite enjoy biology in grade school.

While I do like the bank advisor(s) we have seen over the years I feel strongly that the safety of my money and future lies with the bank not with the individuals. I agree, it is my choice where I put my money and if I wanted to go elsewhere that is my right, but I would expect to pay the requisite fees and/or penalties to move the investments. I would also expect it to take a while to do so.

However, if I discovered that the financial advisor at the bank had either quit or been let go and had accessed my personal and confidential financial information and contact details in order to get me to follow them to another bank or company I would be pretty ticked off about it. I would be even more alarmed if it turned out to be a clerk (BOA) poking around in my affairs.

If the bank found out about this and did NOT go after the advisor (or whoever) who did this then I would be mad as hell. I expect my bank to protect my money, my interests and especially my privacy. If my bank merged with another or was bought out then I expect that the protection of my perosnal details be maintained by the new company.

These people signed a contract with EJ. TL bought EJ. If TL had not stepped in the clients would have had nothing as EJ walked away. As for all the comments about how many ex-EJers have not gone to or been hired by TL, as I have said before, many of those people were most likely in the wrong job in the first place because of EJ's appalling hiring practices. They would hire anyone with a pulse. Often the only 'clients' these people had were friends and family, something that the EJ model relies on.

I don't need the person giving me financial advice to be my friend and have frequent cuddly chats with me, I want my FA to be an expert on the subject, well educated and demonstrate good ethics. Accessing private data to poach clients is, in itself. extremely questionable behaviour and I would not want that person anywhere near my pension money or investments.

Flame on :-)

Maybe some of you are reading a different article but this is what I am seeing above:

'As part of the deal, the contract also stipulated that any Edward Jones employee who left the firm would be unable to re-enter the marketplace in the UK as an Edward Jones-branded adviser for three years, or ‘entice’ clients or advisers from Towry Law. However, they could continue to operate in the industry.'

It clearly says that anyone who chose not to continue with TL or who were not picked up by TL after EJ bailed, can continue to work in the industry. The only things they cannot do is brand themselves as an ex-EJ advisor for three years or use confidential information they may have about clients they handled on behalf of EJ, or try to recruit TL clients or advisors. This is hardly unusual. Did you guys just fall off the back of a turnip truck and have never seen these kinds of terms and conditions before? Are you school leavers in your first jobs? Because that sure is what it sounds like.

As for Fisher being suspended pending court action. Fisher is not a financial advisor at TL. He's the boss. He employees financial advisors. It is a little unnerving to think that people claiming to be 'experts' in the financial world don't understand the difference. But like I said, EJ would employ anyone with a pulse and give them the title 'Stock Broker'.

I have experience of applying BandAids (raised 3 kids) so can someone employ me and give me a shiny desk and business cards that say 'Medical Consultant'? I have no expert medical knowledge of course, but I have a really warm and fuzzy bedside manner and according to many ex-EJers, that's what the patients want and need, right?

Flame on :-)

How did you guess I've got a picture if Mr Fisher? It's not on my desk though. I have it on the shelf next to my pole when I'm dancing around it & sit it on my bedside cabinet every night before I go to sleep - sorry Mrs F don't be too alarmed if your Reading this it's merely a crush I have - must be due to being such a tw4t as my educated ex TL friend called me.

You may be so mature and clearly educated in village law??!! Whatever that is - sorry city person don't understand your village comment? Nor what it had to do with a blog on stealing client data!

So what is your beef with TL - were you managed out? Upset your salary wasn't ratcheted up quick enough. Or are you simply jealous of my crush on Mr F? Hee hee!

I appreciate some of your comments on the portfolios but they are technically more refined, & defined for clients needs & risk profile rather than a hand picked few 'popular funds' that EJ advisors picked over & over & over regardless of clients risk profile. however I am a little puzzled as an ex employee that you know TL main business model is fee based holistic financial planning? Or did you not reach that stage of the training!

Ellie Mae - spot on with your comments and not too disimilar to what a client has said to me today regarding this whole drama.

