FSA cancels adviser’s permissions over unpaid CCJs
Share
The Financial Services Authority has cancelled the permissions of Elaine MacCormack, trading as EPM Financial Services, because of outstanding County Court judgements of up to £531,224.
MacCormack had been granted permissions to carry out home finance and designated investment business.
On June 15 2010, the FSA wrote to MacCormack stating that there were seven unsatisfied CCJs against her, or the firm, totalling £530,009.
She informed the FSA that she had satisfied one CCJ and made payments in respect of another, reducing the total debt by £5,369 and that she should be able to meet all the liabilities upon completion of the sale of her property, which was being marketed.
But since then the FSA says it has received evidence suggesting that a further six CCJs totaling £6,584 have been made against her or the firm, which remain unsatisfied.
The regulator says it requested the adviser confirm whether these CCJs were made against her or the firms but it did not receive a response.
It says it therefore appears that 12 CCJs against her or the firm are unsatisfied at a total of around £531,224.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and Follow @mortgagestrat
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (14)
Anonymous | 6 Apr 2011 3:47 pm
What the hell has it got to do with the FSA? They assisted the banking industry in decimating the livelihood of Mortgage Brokers, and now they are hounding the poor sods who have already suffered, purely because they are suffering!
I think it's about time they were taken to the European Court of Human Rights to stop their Dictatorial actions and pay compensation to all who have suffered at their incompetent hands!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sauce for the goose? | 6 Apr 2011 3:50 pm
FSA had two CCJs, carried on regardless.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 Apr 2011 4:12 pm
When i read this, i though that sounded a bit harsh, if was propably for a £200 outstanding utility debt, but when you see the full amount. Wow, I thought goodbye Elaine. Hope you have to repay it all back.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 Apr 2011 5:38 pm
Clearly this lady is not a candidate for providing Debt Councelling: Contrary to the first response received, I congratulate the FSA for taking this action against her, let this be a lesson to all IFA's , if you cannot look after your own financial affairs, what hope is there for members of the general public who rely on such professionals for advice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 Apr 2011 6:19 pm
3 years ago she would have fit Mortgages Plc's Unlimited Any product....
Those were the good old days.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Adams | 6 Apr 2011 8:23 pm
Damn,it's a shame Gmac or Mortgages plc aren't still around. They would have have given her a mortgage no problem....!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 Apr 2011 10:42 am
As a former MPLC underwriter I declined similar unlimited cases due to size of CCJs - it wasn't just a case of tick and stamp
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 Apr 2011 11:20 am
HAHA you've got no chance on here MPLC.......aparently all we were was button pushers.
You've got to love the broking world........cry and moan when you decline then get on the high horse after the event.
Priceless.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 Apr 2011 11:37 am
Anon 10.42
It was if the packager kicked up enough of a stink!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Glen McKeown | 7 Apr 2011 11:44 am
The really sad thing about this country is the number of stupid, sanctimonious people who are ready to make judgements based on little or no evidence.
It's no wonder some people stay Anonymous if it covers their ignorance.
Based on the information provided it is not possible to make the judgement that Ms MacCormack is any less knowledgable or professional than any other adviser in the business. There is no indication of why the CCJs have arisen.
I have a friend who is extremely good at his job, but is likely to go bankrupt because of the financial crisis. Business decisions are made on the information at the time, and do go wrong, often for reasons outside the individuals control.
The FSA may well be right in rescinding Ms MacCormack's permissions but there is nothing in the contents of this article that call for a personal attack on the integrity or competence of the lady. That is just gratuitously offensive.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment