Complaint by K.D.Boyd late of
Boyd & Associates
against
The Financial
Services Authority
Any
complaint made against the FSA must be made in the context that:-
a)
The
Serious Fraud Office took 25 years to achieve a successful prosecution.
b)
Between
1986 and 2002 only 23 people were sacked from the financial services industry
because of misdemeanours in handling others money. Regulation of financial
services is disproportionate to the actual threat.
c)
The
cost of regulation far exceeds the cost of the fraud it has prevented.
d)
Regulation
implies regular and orderly behaviour. We, the regulated, expect to understand
and appreciate regulation as being in our long term interests. This can only be
achieved if the FSA behaves with absolute decorum and impartiality in a
balanced and disciplined way.
In
reality the IFA is expected to behave perfectly, honourably and with integrity,
the consumer and the regulator can cheat, lie or steal with impunity. This
paper sets out how the regulator fulfils this claim
The
FSA is corrupt and contemptuous of the regulated. Corruption is the cynical
abuse of power. Were this to happen in some banana republic it would be
labelled corruption but it has happened in the UK, in the XXIst century and has
been perpetrated by the FSA.
This
catalogue of errors is the experience of only one man. No human in a civilised
society should be subjected to such unnecessary and inappropriate behaviour.
Were this to be repeated in all matters the FSA handles there must be a very
real question mark over the regulator fitness for his job!
1.
The
FSA tried to intimidate me to ensure my co-operation.
2.
The
FSA could not be bothered to check my status when writing to me thereby
involving me in unnecessary work..
3.
The
FSA failed to read the letters I wrote which necessitated unnecessary
correspondence and a telephone call to put matters right.
4.
The
FSA lied to me
5.
The
fscs lied to me
6.
The
FSA was gratuitously rude to me.
7.
The
FSA claims that it has high standards but fails to observe the high standards
it asks others to meet.
8.
The
FSA is more concerned with bumbledom than getting on with the job.
9.
The
FSA has sentenced me and my children to be deprived of my life yet none of us
have committed any crime.
10.
The
FSA has yet to master the English tongue
11.
The
FSA believes the Rule of Law does not apply to them.
The
FSA demonstrates contempt and derision for the regulated. The lies, half
truths, the flouting of the Rule of Law, the rudeness, the insistence on high
standards of others but displaying low standards in its work all point to an
incompetent and dysfunctional regulator.
This
is the manifestation of the regime that gave us Abu Ghraib prison. Men of low
rank, carrying out menial and boring tasks, ( what could be more boring than
poking around in other’s dirty underwear?) being given some authority over
others and obtaining their kicks in life by abusing that authority. The
authorities are at fault condoning such behaviour.
Whilst
some of the details complained of may seem petty to the perpetrators I must
remind you that they were culled from correspondence over only three months.
The sample is entirely random bar the allusion to suspension in 1 below.
1. The FSA tried to intimidate me to ensure my co-operation.
The
FSA wrote to me to seek my co-operation in the completing the FSAVC review. To
ensure my co-operation they pointed out that if I should intend to apply for
any future authorisation I had better toe the line or there would be no chance
of any future authorisation. (Para 8 letter from FSA 17th May 2004
refers)
Such
action seems to imply that the FSA does not work within a logical and legal
framework. They are very unsure of their authority. I myself had been
authorised for 14 years and was, at the time of the threat, 66 years of age!
But
we have long known that the FSA is arbitrary and whimsical in all it’s dealings
with us and vindictive if thwarted. The FSA is whimsical because its remit is
to protect the consumer. However the regulator has had such strange and
dysfunctional policies as fining companies that breach the rules laid down.
