Friday, 28 September 2012

I just wrote to my MP - misselling financial products is fraud.

I just went to and sent the following to my MP - self explainatory I think.
(Yes I mistyped my own name - duh... getting used to a tablet/screen keyboard!)

Friday 28 September 2012

Dear Simon Kirby,

On the radio this morning I heard a representative of the FSA, the financial regulator. He spoke about the misselling of financial products, he said that as 'punishment' that the missellers had been forced to refund the money they took. When asked why there were no prosecutions he said that it was 'a longway short of fraud'.

I have to strongly disagree, I see no difference between a person selling a financial product that the customer does not need and a person selling a home owner roof repair work that is not needed, or a tarmac drive that never sets.

I think there are seriously twisted morals at work here - just because a confidence trickster wears a suit and works for a bank it does not make them any 'better' than a dodgy labourer. In both cases an innocent member of the public, often a vulerable member of the public, has had money taken from them dishonestly. For many people money is tight, and those relying on banks for advice are clearly not the best off of people.

Clearly the FSA have failed to regulate in the first place, so allowing another masive miselling scam to be undertaken. Clearly they have failed in their primary duty and have a vested interest in trying to minimise the perceived damage they have let happen.

This simply will not do, unless besuited, banking fraudsters who rip off the public are put behind bars, there is no incentive for them and others not to missell (fraudulently sell) again and again and again.

I hope you can raise this as an issue with the appropriate part of government - prosecutions must follow.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perin

1 comment:

  1. When you rental a car you pay for the interval that you use it. In other terms, assume a car expenses $25,000 at the beginning and it is rented for a interval of 2 decades. If its value at the end of 2 decades were regarded to be $13,250, you would have to pay $11,750. This quantity would is due in 24 equivalent payments with attention included.
    breaking a lease.