Let's get away again from the silly like/dislike EJ TL SJP (by the way your all very quiet for a change - busy looking for a new job?) HL IFAs banks etc etc.... The bottom line is financial advisors have breached legal documents & covenants and trespassing laws in some cases and should be punished as it's again wrong doing of some clouding other good advisors in the industry! But they have done it because they had to like Ellie Mae stated they are not experienced, qualified & intellegent enough to build a business properly or go it alone they can only do it by poaching clients or knocking on doors (which the FSA won't sanction for individuals).

Once again like the ex ej advisor above who is suceeding with his business and was very balanced in his comments I applaud him & others amongst the tiny minority that can achieve it.

And to keep my ex tl friend happy I won't offer my respect this time as in his sad individual opinion nobody wants it. And you state your mature?

Blog on!

Ah.....more of a simpleton than what i thought. That's Bracknell New Town for you.

I lived in a village many years ago and everybody knew who the idiot was. He was know as "Village". Is that on your name badge at TL - I bet Fisher doesn't know your name.

You wil realise at some point - maybe in a few years, just after puberty - that what you have at TL is called "mushroom management" - kept in the dark and fed manure (or another word for it).

Somebody once pointed out that the TL hierachy was a bit like monkeys in the jungle - the best place to be was at the top of the tree where all the fruit and sunlight was. Those at the top of the tree looked down on smiling faces. Those at the bottom looking up saw arses.

For the record, and to cut the choice down, i was not managed out. In fact i was very, very successful at TL. I now run my own business and my earnings increased and my worklife is much, much happier - mainly because I am trustworthy, dilligent, hard working and not subsidising people like you. Simples.

p.s. i see all your posts are late in the evening - not allowed on the 'puters at school ?

I dont often agree with Ellie May, but, and it is a but, if the suggestions are true that these advisors have dowloaded IT info, obtained data protected material and tresspassed, then she is correct. As are, it pains me to say, TL correct in taking action.

Whether for breach of contract, breach of DPA, theft or tresspass. The advisors concerned needs their heads examining because in todays electronic age anybody's name, address and usually contact details are widely available in the public domain.

Stupid, stupid, stupid thing to do. Adhere to the restrictive covenant and do your own research from memory etc.

People buy people not brands and consumers make their own choice in a competitive free market economy, Given the initial client acquisition methods that EJ employed it shouldnt be hard to be 'around' without dealing or advising in a professional capacity.

This doesnt negate from the fact that months of blogs suggest TL are not really concerned about clients, TCF or anything other than flotation, but on this one point, and only if the advisors have indeed done what is alleged, it has to be said that TL will be right.

I must go and lie down now!

Hactor Sens, LOL thank you. I know we do not always agree, OK rarely agree, but I am delighted to see your comments. I would recommend some nice soothing herbal tea to help your little lie down but am still waiting on my shiney desk and cards proclaiming me to be a medical consultant, on which, if I get them, I will of course put my mobile phone numer...

Only no, I can't, I am probably one of the few people left in the first world who doesn't actually own a mobile phone. I am not kidding.

As for 'Ex TL'er - Village08:45 | 09 Apr 2010' comments to his nemisis ANON Ex ej/tl .

Boy she really gets under your skin doesn't she. Too funny. Every time you get that mean and nasty on a personal basis I get an instant replay in my head of the late, great Kenny Everett doing his Angry of Mayfair skits.Yes I know I am dating myself but somehow, judging by the level of apoplexy in your comments, you just completely fit the bill.

Who can resist? If you are that successful and so happy away from TL why this level of bitterness? Why are you even commenting? Surely you should either be with your clients or out on the town enjoying the fruits of your huge success?

Anyway thanks to all here and to Citywire for the blog. Great entertainment on this early Friday evening. You will now no doubt check the time stamp of my comment and lump me in as someone posting late at night. It's still light outside and I am watching a rerun of 'Vegas'. Suggested research Google 'timezones'.

Have a great weekend everyone.

