Obscene to penalise the whole industry…
This week brokers were riled by news that they would have to pay a supplementary £15m levy to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme this year….
This is obscene. If I am reading this correctly, basically the FSCS is imposing a levy on firms that have provided advice in the correct manner to support claims made against a company that hasn’t.
How can an arbitrary organisation penalise a whole industry predominantly off the back of one firm’s activity?
In future, as brokers are we therefore expected to fund all errors made in our industry by companies we cannot control? Who was supposed to control this firm and why are funds to pay for this not being allocated from their budgets i.e. the FCA’s or even the directors of the company that allowed this practice in the first place?
The spread of this load may well be fairly negligible overall; however, it doesn’t make it right.
It’s like having to pay part of someone else’s speeding fine because they happen to drive the same make of car as you.
Simon Charles, RA Mortgages
…for one firm’s dodgy investment advice…
Utterly outrageous on every single level.
Why should advisers that can’t and don’t offer [investment] schemes have to pay a significant cost for something that they have never been involved in?
I’m sure Ami will be leading the line on this and doing all it can.
Rob Jupp, Brightstar
…which the regulator failed to spot in time
So effectively it was an investment idea that went wrong and the FCA failed to spot it in time; nice.
What about the overpayment mortgage brokers have already made to FSCS costs in past years that has not been corrected?
It seems to me the FSCS will bill anyone it thinks can cover the costs, irrespective of fairness or value for money. It must have bled out the smaller investment adviser to the point it knows it is unsustainable already.
The real reason behind the funding review is [the scheme’s] ability to keep the trough open.
Steven Balmer, Mortgage & Insurance Centre
Shame on MPs, wasting time on tenancy issue
(Balmer continues) Responding to news that the CML has denied claims by MPs that it is a “stumbling block” to longer-term tenancies…
MPs have a tendency towards their own political agenda and limelight.
I own a lettings business and, despite asking potential tenants for the past two years if they had any desire for a longer tenancy, the answer has been invariably ‘No’. Assured shorthold tenancies convert to a renewable monthly contract anyway and give the tenant greater flexibility and options after the initial tie-in.
Why are our MPs wasting time on this when there is obviously no desire to increase tie-in periods? Most homelessness is caused by social problems and most people are evicted for failing to pay their rent. Westminster has slashed rent benefits and operates a benefit system of sanctions, which knowingly causes hardship, duress and depression, affecting children as well as parents.
That is what MPs should be addressing – not this smoke-and-mirrors nonsense. Shame on them.
Steven Balmer (as above)