Mr Tim Younger

Manager, CRIM

The Financial Services Authority

25 The North Colonnade                                                                                2 July, 2004

Canary Wharf

London E14 5HS

 

Your ref: CRIM/PRT/143214

 

 

Dear Mr Younger

 

FSAVC Review et al.

 

Thank you for your letter of 1st July which depressed me unutterably. You bemoan the lack of progress but repetition is not the solution.

 

Interestingly you have failed to deal with the point of “cancellation” being an absolute. If any issue was important and fundamental to this case it was that.

 

Mr Barton wrote to me originally asking questions. When the answers did not suit him he changed tack and started on my personal responsibilities vis a vis the FSAVC review. In so doing he ignored facts that did not fit into the “tick in the box” mentality. From then on there was no communication.

 

One question he asked was what administrative capacity did my firm have to complete the review. My response was that my health had deteriorated and that, in reality, I had no administrative capacity. Today I have to husband resources and deal with priorities. No doubt if your days on this earth were numbered you would not be overly concerned with such boring topics as the FSAVC review. To be able to complete the review I would have to learn the whole palaver all over again including much of the maths etc. involved. You will forgive me if I tell you I am not going to waste my time even thinking about it.

 

I will now revisit the question of assets and liabilities. You have no need to know the extent of my assets and liabilities. All we are concerned with is £16,101 and the difference that might exist at the time of settlement. Were I to claim that I couldn’t meet my obligations, and I have yet to do that, there might be a case for laying out my liabilities and assets.

 

 

I asked you why you had taken 12 months to remind me of my responsibilities and you equivocated in your answer. It is your job to complete the FSAVC review and if that means chasing the odd recalcitrant IFA then that is what you must do. What a pity you cannot be honest with me.

 

As to your powers you leave out the most pertinent point. What can you do if an authorised person, even if he is no longer authorised, does not supply the information you ask of him? In any case the European Human Rights Act takes precedence over the Financial Services and Markets Act.

 

I imagine that even with the FSA’s rather cavalier approach to justice the Ombudsman would have to involve me in any discussions of right or wrong before he can adjudicate. If I cannot reasonably take part because of ill health I find it very difficult to imagine a Court of law condoning the harassment of a sick man and setting the sheriffs loose on him. However it seems that in the not too distant future we will find out.

 

I am once more reminded very strongly of Alice and her wanderings. The quaint notion that once I have had authorisation withdrawn I am still authorised is straight out of the Red Queen’s mouth. It is obviously unsafe to have anything to do with such a dysfunctional organisation. You really must learn how to use English. I am surprised that an institution such as yours is not ashamed of such duplicitous behaviour especially when your remit is to stop it in others.

 

I believe it prudent, under these circumstances, to seek some insurance for the future so I shall be sending my MP a copy of all this correspondence.

 

Thank you for your apology about setting times “by which”.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

 

K.D.BOYD