Flame on.

Hey moonshine lover - firstly, it really isn't personal with ex EJ'er - i don't know who he/she is and there realy arn't many people in this world i dislike so if i met him/her i'd probably enjoy having a beer or a glass of wine and a good natter. Is she a fittie btw ??

And yes of the top 4 people on the planet they i really, really dislike, they are all at Towry Law. Now the truth is that if they were not there, i still would be - so the parodox is that they have done me a huge, huge favour. In a weird way, they people that i dislike most have helped engineer my happiness and further success. Without them i simply would not have moved.

I guess the reason I am bitter is how unjust it all is. Do you remember that Pikey in Norwich(??) who won the lottery, bought a big house, put in a stock car racing track, smoked Jamaican Old Holburn and put two fingers up every time a photographer went near him? How many people thought "what a nice, decent, honest, trustworthy bloke - he really deserves winning all that money".

Well that's what i feel about Towry Law management. They will all walk into the sunshine leaving the train wreck behind and as i've said on many occaisions, my pals will be left with a lot less than they were prommised.

To ex EJ'er - it is really not personal - once you have floated (or sold - AXA), by your colleagues around you, I will make myself known and if you are agreeable, we can all have a drink together. At that point all the cards will be dealt and we will see how much you can trust the information the Fisher spouts..........................

Oh god my partner's not going to be happy with my headline - but what the hell! My sense of humour is open to all.

To Ellie Mae - moonshine buddy you beat me to it last night I was going to ask the same why so bitter question! And defend my late night posts but you have done it all for me.

For the record I have been allowed to post by daddy this morning and he has allowed an early morning play on the puter'

To ex TLer I look forward to your beer & glass of vino when the time is right - maybe sooner than you think?!

I probabaly won't be around to enjoy the fruits of my shares nor see the train wreck as you put it! Nor any other financial services company train wreck. As I have no intention of remaining in a job role within financial services as I've said many times before people made their own decisions to stay at TL for many different reasons.

It's why I get so cross when people on these blogs can't let go of the past and move on with your decision. But I get extremly annoyed when people cheat & lie to get on and that's purely because of EJ hiring policy - these salesmen should not be providing financial planning they are simply not good enough apart from the small few who really are excellent - the few EJ got lucky with in their hiring policies. This is why there was soooo much mass exedous - they wouldn't have met the expectations in their TL contract & they bleated & Bleated then left!

I appreciate you had a bad experience at TL & I appreciate it's not for everyone but I think we all do the best we can with the tools we have and TL are not different in that, they have an ambition and have never hidden that so good luck to them I admire their ambition & they certainly don't suffer fools gladly - I like that too. Don't worry I'll give you some nice counselling When we have that glass of moonshine help you over your pain.

Enjoy your weekend

Fittie moonshine buddy!

No not from Bracknell & the only decent thing old holborn smoking lottery scrat guy done was give money to Rangers!

:-)

That did make me chuckle ! I Have a great weekend and the Chablis is on ice !!!!!

So Moonshine buddy/fittie did you decide to go for that job then? I understand. Have wasted daft amounts of time during my life in jobs I was more than able to do, but had no real passion for. Ex-TLer, let the hate go, I'm ancient and I've learned that too, they don't know or care and it just wastes your energy.

As for meeting for drink, I think it would be pretty hilarious (not least to see Ex-TLer's face) but aw shucks, doubt I will be there for a drink with you two except in spirit. It's a bit of a drive and there's a big damp spot in the middle. We just spent a week driving to the mid-west to meet new Haitian granddaughter and in the autumn we are going to an island way, way south of here to see my dear old Dad. So unless we win the lottery or or our bank really does work miracles with our investments or there is a major family emergency and assuming that neither national airline of my dual citizenship goes belly up (there is no way I am flying Air Transat) then I won't be there this year.

