Role of the Financial Ombudsman Service

eskbanker

Mixmyth said:

Thanks for the comments.  It seems that, unlike, for example, all water companies are regulated by Ofwat, all communications companies are regulated by Ofcom, etc, etc, not all financial concerns are regulated by FCA.  Third party companies, (possibly created by big concerns) are created to manage things like SAYE, shares, etc, and are not regulated, and yes the company dealing with my finances did say they were regulated and also mentioned that I could refer them to FOS, when I couldn't.

I can't see there being anything to gain by keeping this company anonymous, who are they?

Mixmyth said:

With regard to aspects of possible fraud, the conversations I had with various people and the inept co-ordination and lack of policy and action felt like fraudulent attempts at avoiding giving me my savings, akin to phishing by criminals by phone.  There was definitely something suspicious.  Remember, even though I got my money, there only has to be an attempt to deprive me of it for it to be a criminal act.

Likewise there has to be evidence rather than just 'feelings' and 'suspicions' too!

Mixmyth

'Feelings' and 'Suspicions' were me just being conservative.  To me it was fraudulent, to me repeatedly being told I had been paid without them even checking, it was deliberate fraud not just complete incompetence, the evidence and facts are there to see.  The FOS saw it as well but their hands are tied.  As for naming the companies involved, now that surely wouldn't be right, would it???

eskbanker

Mixmyth said:

'Feelings' and 'Suspicions' were me just being conservative.  To me it was fraudulent, to me repeatedly being told I had been paid without them even checking, it was deliberate fraud not just complete incompetence, the evidence and facts are there to see.  The FOS saw it as well but their hands are tied.  As for naming the companies involved, now that surely wouldn't be right, would it???

If you're saying that there's a company out there who misrepresents their regulatory status then I'd suggest that it would be helpful to name them, not least to warn others.  Accusing them of other fraudulent behaviour might ring alarm bells but if you're happy that you have sufficient 'evidence and facts' to substantiate your claim that then what's the problem?

Mixmyth

OK then.  I was working for Ocado Group.  I had a SAYE with them.  When I complained that I couldn't gat my savings back I was directed to Morgan Stanley Shareworks, then a concern called Solium and then a company called Link Group.  all seem to be immune to investigations by FOS but are under FCA,  wait for it, apart from Link Group who are the third party subsidiary formed, non-regulated and therefore untouchable.  In other words, my case/complaint was passed down and passed down to the non-regulated company.

DullGreyGuy

Mixmyth said:

Thanks for the comments.  It seems that, unlike, for example, all water companies are regulated by Ofwat, all communications companies are regulated by Ofcom, etc, etc, not all financial concerns are regulated by FCA.  Third party companies, (possibly created by big concerns) are created to manage things like SAYE, shares, etc, and are not regulated, and yes the company dealing with my finances did say they were regulated and also mentioned that I could refer them to FOS, when I couldn't.

All regulators have a defined scope and you will find that there are companies that operate in very close fields that arent regulated... look at OfCom and you'll see WhatsApp isnt regulated despite providing a communication service that looks remarkably like a telephone call (or more).

Some companies spend a lot of money to ensure they design their product/service to avoid falling within the scope of a regulator... a couple of large warranty companies have been very careful to ensure what they sell isnt an insurance policy and therefore avoid the FCA and probably more importantly, the PRA.

Ineptitude and poor service is a mile away from fraud.

eskbanker

Mixmyth said:

OK then.  I was working for Ocado Group.  I had a SAYE with them.  When I complained that I couldn't gat my savings back I was directed to Morgan Stanley Shareworks, then a concern called Solium and then a company called Link Group.  all seem to be immune to investigations by FOS but are under FCA,  wait for it, apart from Link Group who are the third party subsidiary formed, non-regulated and therefore untouchable.  In other words, my case/complaint was passed down and passed down to the non-regulated company.

The key issue here would seem to be that not all activities conducted by regulated companies are themselves regulated - I'm sure you feel that these corporate structures are deliberately obfuscating and set up to deny people their rights on a technicality, but https://www.linkgroup.eu/legal-and-regulatory-status/regulatory-status/ does include a caveat about share plan activities:

Link Group is a trading name of Link Market Services Limited and Link Market Services Trustees Limited. Share registration and associated services are provided by Link Market Services Limited (registered in England and Wales, No. 2605568). Regulated services are provided by Link Market Services Trustees Limited (registered in England and Wales No. 2729260), which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FCA register number 184113. Not all share plan activity is regulated. The registered office of each of these companies is Link Group, 10th Floor, Central Square, 29 Wellington Street, Leeds LS1 4DL .

Likewise the FOS remit only applies to regulated activities, as defined in the FCA/PRA handbooks: https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/G974.html

Does that list include the specific activity you're unhappy about?

Bottom line is that your concern about lack of transparency is perhaps understandable, but if your complaint relates to an activity that isn't actually regulated then it does fall outside the FOS's remit, even if the company itself is regulated by the FCA.

Mixmyth

If the handbook is saying:  (aa) issuing electronic money (article 9B)  or  (g) making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments (article 25(2)) or  (d) dealing in investments as principal (article 14);  (e) dealing in investments as agent (article 21); and probably others?  Then yes they are covered.  Also, the FSO has to ask the company, (Link Group) to state why they are not regulated under these, which is why it took about a year to get an answer off them and they can just say 'no we are not covered under the PRA' and the FOS just accept it.

It looks like in this case, Morgan Stanley, Solium and possibly Ocado Group are regulated but employ a non-regulated company to take the blame (Link).

Thanks again for your very interesting comments/observations.

eskbanker

Mixmyth said:

If the handbook is saying:  (aa) issuing electronic money (article 9B)  or  (g) making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments (article 25(2)) or  (d) dealing in investments as principal (article 14);  (e) dealing in investments as agent (article 21); and probably others?  Then yes they are covered.

It'll all come down to detailed definitions, but I'm sure that at least some of these can be ruled out - issuing electronic money is the preserve of the likes of PayPal and prepaid cards, and acting as principal won't apply.

Mixmyth said:

Also, the FSO has to ask the company, (Link Group) to state why they are not regulated under these, which is why it took about a year to get an answer off them and they can just say 'no we are not covered under the PRA' and the FOS just accept it.

It looks like in this case, Morgan Stanley, Solium and possibly Ocado Group are regulated but employ a non-regulated company to take the blame (Link).

Again it'll come down to the detail, in terms of the role of each of these, but as above Link Group clearly does have at least one regulated entity, which does appear to be a conscious decision in order to ring-fence regulated activities within it, not an uncommon practice and not as cynical as you make out!  It does highlight the importance of establishing exactly which entity to complain to initially and then to refer to FOS, but if you can establish that you were definitely complaining about regulated activities conducted by a regulated entity then you should appeal to FOS.  If it was regulated activities conducted by an unregulated entity then that would be one to raise with the FCA directly.

Mixmyth

Thanks for the advice.  I will look at the PRA again and I might log something with the FCA.  If I get any sort of response, I'll let you guys know.  I guess the moral of this story is, don't use an employer based SAYE.  Some sort of regular savings account input would be safer.  Trying to consolidate different employer pension contributions is a similar nightmare.  Cheers.

eskbanker

Mixmyth said:

I guess the moral of this story is, don't use an employer based SAYE.  Some sort of regular savings account input would be safer.

I'm not sure it's viable to generalise like that - you obviously had a poor experience with one company for whatever reason, but there are probably hundreds of thousands of people using such schemes without hitting such issues, performance of such companies is certainly very rarely mentioned on here.