Each fine must exceed the previous one in the amount. We have seen one company
fined, say, £600,000 for 33 breaches of the regulations and another fined
£700,000 for only 25 breaches. Such a dysfunctional approach to crime and
punishment is bad enough but the perpetrators of the breaches are not punished,
it is the consumer, either as the shareholder in a proprietary company or as a
member of a mutual society who pays. However it is dressed up, whatever
safeguards are put in place the money paid in fines belongs to the owners of
the companies concerned, not to the FSA, not to the managers but the owners
If
the member or shareholder was educated, informed and an avid reader of the
business press he would still be unable to investigate any impropriety by the
management of the company/society because the company concerned would not allow
him access to the information he needed to form an opinion. However if the FSA
is arguing that the shareholder should be punished for the misdemeanours of his
managers then all the other protection afforded by the FSA to the consumer is
pointless. The consumer can always exercise his rights and sack the managers of
the investment companies when they failed to deliver.
What
in effect the regulator is saying is that it is now alright to invest your
money with the ABC Assurance Co of Basildon because he will be watching over
your interests. The next minute the regulator is shovelling the consumers money
into his own pockets! Everybody selling retail financial products has to
explain in detail the costs and charges incurred in any sale. The regulator
believes he is above the law and does not warn anyone of his propensity to fine
and fine again. Implicit in his failure to inform the investor of his rapacious
habits is the knowledge that he is not being straight. After all, Messrs
Blunkett and Clarke are fond of claiming that the innocent have nothing to fear
from disclosure! Whimsical and arbitrary are very polite words for underhand
behaviour.
Why
have the regulator adopted such a policy? Simply and cynically because there is
no machinery to protect the shareholder
and the member of a mutual society. Why has the quaint concept of crime and
punishment not been put on a responsible and clearly defined footing? Because
when the regulator first tried to make a rulebook the criminal was able to
drive a coach and horses through it. Rather than addressing himself to the task
of straightening this mess out the FSA, inter alia, opted for an ad hoc mish
mash of policies leaving the regulator in charge and everyone else
bewildered. The result is hours and
hours of unproductive time spent asking questions the regulator dare not
answer. What a complete and utter shambles!
When
I was having difficulty passing the exams for FPC the new requirement of having
a supervisor was introduced. The FSA sent me a form headed “Appointment of an
Appointed Representative”. I sent it back. I was not going to tolerate a
supervisor writing dodgy business on my account and my PI insurance having to
pay. I was suspended.
The
FSA is aware of my health. I have tried, without making too much of a meal of
it, to demonstrate my cognitive powers are deteriorating. Normal folk go to the
help of the weak but not the FSA. Ho! Ho! Ho! What wonderful sport this is
going to be, baiting the weak who are no longer able to stand up to the
intimidation and bullying that is the stock in trade of the regulator.
I
am over 65 years of age, the age at which the FSA sheds it’s workforce. The
main concern is that people of this age will be suffering from age related
degeneration and might make mistakes in the myriad of rules and regulations
that have been developed over the years of regulation. But there is one rule
for the regulator and another for the regulated. How much better that an IFA
should be suffering from his age so that they can much bully him into doing
what they want him to do. What happened to the civilised society where the weak
are protected not exploited? What happened to the Rule of Law?
2. The FSA could not be bothered to check my status when writing to me thereby wasting my time.
I
have not been authorised for some 15 months. I had retired. I have no need nor
wish to keep up with the idiocy of regulation. However the FSA expects me to
pick up the long forgotten rulebook as if I had been practising all this time.
I know from experience that the FSA cannot tell me what has changed in it since
I retired but by some strange process of osmosis I am expected to be au courant
with their latest ideas. The FSA is
more than likely to be subject to targets and having not bothered with Boyd
& Associates for over 12 months is trying hard to catch up.
Having never dealt with me in a straightforward business manner and writing 3 or 4 letters where 1 would have done the FSA accused me of not co-operating with them! (FSA letter of 9th July refers)
See
FSA letter dated 17th May 2004 included in 1 above.
A
sample letter is included. Had this letter been written this matter could have
been settled by now.
3. The
FSA failed to read the letters I wrote which necessitated in unnecessary
correspondence and a telephone call to put matters right.
I complained
that the FSA owed me a duty of skill and care. The only response that produced
was for the FSA to write another longer letter covering all the points that had
already been covered and failing to read my letters that had already answered
the points raised.
