Cookies on the PFS website

By using and browsing the PFS website, you consent to cookies being used in accordance with our policy. If you do not consent, you are always free to disable cookies if your browser permits, although doing so may interfere with your use of some of our sites or services. Find out more »

Recently added to my basket

Remove from basket

Sorry but there was an error adding this to your basket. Please try adding it again

View basket

FCA CP16-42 on FSCS funding

PFS consultation response

Author(s):: Policy and Public Affairs

Policy and Public Affairs

First name:

Surname / Organisation:

Policy and Public Affairs

Accreditations:

Company:

Chartered Insurance Institute

Job Title:

Bio:
Published Date:: 31 March 2017
Last Updated:: 22 September 2017

The Personal Finance Society welcomes the review of FSCS funding and the implicit recognition within the consultation that the current system is unfair to Financial Adviser intermediaries.

We encourage the FCA to take this opportunity to broaden the parameters of the review, to help find a long term viable solution that addresses the fundamental issues of a growing pool of legacy risk, a growing number of potential claims being met by a reduced collective of contributors, driving some away from regulated activity and deterring new entrants to the market.

We encourage the FCA to consider the widest range of single or multiple solutions, including a consideration of the future role that professional indemnity insurance has to play and its interaction with the FSCS.

View the attached response »

Policy and Public Affairs

Document links

PFS response: FCA CP16-42 on FSCS funding

Not already a member?

Members get access to a range of benefits, including quality CPD and discounts on CII exams.

Join online »

Tagged as:

Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS)

This document is believed to be accurate but is not intended as a basis of knowledge upon which advice can be given. Neither the author (personal or corporate) nor the CII Group, nor any CII Local Institute, faculty or society nor any of the officers or employees of those organisations accept any responsibility for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of the data or opinions included in this material.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author or authors and not necessarily those of the CII Group, its Local Institutes, faculties or societies.