Keydata: Ombudsman orders Norwich & Peterborough to compensate elderly couple

lesson learnt dont invest with n&p they still are trying to wriggle out of paying ombudsmans decsion should be final

At last a glimmer of hope that someone is seeing sense in the whole Keydata debacle. I just wish that the Victims Website could be reinstated so that this news could be relayed to all those involved.

Is the FSA going to overturn the Ombudsman's decision? Why wait for them to make up their minds instead of dealing with customers in a reasonable manner? Is not doing so failing to treat customers fairly?

Its interesting that Independant advisers always ask for your "attitude to risk" when advising investments,so that they can say that you chose this investment in full knowledge of the risks. However most peoples attitude is based on perhaps the investment falling short of your expectations, not that money will be stolen from the firm, or that they will sell ISAs that dont qualify for tax relief. As Keydata have fallen due to these reasons,nobody can wriggle out of their responsibilties to their clients. All financial advisors should be financially liable to repay clients they persuaded to invest in Keydata.

Difficult to understand what is going on here. If an Ombudsman has ruled & made an award, it is binding on N&P & they must pay up. No ifs or buts. The complaint may however be at earlier stage the adjudicator may have recommended N&P settle. What nice people they are fighting this to an appeal at the Ombudsman level. I would ask N&P, what have the FSA got to do with it, the FOS are independant? All interested parties should read the FOS on line leaflets to understand the process. Like everything in this charade if you do not become an expert you will fall by the wayside.

Good news! The plight of victims has now come to the notice of the BBC. They have the N&P story. It does seem however the FOS decision is a preliminary one. Whether the old folks know how to appeal I do not know but it is encouraging the FOS have sympathy in principal with the claimants over the dodgy advice.

"The FOS ruling says the N&P wrongly advised the couple to invest more than 40% of their savings in the investments - second-hand life insurance policies

from the US - that were too risky for their circumstances.

"The fund's underlying mixture of assets exposes [the clients'] capital to a greater degree of risk than they were likely to be willing to accept," the FOS adjudicator said."

@ colin grant

Whilst I do not condone bad advice, dishonesty by a provider is not the fault of the IFA who should therefore not be expected to redress it.

The fault lies with the provider and, arguably the FSA whose due diligence in authorising them has failed.

It is therefore reasonable for N&P to argue that the fault (or at least part of it) lies with Keydata.

Further information on the Adjudicator's views from The Eastern Daily Press;

He adds: “Bearing in mind that they were both retired and there is no evidence of them investing before they met the advisers, it seems unlikely that they would have been willing to accept the risks inherent in the Keydata income plan fund, especially at this stage of their life.”