rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Oct 12, 2020 21:24:14 GMT
Sat here since around midday farting around with this complaints form..about to submit but on re-reading, it comes across as more of a complaint about FS with a few darts aimed at the FCA..and thats exactly whats not wanted..damnation..well ive got 1 1/2 hrs to get something off...what to do
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Oct 13, 2020 7:39:00 GMT
Take more time. Surely the new complaints scheme can't come in to effect for a while as the consultation closing date was only yesterday.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,568
Likes: 5,635
|
Post by duck on Oct 13, 2020 8:51:52 GMT
..... Surely the new complaints scheme can't come in to effect for a while as the consultation closing date was only yesterday. This is where things get slightly more complicated. The 'new scheme' in the words of the FCA will be a clarification of the old scheme (in an easier to read format). By rights Col (my prime area of interest) should be dealt with under the old scheme ..... but of course if the new scheme is just a clarification of the old scheme the provision of new limits in the new scheme should apply to the old scheme ..... but since investors just didn't understand the old scheme that is now being clarified.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 13, 2020 9:22:37 GMT
..... Surely the new complaints scheme can't come in to effect for a while as the consultation closing date was only yesterday. This is where things get slightly more complicated. The 'new scheme' in the words of the FCA will be a clarification of the old scheme (in an easier to read format). By rights Col (my prime area of interest) should be dealt with under the old scheme ..... but of course if the new scheme is just a clarification of the old scheme the provision of new limits in the new scheme should apply to the old scheme ..... but since investors just didn't understand the old scheme that is now being clarified. Well the old scheme was, 'you hardly get any compensation', and the new scheme is, 'we clarify how little compensation you get'.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,568
Likes: 5,635
|
Post by duck on Oct 13, 2020 11:08:46 GMT
Well the old scheme was, 'you hardly get any compensation', and the new scheme is, 'we clarify how little compensation you get'. That was the way the FCA ran the scheme but when the scheme was set up by Parliament the provision of 'put back in the position' was firmly in place as a counterweight to the immunity to prosecution, a point well made by the departing Complaints Commissioner in his recent article.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 13, 2020 12:09:01 GMT
Well the old scheme was, 'you hardly get any compensation', and the new scheme is, 'we clarify how little compensation you get'. That was the way the FCA ran the scheme but when the scheme was set up by Parliament the provision of 'put back in the position' was firmly in place as a counterweight to the immunity to prosecution, a point well made by the departing Complaints Commissioner in his recent article. Do you have a link?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,568
Likes: 5,635
|
Post by duck on Oct 13, 2020 13:09:31 GMT
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 13, 2020 19:24:25 GMT
That doesn't seem to be an article by the complaints commissioner, just some press thing. Is there a link to the actual article?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,568
Likes: 5,635
|
Post by duck on Oct 14, 2020 3:37:36 GMT
The commissioner didn't write the article but as the quotes show he was the source.
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Oct 14, 2020 5:07:22 GMT
Thank you oh wisest and most well informed of Ducks. Do you by chance have any links to similar articles not behind paywalls?
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Oct 14, 2020 5:39:19 GMT
..... Surely the new complaints scheme can't come in to effect for a while as the consultation closing date was only yesterday. This is where things get slightly more complicated. The 'new scheme' in the words of the FCA will be a clarification of the old scheme (in an easier to read format). By rights Col (my prime area of interest) should be dealt with under the old scheme ..... but of course if the new scheme is just a clarification of the old scheme the provision of new limits in the new scheme should apply to the old scheme ..... but since investors just didn't understand the old scheme that is now being clarified. Yes sirs at FCA, we understand our place in the pecking order is very low down indeed, but this surely is below the belt. Oh - of course, there is no belt..... What is the strategy in terms of complaining to the Complaints Commissioner or Parliament even or whoever else might assist regarding this attempt at clarification? On your point about the "new" limits, are you saying the because the limits will be explicit, they override Parliament's "put back in the position" intent. Hence the Complaints' Commissioner can no longer compensate for losses above these amounts? It sounds as if yes that is exactly what you are saying. I note this "new" scheme will likely have full Bank of England support as it also applies to complaints against "the Bank" and of course the new Governor was promoted there from being head of the FCA. His eye appears to have been aimed at the ball of preparing financial service companies for post Brexit life, and off the ball regarding P2P regulation. I rather feel my response to the consultation explicitly mention "new scheme" so perhaps it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that my response might be disregarded. One of the points I made, I had made earlier elsewhere on this board, that the "new" scheme provided that compensation would only be paid where the regulator's failings were the Sole or Prime cause of the loss. I made the point that it seemed fair and reasonable that proportionate compensation should be paid where the regulatory failings had Contributed to the loss. Is this in fact what happens under the old scheme? The other thing that struck me as odd in the "new" scheme paperwork was a comment I took to mean that the scheme had to have regard for take account of the fact that it was being paid for by the industry being regulated.
