A case handler's view of CMCs

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

If they simply fabricate a complaint when they know if is, or may be, untrue of misleading, is dishonest and, according to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, is Fraud.

Yet the FCA allows both CMCs and the public at large to do it with impunity.

To be fair FCA aren't in a position to allow or disallow it given that they don't have any powers to regulate either CMCs or the public.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

To be fair FCA aren't in a position to allow or disallow it given that they don't have any powers to regulate either CMCs or the public.

They could stop impeding firms that wish to take those attempting to defraud them to task.

They do, after all, have a statutory duty to reduce financial crime as well as the one to protect consumers.

Given that the cost of dealing with such false complaints will be passed on to a firm's honest customers, they do lead to consumer detriment.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

They could stop impeding firms that wish to take those attempting to defraud them to task.

They do, after all, have a statutory duty to reduce financial crime as well as the one to protect consumers.

The statutory duty cannot and does not apply to those that fall outside or their regulation, clearly.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The statutory duty cannot and does not apply to those that fall outside or their regulation, clearly.

By that argument, they should not be interfering by telling firms to take precautions against people they do not regulate carrying out financial crime.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

By that argument...

It's not an argument, it's a fact.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

It's not an argument, it's a fact.

It is also a fact that the FCA has a statutory duty to reduce the firms it regulates finding themselves involved in financial crime and that any person who dishonestly makes a statement which they know is, or might be untrue or misleading commits fraud.

Thus when I received a complaint last week that a consumer had no previous investment experience when they took out an endowment in 1994 when, in reality, they had two existing endowments, two other investment policies, an investment bond and thousands of pounds tied up in a speculative venture, they committed fraud.

Yet the adviser has to answer this complaint despite it having ended over ten years ago.

Anybody else would simply have been able to timebar the complaint under Section 14B of the Limitation Act.

The Fraudulent Complaint Advocacy sees fit to allow them to complain anyway so that if the adviser no longer had that information they would be able to get FOS to force the adviser to pay them redress to which they are clearly not entitled - and even though the adviser happened to have documentation to prove they were lying they are allowed to get away scot free.