Dear Melanie Johnson MP
(open letter as this email will be posted for many others to
read - today and in years to come)
You are possibly unaware of the mounting anger towards your Party and specifically the roles of the Leviathan known as the monstrously expensive and unaccountable FSA (Financial Services Authority)
http://www.business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1183802003
and the wild card that does not recognise UK laws and Lords approved timebars and now claims it makes it's own laws - the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service).
http://www.obo.org.uk/news/speech/chantrey-vellacott-dfk.htm
Quote<snip. We do not have to pretend to "find" what the law is. We unashamedly make new "law". ...Unlike courts who refuse to consider hypothetical questions, we can consider situations that have not yet arisen but look likely to do so.....snip...The ombudsmen are not bound by the doctrine of precedent,....between areas where the conduct of business is regulated and where it is not; and more intriguingly an approach that is founded on legal principle, but which is not bound by it...........Our "fair and reasonable" jurisdiction has attracted a fair amount of attention. It allows us to look beyond the law,..snip........
what will the judges
say?
What the courts themselves may make
of all this will be interesting. We are certainly a public body, and
will be exposed to actions for judicial review. There has been much
comment about the circumstances in which we will be required (following the
Human Rights Act) to offer parties a "fair and public hearing". A
rather gloomy prediction of how the courts might view us has recently been made
by an academic commentator Richard Nobles . He suggests that the judges
are jealous of or even hostile to rival dispute mechanisms,
particularly ones that seek to exercise powers denied to them. >
end quote.
http://www.ifasok.co.uk/financial_ombudsman_service.htm 6.. However, the Treasury did not favour any part of the FOS scheme being brought within our supervisory remit at this stage. They said that the FOS was charged under the 2000 Act with resolving disputes quickly and with the minimum of formality, <Brian Lentz's comment = this equals the Ducking Pond and tied to a chair approach we thought had gone years ago as a form of justice..> and its procedure was intended to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Oral hearings would not be the norm.
Brian Lentz :-
Thousands of us Independent Financial Advisers have been working within our local communities (and other EEC Countries) for years without problem (if we simply wanted to make a quick buck we would NOT be IFA's, we would be tied to one Provider as there is then no research, no personal liability and we would act on behalf of the Provider and not the client). My solution is further down this post denoted by a MySolution. Our collective professional solution will be felt at the ballot box if your *regime'* continues to act in a dictatorial way and ignore the very clear issues. Tony Blair does not need to employ yet more Bankers, Merchant or otherwise to help his ratings with Businesses, he needs to LISTEN to those of us doing the job who have been in business for more years then New Labour has been causing continued Labour pains with no hint of a joyous birth in sight.
The enclosed is simply the tip of the ice-berg. The assumption spawned and fed by New Labour is :-
1. That the public are incapable of having all relevant options laid out and then choosing one for themselves and accepting their decision carries risk. The Treasury and it's private prosthesis's (the FSA) assume an Adviser must dictate one solution only and then be blamed if it is later deemed the wrong course of action, despite covering everything possible with the client... using rules that can be reinterpreted later in other ways by different political parties and Regulators.
2. That the Financial Services Profession is somehow corrupt or incompetent (despite having a longer and more successful record of looking after the public from cradle to grave than any Political party or regime' to date) and that the best solution is a cheap - no- advice Sandler approach. That approach is actually factually flawed to any thinking person or Department of Government simply because National Savings have existed for years with zero charges (forget low charges) and with 100% guarantees of capital return underwritten by Government yet the savings gap, pensions gap and the very serious Protection gap continue to widen, whereas National Savings should mean there is no gap in anything savings related. I believe others have already tried to tell the Treasury that No advice and low charges are a myth as Sandler is all about getting those who have no money to save it. (Reduce personal taxation and stop taxing Assurance Company Pension funds is a better solution).
3. That IFA's in particular ought to be put out of business if they are SME's... and the FSA's Professional Indemnity requirements are doing just that.. despite what they are telling you http://www.ifasok.co.uk/Goodwill.htm and http://www.ifasok.co.uk/pi_problems.htm. We are aware of the possible implications of the EU requirements, but the UK's thoughts on control out of UK hands by vested interests who couldn't even keep up with the Various Life Directives (UK on the 3rd Life Directive whilst I understand Greece was still looking at the 1st Life Directive) will be shown at the ballot box. Please do not underestimate British resolve by assuming that because we can be knocked down easily we are a permanent pushover.
4. That the FSA is the best answer to Regulation and that it should remain unanswerable and it's officers unelectorable by the membership of firms such as mine, who have more experience then anyone I am aware of in the FSA... having 20 years *at the coal face PERSONALLY helping clients with their financial jig-saws*. It is not sufficient to create a simple shape and assume it will fit into the complex jig-saw that is people's lives today. One financial piece affects the placement of all others very often (c) brian lentz 2003.
5. That the Financial Services Ombudsman should be allowed
to continue as a FREE at ALL costs to the complainant (even the FSA recently
stated the number of *spurious complaints* outnumbered the genuine...quote Rob
McIvor of the FSA said: http://tinyurl.com/jsic
"The uphold rate is about 45pc, so there are more spurious than valid
complaints going in. This culture of complaining on the off chance is on the
increase. "All of our own consumer information has
tried to make it very clear that people should only complain if they feel they
have been mis-sold, not simply because they have suffered a shortfall. But not
all of the information consumers have been receiving has been so
clear." Unquote
... where the remedy of the Courts THEN remains if the FOS has not been put under enough political pressure to find against the members. That the firm (defendant) should still pay any costs of the FOS even where the FOS does NOT uphold the complaint.... (BL comment: that is not British Justice, that is legalised mugging !)
6. That Past Regulators Officers will remain out of reach to us as we are attacked on all sides inaccurately for stupid and dangerous rules imposed by past regulators (SIB, FIMBRA, PIA,...
LAUTRO http://www.ifasok.co.uk/LAUTRO_Projection_Rates.htm) and that the FACT the past Regulators visited firms like mine, found no fault then with our methods or files which the FSA now does will continue unchallenged. http://www.ifasok.co.uk/Endowments.htm
What goes around comes around.
Look at the Pensions situation that may end up with New Labour in Court on a number of fronts soon.
The FSA now admit Retrospective Regulation is in place by THEIR following FAQ on Professional Indemnity Insurance (Pi) which is actually supposed to be only for E.&.O.E., (not McCarthy style Witchunts where claims are invited and firms have to THEN prove their innocence, at the firms own cost....). Note they do not now deny Retrospective Regulation exists... they are blaming something else but they no longer seem to deny it :-
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/ifas/keeping_you_informed/pii_faqs.html
Q: Is it because IFAs are being judged retrospectively that insurers have withdrawn from the market or increased premiums?
A: We (FSA) believe it is more because of the insurers’ perception of the underwriting risk in covering IFAs business. However, we acknowledge that fear of further past business reviews may have coloured the views of participants in the PI market. So, we are pro-actively promoting regular contact between us and market participants. This will help them to understand why it is now much more difficult for the FSA to commission such reviews and so that they can fully understand other regulatory developments.
http://www.ifasok.co.uk/Insurance.htm
**********************
FSA whitewash
http://tinyurl.com/tbmx
Lloyd's, incidentally, took its feisty decision in "close
conjunction"
with the Financial Services Authority, the City watchdog.
Now it just so happens that the FSA is also taking a tough new approach
to the behaviour of its charges. And the evidence for that is - er,
well - that it said it would two years or so ago. But so far, it's mostly
all been talk.
The results of the latest FSA investigation (this time into the
near-collapse last year of British Energy, the nuclear generator) are
about as revealing as a can of very thick whitewash.
In a nutshell, the company was cleared by the FSA of misleading
investors - even though it had insisted that there was no financial
crisis at the company just three weeks before its shares were suspended
and it was threatened with insolvency.
Since then British Energy has been forced into a swingeing financial
restructuring which has left shareholders with just 2.5 per cent of the
company they thought they had bought.
Surely, I thought, even the terribly lenient FSA could find a bit of
fault with that fiasco. But obviously not.
BE's Houdini-like escape from criticism appears to hinge on the argument
that it could not get the price cuts it wanted from British Nuclear
Fuels, the state-owned reprocessing company. Oh, and that BNFL's
tightfistedness came as a terrible last-minute shock.
I don't think BNFL sees it quite that way. But, in any case, as far as
the FSA is concerned, that appears to be neatly that.
So, sighs of relief all round for British Energy's new management - who,
to give them their due, are trying to do their best with a bad lot.
But it's cold comfort for an army of bewildered small shareholders who
still can't quite understand what happened.
Far from being criticised in any way at all, British Energy was warmly
thanked by the FSA for its co-operation.
Now what kind of justice is that?
A thrilling denouement to BSkyB's boardroom drama | Lloyd's lesson | FSA
whitewash
1 November 2003: City comment: The OFT plays at being Offshelf
Lloyd's lesson
FSA whitewash
**********************************************************
EQUITABLE ROW HITS FSA
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-12904809,00.html
EQUITABLE ROW HITS FSA
The City watchdog and two Government departments look likely to be
criticised in a report into what went wrong at troubled mutual Equitable
Life.