Back on topic, EJ are being hauled over the coals a bit in the US at the moment. Amused me anyway...

http://www.silobreaker.com/edward-jones-lies-consumer-group-says-5_2263354203424423969

OK sun is over the yardarm here and I have shopped, done some spring gardening and seriously considered cooking but then opted for take-out sushi so it's time for a dirty martini.

I feel very sorry for anyone left in the Towry Law/EJ debacle, and particularly any of the naive FAs that are going to High Court. As an ex BOA I could probably guess who they are. EJ did no favours on educating the gullable idiots that became FAs. The sensible ones educated themselves, but I bet these few think they have 'right' on their side. I do wish them good luck and I want to take this opportunity to thank Andrew Fisher. He has managed to orchestrate my future in such a positive way. I have no wish to stay in Financial Services. I have no wish for my hard work to enable rich people to become richer. I have become a hater of capitalism, and somewhat of democracy. I will not work for any more bullies, and I will be a better person. I now believe it immoral to line the pockets of jumped up snobs, clients looking to increase their wealth and FAs jumping on the 'must have more of everything' bandwagon.

I am amazed at the comments.

There is a good legal case Beckett v Hall that all should look up via Google, very illuminating.

TL have so many clients to now service they can't possibly provide an adequate service after acquisition so TL can not claim the rights over a client.

In addition, if TL paid £1 for EJ what did they purchase? A client data base possibly - so what are they loosing if a client walks, clearly neither party to the deal saw much value in the business.

Remember a firm like TL are trying to buy funds to put on their investment platform.

I wonder when a foundation of lies becomes acceptable to your industry. I am contacted by an adviser, who says, "if anyone asks, you rang me, ok?"

Who then asks me to tell the company that I am with that I need some money out to buy a motor home (which I am not doing!). I ask why I can't move it all away from the company I am with, "no that way they'll know what we are doing!"

I am convinced that the transactions I am being asked to do by my "trusted adviser" are to get them some new business at their new firm, and support them in their new career path.

Ignoring all the anti-TL, when are these people who manipulate situations to write new business going to be brought to book?

Comments from FSA or other clients told same spin- welcome.

As for the subjects of this article (six people), as an ex legal professional, let me tell you, all of the people of wisdom on here don't have to pay the Barrister's bill!

As a client of EJ, I did have my EJ contact's mobile number.

I also felt the way offices were closed and long term relationships fractured did not help to enamour me to TL.

However the new T&Cs were the last straw, remember you are perfectly entitled to reject these by letter, and then see what happens. I believe that under current trading standards this is perfectly legitimate, and no charge can be made by TL. More worrying is the time taken to make transfers of “our” moneys. Is this not theft?

Agree with the post above, if the terms of the contract are specific then why breach them in the first place it sounds like an initial show of bravado from advisers that could now backfire.

However the quandry lies as to whether approached or not the client chooses one way or another.

If the Towry Law model is as good as sold then why would a client choose anything else? Clearly they do so therefore individual advisers don't sunscribe to the TL model cannot all be wrong. If a client chooses to do nothing, Towry Law are saying that they will not service them yet still hold them as a client and are restricting the client from approaching their familiar adviser (Ransom anyone). The client does not have free will/choice and therefore is not being treated fairly.

If the advisers are being sued for DPA breaches then Towry must have some evidence to say that this is the case, I am sure a few advisers set up shell companies and moved to work under models like St James Place in the hope that they would go un-noticed, it appears as though the flow of investments away from TL depicts a different outcome though as Mr Fisher seems to be acting to stem a major leak in his ship.

The difference here is that the good ship Towry appears to have a rudder and a captain (Regardless of peoples impression of him) and Edward Jones lacked either of those things. There is always a lot of reading between the lines in debates like this but clearly if the TL restrictive covenents are proven to be legally invalid then the flow of investments will become even faster away from TL, hence if they can score an easier tap-in with DPA breaches that are probably more provable they forgoe the need to set a precedent judgment as the grey areas are a far better tool than an invalid contract clause to scare other advisers who have left and are unsure as to if they can service their old client or not.

