MSE News: Warning! Re-Give savings not protected

Former_MSE_Dan

We've now published a blog on this subject here

FSA must act fast to stop savers unwittingly risking cash

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/team-blog/2012/07/24/fsa-must-act-fast-to-stop-savers-unwittingly-risking-cash/

dunstonh

Maybe if the FSA redirected resources from the issues that present under 1% of complaints to the FOS to those that actually matter then we would get a quicker response and better consumer protection.

jimjames

Unbelievable that Regive are able to display the FSA and HMRC logos on their website with impunity. Even if they can't be stopped quickly from using the phrases about being registered I'm very surprised that they are permitted to use those logos.

Paul_Herring

jimjames wrote: »

Unbelievable that Regive are able to display the FSA

Why? They are actually registered with them. (Perhaps the FSA could come up with some snappy logo that represents that customers accounts are FSCS protected?)

and HMRC logos

That one puzzles me - what's it supposed to mislead the public into thinking?

on their website with impunity. Even if they can't be stopped quickly from using the phrases about being registered I'm very surprised that they are permitted to use those logos.

alanq

If there were rules about the use of these logos and enforcement as strict as that for use of Olympic logos / words then we would not have a problem!

dunstonh

jimjames wrote: »

Unbelievable that Regive are able to display the FSA and HMRC logos on their website with impunity. Even if they can't be stopped quickly from using the phrases about being registered I'm very surprised that they are permitted to use those logos.

The FSA does allow the use of the FSA logo by regulated firms (Although it has rules on how it can be used). I have it at the bottom of my letterhead. I know FSA regulated firms can use it but have no experience of this FSA registered lark.

The use of the HMRC logo is a strange one. Why would you need to display their logo unless you are trying to make yourself out to be "official" in some way.

Back to my earlier point of applying resources where issues are, in August 2010, the FSA had spent £2.95m on development of the retail distribution review up to that point. The overall cost to industry was reported as £1.7 billion in the house of commons debate in 2010. I havent seen any more recent figures other than various articles that they are increasing costs. All that money when the number of complaints against IFAs referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service has fallen from 3,092 to 2,643 for the 2011/2012 financial year. That is under 1% of total complaints.

I am all for increasing professionalism and dealing with issues but the FSA has got it's priorities all wrong. As Heather Whelan, MP said ....“FSA using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

It missed the banking failures, LIBOR scandal and cannot act on consumer issues because it is focusing on small local firms who do not destroy the economy, do not create widespread issues and account for tiny volumes of complaints.

Sceptic001

dunstonh wrote: »

I am all for increasing professionalism and dealing with issues but the FSA has got it's priorities all wrong. As Heather Whelan, MP said ....“FSA using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

It missed the banking failures, LIBOR scandal and cannot act on consumer issues because it is focusing on small local firms who do not destroy the economy, do not create widespread issues and account for tiny volumes of complaints.

Amen to that, dunstonh.

And to put the tin lid on it, Adair Turner is determined to end free (OK, we know they aren't really free) current accounts. With a consumer champion like this, who needs the scammers?

(Sorry to go off-topic)

Reaper

The regulator has a dilemma here. It must do its due diligence properly and any rash action could create future problems.

The problem is that if the FSA closes down a company and it turns out to be all above board they fear a backlash and big compensation claims.

I think there needs to be the power to quickly "put on hold" a product offering until they can investigate it properly. This could be applied to companies big or small. So if there is a complaint that an advertisement might mislead the public (even if technically correct) the FSA should be able to stop them accepting new money for just that one product offering until they can come up with a full decision, for or against.

While it could still affect an innocent company's income stream I think it would be a big improvement on the current "all or nothing" system.

Former_MSE_Dan

Reaper wrote: »

The problem is that if the FSA closes down a company and it turns out to be all above board they fear a backlash and big compensation claims.

I think there needs to be the power to quickly "put on hold" a product offering until they can investigate it properly. This could be applied to companies big or small. So if there is a complaint that an advertisement might mislead the public (even if technically correct) the FSA should be able to stop them accepting new money for just that one product offering until they can come up with a full decision, for or against.

While it could still affect an innocent company's income stream I think it would be a big improvement on the current "all or nothing" system.

I absolutely agree with this - it's sensible and proportionate.

The product intervention powers mooted for the FCA could be a good step towards this. But for me speed is absolutely key. I imagine a week seems like a nanosecond to a big regulator, but for real consumers it could be £1,000s lost

Nikkster

dunstonh wrote: »

The use of the HMRC logo is a strange one. Why would you need to display their logo unless you are trying to make yourself out to be "official" in some way.

From a quick look at the 'Re-Give' website, they state:
'Re-Give also has Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) advance assurance from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC Ref No: LC/L&C/S0777/M/33905 17645/MDY).'

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/eis/

'The Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) is designed to help smaller higher-risk trading companies to raise finance by offering a range of tax reliefs to investors who purchase new shares in those companies...'

Interesting that it says 'higher-risk'...