The Financial Services Authority, Treasury and Department of Trade and
Industry have been contacted by Lord Penrose in advance of the
publication of his report.
All three were responsible for the regulation of Equitable Life at
various times.
snip
snip
*************************************************************************
*************
Consumer panel keeps heat on FSA
By Harriet Meyer (Filed: 01/11/2003)
Ann Foster, who takes office today as chairman of the Financial Services
Consumer Panel, has wasted no time in attacking the watchdog for acting
too slowly to stop City scandals.
Ms Foster, who succeeds Colin Brown, said: "We have been critical
of the
Financial Services Authority in the past and will continue to be so.
The
FSA appears to have been wrong-footed by the widespread inappropriate
sales of precipice bonds.
"The FSA must act faster using all available powers to prevent the
inappropriate sale of new products." She added
that the watchdog should
urge extreme caution in the use of past performance data in financial
product promotion and should make use of its powers to police this area.
She said the FSA was failing to act "with a customer perspective".
Ultimately, Ms Foster said her aim is to
avoid mis-selling and "demystify
the mystique" of financial products, "so the average punter
can
understand what they are doing".
This week Rosemary Radcliffe, the FSA's independent complaints
commissioner, said in her first appearance before the Treasury select
committee: "Consumers are often left feeling that they don't know what's
going on."
29 October 2003: Watchdog 'failing City and consumers'
********************************************************************
Personal Viewpoint - Brian Lentz - IFA (In Welwyn-Hatfield)
The above illustrates that is was WRONG to collapse all Regulatory
Organisations (that were becoming experienced) into one big inexperienced
creation. I would state **The bigger the ship
the slower to turn or
stop or change direction**. The FSA is too big and too costly and is
bleeding experienced Financial Advisers because it knows it has
political
permission to bash the easy targets.. that way Gordon Brown looks good,
rather than a failure, for creating the worlds worst Leviathan.
MySolution
The FSA should be funded by Government (may I remind you, as Paul Flynn
of your party wanted when the FSA was called the SIB and you were the
opposition party) and broken up
into
smaller, cheaper and more knowledgeable relevant Regulatory Organisations
manned by people who have done the ACTUAL jobs being Regulated now...
and
I would agree with the point about the members being personally
licensed
to trade and paying a contribution..just like the OFT had been doing on
mortgages under the Consumer credit Act 1974- before the introduction of
the FSA .... all of that is a novel thought!!
*************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************************************
These think the FSA is a Government website. If so, why aren't the Government paying for it ?
RSVP
http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/News/1135367
************************************************************************************************************
Ms Johnson, thank you for your letter dated 27th October 2003 acknowledging the issue below. I note you have passed my comments to Ruth Kelly MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I look forward to receiving her response through you. We have heard her words on the future of IFA's and felt her departments actions (Sandler, DePolarisation etc..)and to date can not align the two.
NAPF puts warning on occupational schemes
The National Association of Pension Funds is adding a risk
warning to its literature on occupational pensions. NAPF leaflets have
previously said outright that joining an occupational scheme makes sense. Now
leaflets will recommend joining but point out that there is a risk of schemes
going insolvent.
NAPF spokesman Andy Fleming says: "The change of wording reflects the fact
that as with any other form of investment there is some
element of risk. This was not explained in the past."
Personal view - Brian Lentz
Perhaps the Pensions Review should be re-examined in the light of the investor assuming they were returning to a Pension Scheme without any risk... whereas the old SIB (steered by Sir Andrew Large, now at the BoE) and then the FSA (the private arm of Gordon Browns Treasury) failed to make that untruth clear to people in non-public service schemes during the period of the gleeful McCarthy Witch-Hunt of the Private sector when Gordon Brown claimed to prevent Pensions misselling from ever occurring again. I have evidence of a provider paying a client who bought a personal pension scheme directly as he was unable to join his OPS due to being over their joining age, yet the Life Assurance company has *assumed* guilt and is paying him an ADDITIONAL pension equal to what they say he would have received had he joined the OPS (which he couldn't)... I stress, this means he is getting TWO pension payments... is that Gordon Brown's justice ?????
http://www.ifasok.co.uk/news_section.htm
***********************************************************************************************
Brian Lentz http://www.ifasok.co.uk/GOOD_NEWS_STORIES.htm
This article was written
some years ago -
what has changed ?
http://www.ifasok.co.uk/The%20Graduate.htm
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its
ground.
Independent Financial Adviser | Authorised and Regulated
by the FSA
| Est. 1983 - RIP under New Labour
2004 ?
Web: www.portfolio-uk.com
The information in this e-mail is NOT confidential and may be read by anyone.