Ex-IFA takes on FCA

Ex-IFA takes on FCA




A retired independent financial adviser has taken the FCA to court over harassment claims.

A retired independent financial adviser has taken the FCA to court over harassment claims.

John Calland, (Individual ref number: JXC00151) was an independent financial adviser until 1998, he became a partner at Calland Insurance and Mortgage Services, of 33 Beaumont Fee, Lincoln, Lincolnshire. After he retired as someone else took over the business.

In spring 2005, the Financial Services Authority (precursor to FCA) contacted Calland by letter, phone and then e-mail, regarding a review into potential mis-selling following an alleged claim from a client. The regulator specified that losses to investors had been declared. 

The contact requested statements of assets and liabilities from Mr Calland as the regulator still believed he was responsible for the pensions review for the firm. Mr Calland made an attempt to specify in a phone conversation with an FSA representative that he was no longer the owner of the business and so did not hold liability.

At the point of the regulator’s phone call, the judge deemed that the firm’s still had an opportunity to submit its own representations in regards to the claim.

Mr Calland has claimed that this series of correspondence amounted to harassment in accordance with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.  Overall, he held that the authority’s requests negated his personal integrity as he perceived that their communications to him did not specify that the claims were alleged and were as yet unproven. So he felt that he was being accused of mis-selling.

In his appeal, he questions the judgement of Recorder Steynor, who previously granted a summary judgment to the FSA in regards to this scenario.

In regards to the regulator’s conduct examining the unproven claims from clients, Lord Justice Lewison stated: “The fact is nevertheless that the regulator had assessed potential investor losses at £168,819; and was simply asking Mr Calland for information”.

The judge concluded that in regards to the FSA’s manner: “…this conduct comes nowhere near crossing the threshold. It is not even at the front garden gate.”

“I echo the words of Ward LJ in Sunderland City Council v Conn at [19]: what on earth is the world coming to if conduct of the kind that occurred in this case can be thought to be harassment, potentially liable to giving rise to criminal proceedings punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, and to a claim for damages for anxiety and financial loss?”

As a result, the three presiding judges agreed to dismiss Mr Callard’s appeal.

Leave a comment