A note released this afternoon by the FSA argues the regulatory body has no statutory position to de...
A note released this afternoon by the FSA argues the regulatory body has no statutory position to define "mis-selling", leaving IFAs without a definition that might allow PI insurers to offer suitable PI cover.
A five-page note "clarifying" what mis-selling is instead looks into the key principles that a company is expected to adhere under FSA regulation, because meeting requirements of the regulatory framework is only "one aspect of a firm's responsibilities to customers", argue the regulator.
In particular, the FSA points out that while it could define or catalogue "mis-selling" so firms know what processes they should go through to prevent complaints, it was Ron Sandler who pointed out mis-selling has no regulatory concept and consumers have the right to take matters to the Financial Ombudsman Service or the courts at any time.
IFAonline will bring you full details of the note and its implications when we return on Tuesday after the Easter break, along with feedback from the industry's trade bodies, IFAs and providers.
Partner Insight: Introducing the Architas education series for clients.
'Fewer than 1% of firms PROD-compliant' - Rory Percival
'Left holding the can'
'VCTs and EIS compared' panel
Letter to Women and Equalities Committee