However
in the rule book produced by the FSA, as an IFA I was expected to recognise a
complaint when it was made and go straight into complaint mode. Apparently ,
there is one rule for the regulator and one for the regulated. Has no one heard
of the Rule of Law?
4. The
FSA lied to me
The
FSAVC review team is responsible for carrying out the review and ensuring
targets are met and the review completed on time. When I asked why they had not
been chasing me for the last 12 months they claimed that it was not their job
to remind me of my responsibilities to the review.
5. The fscs lied to me
When
I asked the fscs for a copy of the report they had compiled on
me to come to the conclusion that I had enough resources to pay for any
liability I might have to the review they replied that their search in public
information had thrown up their answer.
And
this was within 6 months of the Freedom of Information Act!
I
hold no shares nor Gilts so there is no public record of my wealth. Furthermore
rather amateurishly they tried to hide behind the data protection act
conveniently forgetting that it was information about myself I was requesting
and that I too had to sign up to the act and therefore knew what it was about.
6. The
FSA was gratuitously rude to me
The
FSA had always promised that we, the IFAs, would be treated according to our
behaviour. Firms who were slovenly in their compliance would attract more
monitoring visits etc. I had always made a point of replying to the regulator
within 48 hours but was incensed to be told by what date my reply should be in.
I
am quite certain that if a member of staff in Canary Wharf prided him/herself
on maintaining a positive and helpful attitude to his/her job they would have
been similarly incensed. I would remind you the review team wanted my
co-operation!
7. The FSA claims that it has high standards but
fails to observe the high standards it asks others to meet.
We
are governed by the Rule of Law. In effect this means that the regulator has to
observe the same standards and rules as the regulated. In my letter of 11th
June I asked the review team to set out, inter alia, the financial implications
of the various options I had put to me. They failed to answer this question, in
spite of my not being authorised. How else can I, an ex IFA, in retirement and
with my authorisation cancelled be expected to keep up with the regulations?
Yet, as an IFA, I was expected to give my clientele full and sufficient
information to enable them to make an educated and informed choice.
I
assumed, because the regulator mentioned no financial implications in going
down the FOS route I did not object to that suggestion put to me by Mr Younger.
You can appreciate my surprise at being told by the FOS that I was liable for two
case fees.
Similarly,
in my letter of 11th June 2004
I pointed out that Messrs Barton and Younger had a duty of skill and
care towards me and in that they had singularly failed. In my letter of 12th July I pointed out that I had been treated with contempt
throughout my recent dealings with the regulator. In my telecon with Mr Younger
I pointed out that he did not answer my correspondence. Strange to relate no one bothered to
investigate my complaints.
As
an IFA I was expected to recognise a complaint and revert to complaint mode
when a client complained to me. Once again the FSA sets standards he believes
do not apply to himself.
As
an IFA I am expected to set out in considerable detail what the charges and
costs of the proposed plan I have advised the client to buy. Failure to do so
results in punitive behaviour such as fines. However, the FSA doesn’t want the
consumer to know of his odd greedy habits of shovelling money into his own
pockets, especially as it belongs to the investor not the company. There is
always one standard for the regulated and one for the regulator! But we are
governed by the Rule of Law.
8. The
FSA is more concerned with bumbledom than getting on with the job.
In
my letter of I pointed out that
were the FSA a commercial organisation and were asking me to pay £16,101 the
least I could expect was a breakdown of that amount and how it was arrived at.
The response was because I had not answered the queries put to me in a manner I
had not been informed of, I was not to be privy to that information.
There
are many possibilities as to how this matter could be settled. Were I at fault
and won the lottery I might be tempted to pay out without any more to do simply
because writing these unproductive and meaningless letters is so utterly
boring. On the other hand I could just get bored and if I had the resources to
discharge my liability would o so to achieve peace and quiet. But because of
the FSA’s puerile approach to its own powers I am denied this information and
therefore the ability to end this meaningless and unproductive activity.
9. The FSA has sentenced me and my children to
be deprived of my life yet none of us have committed any crime.
Haven’t
Eichman, Klaus Barbe et al all been indicted on crimes against humanity for
which the penalty was death?
May
I thank all of the staff at the fSA for making my Christmas and New Year break
so restful and enrgising. I was whisked into hospital by ambulance as my
diseases progress. What would I do without your helpful interference of my
attempts to recuperate. All I can wish you lot is a pox on all your houses.
I
am aware that there was a case where it was deemed that an IFA should be liable
until the day he died for any mistake he made during his lifetime. Quaint
really how the law and the FSA put money before human life. But the regulator’s
staff, when ill, are sent home to recover. The sole trader, no matter what
state his health must be hounded and chased because the regulator can get away
with it but claims his actions are governed by law.
Were
the regulator to make it mandatory that every IFA buys prepaid run off
Professional Indemnity insurance there would be no problem. The only one being
is that once we had a thriving successful Professional Indemnity insurance
industry. The FSA, not understanding the mechanics of Professional Indemnity
insurance destroyed the market, inter alia, by asking everybody to submit
claims against the IFAs for mis-selling pensions whilst the regulator was
regulating. Having destroyed the Professional Indemnity insurance market the
FSA is desperately looking for the next sucker to pay for his own incompetence
and what better target than a sick and vulnerable sole trader? However until
they destroyed the Professional Indemnity insurance market I was more than
adequately able to meet my obligations. I understand that such is the
devastation of the PI insurance market one can only obtain run off cover for
6years and about every product is excluded. If we allow the FSA to go on
running things we will all be wiped out. Yet I have on record statements by the
FSA that PI insurance was to be their cornerstone of consumer protection.
I
am sorry to burden you with all this useless information but my decline in
fitness has resulted in my leaving the business without much income, no
prospects of earning anything and the accumulation of capital a mere fantasy.
All this is, needless to say, the stating of the obvious. I cannot imagine a
case where an IFA does not grow old, does not in the ageing process suffer
deteriorating faculties but as there is no provision in the rules for the
inevitable, such matters are ignored. After all the IFA, once not working nor
earning, is someone who can be exploited. How much better for the FSA if he is
ill and experiencing faculty damage. However, my decline and descent into
penury were religiously reported to the FSA annually and before they started
this witch-hunt they knew I it was very unlikely that I could meet my
obligations, were I to have any.
Nothing
is more objectionable than an institution, be it the law or the FSA being put
into the position of harassing the weak and infirm. It is an abomination to any
civilised society. Indeed it is what sets the United Kingdom aside from a
banana republic. But not the FSA. It is hell bent on hounding old and infirm
men into the grave. Indeed it protects its own employees in so far as when they
grow old and infirm they are relieved of their responsibilities. Not so the
IFA. Were he to have been a sole trader his liability continues beyond the
grave. Why? Because the regulator can get away with such a policy. There is
simply no machinery strong enough to control a rapacious and unjust regulator.
The
diseases from which I suffer are progressive. They get worse. Stress
exacerbates them. Were I to let slip my discipline in dealing with my diseases
I could descend into a vortex of sickness with only one end, death. There has
been no recognition of my weakened state whatsoever. I am sentenced, without trial, to have my length of life truncated.
However the FSA prattles on about not wanting
to cause stress but because they are whimsical, arbitrary and vindictive in
their dealings with the regulated any contact with them is stressful. For them to
claim that they do not wish to inflict any stress on me is enough. They naively
believe there is nothing else to do but to continue exposing me to stress.
Fundamentally,
this is the equivalent of taking candy from kids! I cannot judge the standard
of the professionals I appoint nor can I be sure that my decisions are within
the bounds of reality. What I do know with absolute certainty that any
assessment carried out by the FSA is bound to be flawed and incorrect. If, at the end of the palaver, I am required
to pay out I will never know whether the decision was right or wrong. What I do
have absolute proof of is that the FSA and it’s various minions are
dysfunctional and incompetent and that any work of theirs must be subject to
checking and close scrutiny. If the FSA can make such a fist of such a simple
matter then obviously they are not to be trusted to come up with correct
answer. If they use their power to get the answer they want then this would be
the cynical abuse of power. In a banana republic this would be called
corruption!
