'Platforms should contribute to FSCS levy' - Ken Davy 'Platforms should contribute to FSCS levy' - Ken Davy

06 Apr 2017 Ken Davy

Ken Davy has called on platforms to contribute to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme's (FSCS) levy alongside advisers, in response to the regulator's consultation on the scheme's funding system.

If both platforms and product providers contributed to the funding of the FSCS, the SimplyBiz Group chairman argued, it would give them a "significant" incentive to monitor and whistle-blow on those who are suspected of acting against consumers' interests. He suggested this could be done through a central Association of British Insurers facility.

He added: "By definition, the FSCS is picking up the liabilities of failed intermediary firms - therefore those firms that fail do not contribute to the liabilities they create.

"This places virtually the entire cost on the remaining intermediary firms who have no way of controlling, influencing or even being aware of the perpetrators who have created the liabilities. This is unfair in the extreme."

Davy also said the group would like to see additional levies imposed on those promoting unregulated investments, arguing "they are a significant contributing factor to the FSCS liabilities".

PI cover

SimplyBiz also entered into the professional indemnity (PI) debate in its response to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA's) consultation, but took a less active stance than the Personal Finance Society did earlier this week when it suggested a joint FSCS-PI fund pool.

Davy said: "The issues surrounding the effectiveness of PI insurance cover and its role when firms fail is a practical and legal minefield and care needs to be taken as regards changes that may produce unintended consequences."

The FCA has not been shy in outlining issues with PI policies in recent months, namely its "concerns" about "clear non-compliance" and "inadequate policy limits or exclusions that exclude all activity".

SimplyBiz, however, said PI insurance should not have mandatory features "over and above" those that already exist.

Davy added: "The challenge is one of making the offering of more comprehensive cover sufficiently attractive to providers, and extending competition, without disproportionately increasing premiums or reducing market choice.

"One solution that could be considered by the FCA, in view of the increased capital adequacy requirement, is increasing the requirement for a £5,000 excess to one of £10,000. This would have the effect of enabling PI insurers to widen the risks they accept and reduce the likelihood of policies being made void."

The FCA's consultation on the FSCS's funding system closed on 31 March.


Testimonials

"In a world of image-is-everything, I have come across many a recruitment agent over the years. Promises not fulfilled, comments not substantiated, systems/procedures that don't manifest themselves. Instead what I have found with you and SimplyBiz is, above all, integrity. What you have said has been based on experience and knowledge and, accordingly, has been based on facts. Facts that have, of course, transpired to be true. The ability to rely on those who know what the DA application process is all about is impossible to cost, but important to value."

Derek Avenell
Hawthorn Financial Services

Read More

Latest News

Matt Timmins: New guidance body has no right to word 'advice'

October 20, 2017

Much more needs to be done to help educate consumers on the vital difference between receiving guidance or advice

Read more >

Government must help meet the needs of the elderly

October 11, 2017

Being able to congratulate the FCA, while not by any means a first, is not something I am able to do regularly.

Read more >

"A princely way of looking at succession issues"

October 04, 2017

Seeing all the stories about Prince George starting school set me thinking about longevity and business succession issues for financial advisers.

Read more >

"Providers must allow tax deductible advice"

September 28, 2017

Knock, knock. Are you there? More importantly, are you listening?
I ask this question because of the enormous opportunities the current market is presenting for each and every adviser, whether working within a large firm or a one-person practice, as an independent adviser or restricted.

Read more >