You are here: Home - News -

Sesame angers advisers with past advice crackdown after £6m fine

by: Laura Miller
  • 30/10/2014
  • 0
Sesame angers advisers with past advice crackdown after £6m fine
Appointed Representatives (ARs) of Sesame are angry at being told advice previously passed by the network as suitable has now been deemed wrong in a widespread review following a £6m fine from the regulator.

The review – which Mortgage Solution’s sister site Professional Adviser revealed is codenamed ‘Project Minerva’ – takes the form of what one former Sesame adviser called ‘a two pronged attack’. He believes it affects hundreds of the network’s ARs and thousands of individual client files, largely involving pension switching.

The first stage involves Sesame doing a review of past business from 5 July 2010 up to 21 September 2012 to check the suitability of advice given to a selection of clients.

Where it identifies suitability concerns, it will write to clients asking them if they want to opt-in to a full review of the advice given, which could lead to redress claims.

The second stage – which advisers have said they have only recently been informed of – is an investigation into whether clients who are paying their adviser a fee for ongoing service are actually receiving that service.

Advisers who have been caught by the first stage will not necessarily become part of the second stage, and vice versa. If they feature in either stage they have been told by Sesame not to contact affected clients.

Professional Adviser understands compliance specialists The Consulting Consortium (TCC) and accountancy firm Deloitte have been hired to help Sesame carry out the investigations, with correspondence to advisers and clients coming variously from each.

Sesame refused to comment on the specifics of Project Minerva.

It confirmed it had engaged ‘specialist independent third parties to conduct a past business review on some aspects of pensions transfers as part of a settlement agreement made with the Financial Conduct Authority in 2013’, the year it was fined £6m for failing to ensure advice given to customers was suitable and for poor systems and controls.

 

 

There are 0 Comment(s)

You may also be interested in