Money Marketing reporter Sam Brodbeck yesterday ran a story announcing the long overdue debate on the organisation that delivered a torpedo into your savings back in November 2011, the UK Financial Services Regulator.
Sam explained; Conservative MP for Aberconwy Guto Bebb will table the motion “this House believes that the Financial Conduct Authority in its current form is not fit for purpose and we have no confidence in its existing structure and procedures.”
MPs will vote on the motion at the end of the debate. He is supported by Treasury committee member and Labour MP John Mann and SNP MP and pensions spokesman Ian Blackford.
Whilst the prospect of justice for EEA investors may be more remote than ever, I did feel motivated to relay the facts of our case to the MPs putting forward the motion and I enclose below my communication to them. There were 557 investors on the ECHR application representing a total claim of just under £70m but my note reflects only the number currently subscribing to this website.
If you continue to feel outraged by the behaviour of the UK Regulator and are motivated to make your views known in advance of this debate, you will find the contact email addresses after my message.
Dear Gentlemen
I represent a group of around 300 investors who were denied access to their funds as a direct consequence of the actions of the then FSA in November 2011.
Since that time we have made our case to the FSA Complaints Team, the Complaints Commissioner, the FCA, the Treasury and following consultation with an international lawyer, to the European Court of Human Rights.
It is clear that the investors will not be compensated for their losses but if you intend to table a motion that the FCA in its current form is not fit for purpose, and that you have no confidence in its existing structures and procedures, we can provide evidence to support your motion.
The FCA should not enjoy the exemption from liability that would serve as a safeguard to ensure best practice and it is clear that the complaints procedures are inadequate and lack independent scrutiny. That they appoint their own Complaints Commissioner with no power to enforce is a serious failing in corporate responsibility and a signal to the industry that lip service is acceptable from the office that should properly be a beacon of best practice.
It is also clear from the number of unprofessional press statements made over the years that the FCA fails to recognise the impact of its announcements or worse, recognises but fails to mitigate the harmful consequences for savers. They lack the necessary internal processes to protect consumers and when the Treasury is asked to intervene, consumers are informed that they have no authority to do so and such matters are for the board of directors at the FCA. The office of financial regulation should no longer operate as a pseudo-private company, it needs to be an integral function of the Treasury with its apparent autonomy removed.
As a saver who lost access to a large portion of my life savings when incorrect and unprofessional announcements were made by the Regulator creating a run on an otherwise sound fund, I (and thousands of others) have completely lost faith in the regulation of financial services industry. The impression I have is of an industry club run for the benefit of its members rather than consumers.
I very much hope your motion succeeds and if you require any further evidence or statements, please do not hesitate to contact me or the two IFAs copied; Ian Coley and Terence O’Halloran.
To:
office@gutobebbmp.co.uk
john.mann.mp@parliament.uk
ian.blackford.mp@parliament.uk