Investors hit out at N&P over Keydata advice

How can N&P defend its stance on Client complaints when it hasn't resolved anyone's complaint yet, only requested more time or told them to go to the FOS?

What do they mean by the fact that only some of their customers are unhappy with the advce given? Is there any proof of a complaint being investigated fully?

Were the invester's meetings referred to held after the AGM I wonder?

Why did they say the investments were low risk when in fact according to the FSA they are high risk?

Just because Keydata went bust does not in itself mean investors are entitled to compennsation or were badly advised, both may apply, one or neither.

If someone belives they were given inappropriate advice and the risks involved were unsuiitable for them they can complain to N&P who are obliged to investigate and respond in writing witin prescribed timescales laid down by the FSA.

If they are unhappy with the decision they can refer it to the Finnacial Ombudsman Service who have the power to instruct N&P to compensate. Customers can then take legal action thereafter if they have lost in excess of £100,000 or are unhappy with the Ombudsman's decision.

I may be wrong and if so someone please correct me but my understanding is that many complainnats have not contacted N&P but are being represented by Regulatory Legal.

There is a perfectly adequate complaints process already in existence they can utilise without recourse to law.

As for the FSA saying the investments were 'high risk' that will be a first. The FSA do not commendt on product suitability in normal circumstances and agian I stand corrected if someone shows me the FSA quottaion on this.

At the meeting yesterday by a show of hands about 60% have complained directly to the N.& P. None have had anything other than a holding letter.

David Johnstone raises a few points. After lodging a complaint to N&P they wait the requisite 8 weeks and then respond by saying they cannot resolve it and suggest that you go to the FOS. If people are unhappy with the Ombudsman's decision they are unlikely to persue it through the courts. Most people would have complained about their situation in one form or another and are unhappy with the response. I draw attention to the FSA speech of 24th. Feb: FSA sets out concerns about Traded Life Policy Investments.

Complainanats have a choice. There are effectively 3 options open to them They pursue their own complaint or appoint someone to act on their behalf, either an industry professional with Financial Services experience or a solicitor with legal experience.

Whichever route they decide to go down they need to know exactly why they are complaining. Investment underperformance or losing money is not in itself grounds for complaint.

The complain to N&P approach followed fy the FOS is a tried and proven course of action. It takes time but it works. Going to a solicitor sjhoudl only be considered if the capital loss exceeds the maximum FSCS / FOS award limits. There is nothing a solicitor can do which the FOS / FSC cannot do except seek to recover sums in excess of FSCS / FOS maxima.

There are very few solicitors in the UK with experience of the Financial Services comlpaint process. It is a non-confrontational arbitration approach that works effectively in the majority of instances asopposed to the legal approach which is confrontational and threatening and usually only serves to get Financial Services professionals backs up, because solicitors usually don't have proper appreciation and grasp of the issues that constitute a suitable investment recommendation.

Finally, why should an investor that chooses not to take advice be compensated if the investment product turns out to be a dud. Buyer beware.

I am an engineer. When I make a product, I stand by it and, if it fails, I fix it at my expense. Why should financial "products" be different? Why have we to put up with crappy financial engineering. if we built airplanes this way, most passengers would be dead by now. It seems to me that N and P did not understand their product. Its a disgrace.

The Sp[itfire was a classic aircraft but totally unsuitable as a passenger plane. Just because N&P markets a product does not make it suitable for everybody that decided to invest in it. If advice was not taken or given and the decision to invest was taken by the individual investor, shoulkdn't they share some of the responsibility for deciding to invest into something that was not suitable for them?

Advice was given by N&P to invest in Keydata but with the Spitfire analogy in mind if you didn't know that the Spitfire wasn't a passenger plane who would be at fault if you bought a ticket?