Andrew Strange, director of policy at AIFA, said: “We have real concerns about the cost and time implications of these proposals for adviser firms. While it is important that the regulator has access to relevant information, the data must be collected in a cost effective manner.
“The range and breadth of data FSA is seeking is vast and we call on FSA to demonstrate what practical application this has. The proposals also move FSA alarmingly close to economic regulation. An assessment of service based on price can be dressed up as ensuring value, but is simply price regulation.”
The FSA proposals require advisers to bread down existing charging structures as part of their retail mediation activities return and break down complaints records by individual advisers.
Strange added: “Collecting complaints data at individual adviser level risks destabilising the industry without any articulation of purpose. The Financial Services and Markets Act makes clear that a complaint originates at a firm level, not with an adviser. As many advisers will testify, complaints often arise relating to non-advice issues, such as administration failings.
“In attempting to re-write the rules, the FSA needs to consider very carefully what balance between advisers and firms it is seeking to achieve. This is indicative of a slippery slope which could see much greater liability fall on individual advisers. This may be appropriate for our profession, but a wider debate on this is necessary.”
