Why Keydata's 'intermediary' status just doesn't wash

To resurrect a previous comment:

I hear that the FSCS have classified Jaffa Cakes as biscuits, even though recently the FSA publicly stated they were indeed cakes.

It turns out that whilst the FSA classified them as cakes due to the fact it says cakes on the wrapper and that they harden when stale the FSCS on the other hand looked at the main acitivities invovled with a Jaffa Cake (i.e. being dunked in tea, and being eaten without the use of a plate) and decided this was more akin to a biscuit...

The debate continues!!!!!

Next thing we know, the costs of bailing out a failing bank will be dumped on the IFA sector. And still the huge salaries and bonuses at Canary Wharf continue.

The glossy brochure produced by Keydata clearly states that Keydata is authorised and regulated by the FSA. Where on earth were the FSA when Keydata was offering ISA's that are now non ISA's? Also, surely there must be some sort of audit trail to trace the £103m that has been misappropriated. It has gone somewhere and If that could be found and put back then perhaps the FSA would have truly earned a bonus!

It seems easier for the FSA to appoint KPMG as administrators (massive expense) and get the FSCS to compensate later! We all know where the FSCS gets its money from don't we?

KPMG and the FSA seem very concerned about the tax status of the 'ISA's' whereas in reality the clients are not worried about that as their concern is about the capital invested in Keydata.

They have been left in the dark and correspondence from KPMG is not very helpful.

Please correct me if I’m in error, but I was under the impression that the FSCS has no jurisdiction to categorise firms. This is the sole responsibility of the FSA. The FSCS then acts on what the FSA has judged.

As I have said before these bureaucrats are playing pass the parcel quicker than at an Afghan birthday party.

When the new Consumer Protection Agency is formed I shall buy the Head Banana a present. A desk plaque saying “The buck stops here” I just hope he/she will take due notice. (I suppose it’s too late to send Lesley Titcomb one?)

Why would the FSA wish to tarnish IFAs reputations ?

Why would the FSA then rub salt into the wound by asking non involved IFAs to foot the bill?

Why would the FSA seek to blame the wrong party?

Is it because the IFA community of wrongdoers represent such an easy target that the FSA can levy whatever it likes without any questions being asked?

Why would the FSA not be concerned that it has blamed and penalised the wrong party?

When found out, why would the FSA still not admit its glaring and negligent error??

Why do IFAs have to fight a legal battle (on top of all their other costs) using a legal firm to right the wrongs of the FSA's decision making policy and strategy?

Why do theories abound that the FSA is unaccountable for its actions lest of all to IFAs whom it can bully.

Is the FSA really out of control, not interested in the IFA industry it penalises as long as it is seen to champion the consumer.

Judge for yourself.

So many questions. so much evidence.

the FSA are the crooks.....they are leaving their company like rats leaving a sinking ship. This whole mess could have been managed properly to limit investor loss but they obviously did an inside deal with PWC who is the only company this far benefiting (£11MILL+ and counting) from the FSA incompetence and sheer arrogance.

More questions than answers here;

1. If Keydata are not a product provider, does that make Lifemark a product provider?

2. Is there joint and several liability for fraud and errors?

3. If the failures (and perhaps fraud) are seen to be at SLS and Lifemark end, then does that mean that liability for investor protection claims will be via the Lux version of the FSCS rather than UK?

4. Does the F - Pack itself know any of the answers to the above or will they have to pay a consultant more than their average senior managements salary (which is above the PMs) simply to be able to anser any on the above questions?