The end result is the same, advisers get sued, potentially prosecuted and maybe banned from trading, its not nice and it may not seem fair but it is business in which TL have proven time and again to be ruthless.

I await the outcome of these cases with interest as it could be a killer move for tL one way or another, if they lose then the flotation ambition might be a way off, if they win then they have until December to flog their one trick pony to all the EJ clients without interruption.

This is where I find some Advisors in our implorable - look at the clients comments above where he is being 'touted' to take his money out and move it to an advisors new firm - what to bolster their commission charges AGAIN!!! And telling client to "say" they are buying a motorhome.

This is ridiculous - where is the professionalism and doing whats right for the client - Hello!! Isn't that what TCF is supposed to be?

I wonder.... If this Clients Loyal trusty exEJ advisor that has tea & cakes and that wonderful fluffy "friends & family approach" to their relationship has considered CGT liability etc etc etc..... before pulling the funds out for the "motorhome"

Mr Client I certainly do not wish to partronise you in anyway but please please please for the good of our Industry move "Your" money to where you feel comfortable and happy, find a well educated, exerienced, fully qualified (long term/chartered) financial planner to advise you. And not soemone who is just 'nice' to you. - Look at Ellie Mae's comments....... I am an Ex EJ advisor and I can tell you the majority of them were car salesman etc etc.. If you can knock doors & sell, here's a contract your now a 'stockbroker'- not that there is anything wrong with car salesmen etc... - but my point is they were an expert in that field not Financial Advice and EJ should never have hired them in the first place. EJ hiring policies were disgraceful.

Please Mr Client report this advisor to the FSA and force them to do something about it. Our reputation in the Country is bad enough and trying to gain trust is becoming more and more difficult due to these cowboys in our Industry giving it a bad name.

FSA - When on earth are you going to stop faffing around shuffling paper on your desk about new crap projects for the Industry - Take action and solve the problems we have already!

Gone are the days when people asked what I did for a living and I replied proudly: "A Financial Advisor"

ExTL - Look i've been allowed out to comment early today. I couldn't hold in my fury until this evening - I've had to comment now.

Ellie Mae - I know you are a recruitment expert .If I were to continue to enjoy writing on these blogs - could I now say I was a fully qualified journalist?

I agree that the "Motorhome" example is not on from a client perspective but neither is the one investment fits all approach, both examples of client abuse are actions of sales people and not professionals.

If a client is told that their investments are now defunct for example, that the adviser has a greater tenure than they have or that the adviser has looked far and wide for the best investment and purley by coincidence the solution happens to be an own branded fund then its fair to say that the client is being conned - these are all allegations levied at Towry Law.

I guess then that the Tit for Tat arguments that readers based in the UK will be extremely familiar with in other contexts at present largely serve to invalidate both perspectives as the whole of the industry dirty linen gets aired.

Both sides have validity in the argument against each other but it seems more apparent that the only losers here are the clients, without whom there would be no business in the first place and therefore no arguments anyway. By arguing with each other and yanking the client into the middle in the pretence that its them that we really care about, both sides shoot themselves in the foot.

Just because one approach does something wrong doesn't mean that that is a defence for doing something differently but that is still wrong just because you think that their offence is more serious. You mis-sold to the client, yeah well you don't advise clients properly so you mis-sold too - not covering anyone in glory is it.

The FSA does need to be involved, to eliminate client abuse, not only by unscrupulous individuals but also by bigger firms too, until this happens clients will lose out but I think that tit for tat needs to stop as its pulling the industry down further.

As a retired FA I have no axe to grind but TL are only in it for the money. A TL adviser whilst paid a salary has a huge target to meet to earn that salary otherwise he is out.

Andrew Fisher is a self appointed expert without any experience in selling and all he wants to do is fatten up TL to make a lot of money at some stage for himself. TL do not care about the client only how much they can make from him/her.

I hope TL loose.

He's also responsible for the Icelandic volcano ash that is disrupting the world too. It's all part of his fiendish master plan to rule the world.

