25 signatures reached
To: HM Government
Hold the Financial Conduct Authority to account for its actions
Remove the immunity to prosecution for damages currently enjoyed by the Financial Conduct Authority where its actions lead directly to investor and/ or industry disadvantage..
There are several relevant cases that demonstrate this, the latest and probably simplest of which is the EEA Life Settlements Fund.
There are several relevant cases that demonstrate this, the latest and probably simplest of which is the EEA Life Settlements Fund.
Why is this important?
At the moment that Financial Conduct Authority is able to make statements or take action with absolute impunity and if clients lose money or advisers lose money as a result, then there is no effective remedy to claim compensation .
For example, in the EEA Life Settlements Funds case mentioned above, the Financial Conduct Authority issued a guidance consultation into their proposals for ensuring that the investment was not marketed to unsuitable clients. There were several ways in which this could have been resolved, unfortunately when issuing the consultation guidance the Financial Services Authority (at the time) issued a statement that described the investment in inaccurate, emotive and pejorative terms. This led to an immediate run on the fund and consequent closure, trapping many clients in the fund and creating large scale immediate losses to existing clients.
The Financial Conduct Authority has since then been highly active in trying to encourage any client to seek compensation from advisers in order to distract investors from the part it played.
Whilst I am wholly supportive of clients making claims against advisers where poor advice has been given, it is not feasible to suggest that all clients were poorly advised, whereas all investors have been adversely affected by the Financial Conduct Authority statement and subsequent refusal to accept any responsibility.
The status of immunity against prosecution for damages simply cannot be justified. Any person or body with the ability to affect third parties by its actions, whether verbal, written or by dint of action must be capable of being held responsible for any disadvantage caused to those third party (ies)
For example, in the EEA Life Settlements Funds case mentioned above, the Financial Conduct Authority issued a guidance consultation into their proposals for ensuring that the investment was not marketed to unsuitable clients. There were several ways in which this could have been resolved, unfortunately when issuing the consultation guidance the Financial Services Authority (at the time) issued a statement that described the investment in inaccurate, emotive and pejorative terms. This led to an immediate run on the fund and consequent closure, trapping many clients in the fund and creating large scale immediate losses to existing clients.
The Financial Conduct Authority has since then been highly active in trying to encourage any client to seek compensation from advisers in order to distract investors from the part it played.
Whilst I am wholly supportive of clients making claims against advisers where poor advice has been given, it is not feasible to suggest that all clients were poorly advised, whereas all investors have been adversely affected by the Financial Conduct Authority statement and subsequent refusal to accept any responsibility.
The status of immunity against prosecution for damages simply cannot be justified. Any person or body with the ability to affect third parties by its actions, whether verbal, written or by dint of action must be capable of being held responsible for any disadvantage caused to those third party (ies)
