FTAdviser.com - ICO will not appeal LAUTRO High Court ruling: "The wider implication of this is that we may now never know whether these offices paid compensation to those disadvantaged, since the FSA was unable to say whether it had checked up on those offices to see whether compensation had been paid."
The FSA's own definition of 'redress', 'compensation' or whatever you want to call it is to put 'consumers' back in the position they would have been had they not purchased the duff contract.
Out of the millions of contracts still in existence not one single policyholder has been compensated in compliance with regulatory requirements.
That is either failure on the part of the FSA to meet its statutory obligations which is negligence OR it is hiding its own errors which is tantamount to corruption.
But, we don't need any more hand grenades in the room.
No comments:
Post a Comment