As a starting point, I am not happy with advisers taking personal client details that can not be obtained from public records - infact I find it deplorable. If Towry Law are really pursuing the injunction based on this, then fine.

My guess is TL are seeking a reason to go after the advisers and are using a tact that gives crediblity and moral justification (whether it is the case or not is not important to Towry Law). If I ask myself if TL are doing this on the basis of real client protection, I struggle to answer "yes".

I firmly believe TL (and many others, such as SJP) play the PR game. Even if the advisers are not totally innocent, then their accusers are even less so.

From my experience TL have absolutely no right to take the moral high ground. To see CEO's such as Andrew Fisher talking about integrity and honesty, when deep down I genuinely feel he puts both these traits far behind his (and his company) success, I find dangerous and sad.

You can be extremely rich financially, but poverty stricken morally - I think a certain person fits this criteria!!

blimey!!!

How much bitterness and anger can there be?

I left EJ just before their big announcement thank goodness- but with nonetheless restrictions in my contract about contacting clients for a 12 month period.

Had I been around when TL were offering jobs, and had I indeed been offered a job, I would have had to think long and hard about taking on another set of restrictions- but whilst Mr Fisher seems to have gathered a number of opponents on here he is running a business, and if advisers have been blatantly dismissive of his contract terms like any business owner he might feel inclined to make a point in court to stop other employees thinking they could do the same. What we don't seem to know are the full circumstances, what has been done,and why Towry Law feel it's important to spend money on litigation.

If you work in a business and agree to a contract that stipulates that company owns the customers how can you get upset when they try to enforce that right after you leave?

I do feel a good deal of the vitriolic is still more to do with the fact that EJ just did a runner and left staff with some very hard decisions to make.

I was very happy as a client of EJ and never had a dispute. My financial advisers did change so I didn't feel 'close' to the one I had at the end but I thought the company did take care of my interests and did it well.

The foregoing comments suggests the consensus of opinion is that clients have rights and should be respected. The letter I received telling me that I was no longer with Edward Jones was a bombshell - I had no idea it was in any sort of financial trouble and was intending to move out of the U.K. I felt like a parcel being sent on - a commodity, a piece of someone's real estate. I knew nothing and that included the fact that EJ was bought for £1 by Towry.

As one of its clients for many years why didn't EJ write to me and tell me - and all its clients - what was happening? Why didn't it offer me advice about choosing a new company or IFA myself? That would have been a fitting end at least to a long relationship. I feel that strongly about it that I believe leglislation needs to be in place to ensure clients are informed about whether the company is in trouble - it matters to them!

As a company that had cultivated a close client relationship, at the end it treated me very badly. There was no reason for it to happen because EJ was a disseminator of information and could so easily have involved me in making a choice of my own about the best thing to do with EJ leaving the U.K.

I don't know a lot about Towery except that it charges commission, not fees and these commissions are high - 2% management fees and more depending on what is required. This is almost as much (and possibly more) than I pay in to my account each year! I did wonder how my portfolio could grow, especially given the dowturn in the markets with the present financial crisis.

Of course, if Towry could make my portfolio grow ahead of the charges it levies, the inflation in the economy and the downturn in the markets, it might be good to be with them. But that is so uncertain and if I found a different company where the rates are much lower then I think I might stand a better chance of having a portfolio that did well.

The Towry representative suggested I didn't want to pay for work done on my behalf, in way of justifying Towry charges. Such a line of thought had never crossed my mind, either when I was with EJ or when I was with Towry! I was surprised anyone could say that to me, someone who had never queried charges in all the years I had spent with EJ!

At the end of the day, I hadn't the chance to choose Towry or any other company myself. I didn't like the way it had happened. I didn't know enough about Towry (and still don't), but I think my portfolio is that important to me personally that I must choose the company I place it with. I am more comfortable elsewhere which is why I have chosen finally to move.

It was a matter of expediency for EJ to simply sell its business on for £1 and that was the end of it. Perhaps Towry was the only bidder, I don't know. But at least I now have the chance to choose the company I am with.