Special Official Note For Mortgage Brokers

dunstonh

Flippin heck D, thats pretty nasty.

It was. At the time it was scary. You dont expect a letter from the PIA everyday. However, the compliance dept were superb and so were the PIA to be fair. I learned a lot from it. I was told that it was the first complaint of its type as well so I think thats why it had interest from the PIA. I think they were a little disapointed when they found it was a hatchet copy and paste job. The key things noted were never say the word "recommend". Never suggest or recommend product providers and keep the discussion points generic or if you have to mention features of certain products, use the term "some providers do this....".

The key point here is that I was told that every post I make whether I show disclosure or not does have a liability attached to it. It doesnt matter if it is in a personal sense or representing a company that gives advice. Its a subject matter you are qualified and licenced to discuss and you have a duty of care. That liaiblity can be reduced/removed by keeping it generic and putting a warning on the post that it is not advice and for discussion only.

I'm not keen on Andrew's current version. There is enough anti adviser bias in the forums at times and mentioning sales spin will undermine the work that most of us spend here in attempting to improve the image of the industry. Not remind people that there are a few idiots around still. I think it should be simple and to the point. I nominate my sig for consideration. It gives the warnings and points people to independent advice if they feel they need it. Its not sales speak, there is no spin, just a clean message.

edit: Andrew changed it whilst i posted. So some of above doesnt count.

AndrewSmith

The old version is but a distand memory DD,

Check out my new bottom
I
I
I
I
I
V

MortgageMamma

Do you still have the letter which offered you guidance on internet forum discussion D?

Yes I must say I do like your signature as well.

MortgageMamma

Actually come to think of it, I like my own signature as well. although I want us to move closer to making the decision of what its to be not further away

AndrewSmith

I'm keeping my new butt I think.

It looks good on me

dunstonh

Still dont like it Andrew. If you are stating you are an adviser, then you are posting from a position of knowledge. You post with a duty of care. Lets just say you get a git like the one that reported me and you did post something incorrect or in breach of rules. Do you think the FSA would let you get away with using the "personal opinion" bit? Not if you have also stated you are an adviser. Its a bit like saying "these are the rules but dont worry about that, my personal opinion is the opposite".

I dont have the letter MM. It was back in PIA days and around 1996. I was a tied agent back then and it was mostly handled through the life company compliance. They actually didnt have any internet compliance in place at that point and I was included in the writing of the rule book.

herbiesjp

dunstonh wrote:

Still dont like it Andrew. If you are stating you are an adviser, then you are posting from a position of knowledge. You post with a duty of care. Lets just say you get a git like the one that reported me and you did post something incorrect or in breach of rules. Do you think the FSA would let you get away with using the "personal opinion" bit? Not if you have also stated you are an adviser. Its a bit like saying "these are the rules but dont worry about that, my personal opinion is the opposite".

Hi Dunston - on that basis, you would then need to remove your bit that says " I am an IFA"

Just a thought

Joe_Bloggs

Andrew, your butt was initially over capitalised and too close to the centre at times. MM, one can never be assured of indemnity. I expect there is a tribunal process that costs money to set up and be represented effectively . Perhaps there is an insurance policy for the possibility or requiring such representation.
There is no guarantee that the insurance would pay out either.
It amused me when I paid a fee to my conveyancing solicitor to insure myself against them running away with my money.
J_B.

dunstonh

I think its fine to put your status in. However, we are responsible for what we post. A compliance message can reduce the liability but we still have to post with consideration of who and what we are. Putting "personal opinion" down is not reducing liability. Warning someone that posts made are discussion only and not advice is all that is required.

If I was to say "I recommend Norwich Union for that...." it wouldnt matter what my signature said. I have given a recommendation.

I dont think anyone of the regular advisers here touts for business or breaks any compliance rules. Some may come close when answering "who is best fixed rate mortgage for me" as you are giving a product provider and product but that with mortgages, its less of an issue than with investment class as mortgage rates are factual where investment business is more subjective and with so many different tax wrappers, charging methods and variety of investment products, you cant give that sort of data.

edit: that said, I have just reported a poster that has promoted his company in the life assurance section a few times. For once it is a UK FSA authorised company and a clear breach.

herbiesjp

dunstonh wrote:

I think its fine to put your status in. However, we are responsible for what we post. A compliance message can reduce the liability but we still have to post with consideration of who and what we are. Putting "personal opinion" down is not reducing liability. Warning someone that posts made are discussion only and not advice is all that is required.

If I was to say "I recommend Norwich Union for that...." it wouldnt matter what my signature said. I have given a recommendation.

I have to agree with you which I why I tend to steer clear of naming lenders.