Does
the FSA’s Chief Executive retire and have continuing liabilities after
retirement? No, he is bundled out of office simply because he might make age
related mistakes and not have the necessary drive and ability at 60 to
continue. Double standards once more apply. The regulator can retire in peace
and tranquillity but the IFA goes on forever.
The
FSA bangs on about high standards and that their sole aim is to protect the
consumer. Going down the route of getting the FOS to produce a result that can
be enforced at law is one superb way of abandoning their responsibility to the
consumer by leaving it in the hands of the Courts. This can have more than one
result.
1.
The
consumer gets his compensation.
2.
The
consumer has to deal with the sick and infirm and may very well decide not to
proceed with Court action because he is civilised in his approach to the weak
and infirm.
3.
The
Court decides that harassing the dying and the infirm is not a civilised route
to take.
What
a cynical approach to the FSA’s responsibilities!. Under no circumstances do
anything because such action might curtail the FSA’s options in dodging their
responsibilities.
10. The
FSA has yet to master the English tongue
In
some documents there is the statement that the Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000 empowers the FSA and its associated offices to demand of the
Authorised information that might or might not be germane to a line of
investigation. It is only when one has read it and rejected it being no longer
authorised that an entirely different paragraph rules that “authorised” means
ever authorised .
Why
could the word “ever” not be inserted from the very beginning rather than
introduced as an afterthought.
How
often has sloppy and slovenly drafting affect the final outcome. There are
probably thousands of other examples but they won’t come to light unless and
until it suits the FSA’s book.
12. The FSA believes the Rule of Law does not
apply to them.
There
is little doubt that the FSA is a corrupt and dysfunctional organisation. It
sets standards for others to observe but believes it is exempt from such
standards for its own behaviour. This is a cynical abuse of power and is the
definition of corruption. The FSA is sloppy and slovenly in its procedures and
unable to master the English language that is in everybody’s daily usage. In a
straw poll taken amongst human beings universal horror and disbelief were
expressed about the FSA harassing the weak and vulnerable.
If
you ask the FSA a question, and the answer is something they feel uncomfortable
about they will not reply. They live in fear and trembling that one day their
corrupt little world will be found exposed. So we, who have either endured or
enduring their nasty little ways have to go on pushing against a dam that has
to burst eventually. Instead of this false corrupt and utterly unacceptable
behaviour why can we not have a determination to forget Roger Levitt and Garry
Heath, the two men who almost single handed showed the then regulators up for
the bunch of cowboys they really were. Let us grow up and have a Financial
Services Authority that is actually based on a legal footing, that respects the
rights of others and does not fear the knock in the night that is the hall mark
of their behaviour today. Let out of the ashes of the mess we have today create
a service that can hold it’s head on high and needn’t fear the knock at 2 a.m.
What
we have seen is an arrogant and stupid regulator make mistake after mistake,
destroying the IFA, the “with profit” funds, the PI insurance market, the
public’s trust in financial products just to name but a few. All we have
experienced is devastation and nothing to put in it’s place bar a rapacious
regulator unfit to regulate still pretending it has anything to offer. Having
destroyed so many successful products the last reservoir of cash to pay for
it’s failures are a few nuggets of gold left in the left sock of ageing and
sick men. Some wal!
The
regulator has also presided over a pension review that all bar the regulator
agree was fatally flawed, necessitating him reopening 50% of the closed cases,
an endowment review that is so wide of the mark that one wonders if we are on
the same planet. Instructively the FSA has allowed the biggest scandal of all
go completely unremarked upon because it derived from some damn fool rules
imposed by the reg. About the only
thing he has in common with the rest of the industry is a dislike of criticism
especially when he screwed up.
Who
will rid the UK of this troublesome regulator? Are there any out there waiting
to be counted?