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Oct 14, 2020 6:49:53 GMT
This is where things get slightly more complicated. The 'new scheme' in the words of the FCA will be a clarification of the old scheme (in an easier to read format). By rights Col (my prime area of interest) should be dealt with under the old scheme ..... but of course if the new scheme is just a clarification of the old scheme the provision of new limits in the new scheme should apply to the old scheme ..... but since investors just didn't understand the old scheme that is now being clarified. Yes sirs at FCA, we understand our place in the pecking order is very low down indeed, but this surely is below the belt. Oh - of course, there is no belt..... What is the strategy in terms of complaining to the Complaints Commissioner or Parliament even or whoever else might assist regarding this attempt at clarification? On your point about the "new" limits, are you saying the because the limits will be explicit, they override Parliament's "put back in the position" intent. Hence the Complaints' Commissioner can no longer compensate for losses above these amounts? It sounds as if yes that is exactly what you are saying. I note this "new" scheme will likely have full Bank of England support as it also applies to complaints against "the Bank" and of course the new Governor was promoted there from being head of the FCA. His eye appears to have been aimed at the ball of preparing financial service companies for post Brexit life, and off the ball regarding P2P regulation. I rather feel my response to the consultation explicitly mention "new scheme" so perhaps it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that my response might be disregarded. One of the points I made, I had made earlier elsewhere on this board, that the "new" scheme provided that compensation would only be paid where the regulator's failings were the Sole or Prime cause of the loss. I made the point that it seemed fair and reasonable that proportionate compensation should be paid where the regulatory failings had Contributed to the loss. Is this in fact what happens under the old scheme? The other thing that struck me as odd in the "new" scheme paperwork was a comment I took to mean that the scheme had to have regard for take account of the fact that it was being paid for by the industry being regulated. www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp20-11-complaints-against-regulators-fca-pra-boe"Our proposals are intended to improve the Scheme and we believe that the outcomes for most complainants would be broadly consistent with our current practice. We aim to bring the revised Scheme into force as soon as reasonable practicable. We propose that all complaints received after the revised Scheme comes into force will be handled by us under the revised Scheme." "Improve the scheme" - who benefits most? "outcomes for most complainants would be broadly consistent" Sir Humphrey Appleby in full flow. It's just a minority of complainants - mostly HNW or going on that way - who are due to lose over £10,000. At least it is acknowledged that it is a revised Scheme. Clarification in negotiating terminology generally involves new proposals.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 14, 2020 7:04:47 GMT
The revealing thing about the FCA proposals is that they reflect the culture of contempt that the City holds for the concepts of fairness and honesty and more so where the interests of minnows such as small investors are involved. Not surprising when you look back at recent bad behaviours by the banks and other so-called financial institutions -Libor scandal, mis-selling etc etc. Commenting on the proposals is a waste of time. Rather like asking a Volkwagen senior manager to advise of the merits of diesel engines.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,568
Likes: 5,635
|
Post by duck on Oct 14, 2020 7:36:11 GMT
multiaccountmanager That was the only article where the outgoing Complaints Commissioner had his say. (hint 'incognito mode', I can't post the article here) There were other articles but they all fed off this one as far as I can see. When the consultation was launched I sent the following to the Treasury Committee who have subsequently said they will be examining the consultation when it has closed. The use of 'will of Parliament is deliberate' since the exact wording was never enshrined in law (FSMA 2000 and amendments). Yes. There is the 'exceptional circumstances' clause but that is subjective. Yes but see below. That is the case and a major part of the FCA's argument. The FCA is funded through levies paid by the industry ..... who then pass that onto consumers. Their argument is that they (they FCA) are trying to avoid consumers having to pay more for services whilst neglecting the fact that if they did their job correctly then there would be no extra costs to pass on to consumers ..... What this statement neglects is that the Complaints Commissioner has been asking for this review for a fair number of years (4 or 5 to my knowledge). As for 'current practice' this again is very careful wording. I have read every Complaints Commissioners report from 2017 onwards and it is obvious that larger sums have been paid out that were not awarded by the Complaints Commissioner. Where the Complaints Commissioner was involved the majority (that resulted in ex-gratia payments) showed small awards of £100 - £150 for 'distress' or due to the FCA taking excess time, there were a couple of notable exceptions. Larger payments do not generally see the light of day (the FCA declared a certain number of larger payments and these do not appear in Complaints Commissioners reports). To quote the Complaints Commissioner “ Where the fault is the regulator’s there appears to me to be no basis for arguing that full compensation should not be awarded.”
|
|
taffy
Posts: 148
Likes: 359
|
Post by taffy on Oct 14, 2020 8:47:48 GMT
I think it is also very relevant that I (and I suspect many others) would not have invested in F.S., Lendy, etc if they were not Authorised & Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. It would have been virtually impossible for an individual investor to carry out Due Diligence on such Companies, so had to rely on the integrity and competence of the FCA and in the case of ISA`s, authorised by HMRC also. Incidentally, now the Bank of England are seriously considering negative interest rates, I can see why Andrew Bailey (ex head of the FCA) was selected as the Governor of the Bank, he is a specialist in overseeing negative rates and capital losses!
|
|