A retail investor who put £120,000 into the unregulated firm Basset & Gold (B&G) said he has “zero faith” in the FCA after being offered just £200 in compensation.
The Complaints Commissioner, set up by the FCA to investigate complaints against it, said it expects to “receive a number of objections” after the decision.
Towards the end of May, the FCA apologised to B&G investors and admitted some failings in how it dealt with the case, but did not uphold all complaints made.
The FCA said it decided to uphold complaints about failings in its authorisation of B&G Finance Ltd and its supervision of Basset & Gold plc, Basset & Gold Ltd and B&G Finance Ltd.
However, it has not upheld the complaints about the authorisation of Basset & Gold plc and Basset & Gold Ltd; the failure to stop the sale of Basset & Gold plc mini-bonds at an earlier time; or the failure to act on a specific warning about Basset & Gold plc.
B&G was an unregulated firm that raised funds by issuing mini-bonds. It was, however, an appointed representative (AR) on the Financial Services Register.
B&G went out of business in 2021.
The FCA has said it will pay out £200 to each complainant in recognition of how long it took to respond to the complaints.
Speaking to Money Marketing, retail investor, Mr N, who made a formal complaint to the FCA when B&G went bust, said it took years for the regulator’s decision but investors have only been given two weeks to accept its £200 offer.
“Where is the fairness in that? Bullying us into making a quick decision, which they are skilled at doing.”
The investor feels by only offering £200 compensation it “adds insult to injury”.
Mr N made a formal complaint to the Complaints Commissioner after the FCA’s response and said: “It’s utterly disgusting and completely unacceptable what they are trying to do to us. I have zero faith in the FCA, their policies or anything to do with them.
“Those three letters whenever mentioned make me feel physically sick.”
Mr N said when he made the investment in B&G, all of the online literature and details he received through the post led him to believe the firm was FCA regulated.
“I checked and double checked before I invested,” he said.
“There was Basset & Gold and all of these subsidiary arms of the business like B&G Finance and Basset &Gold Plc, which were totally hidden from people like me.
“It is so misleading and not clear how the company was divided up.
“How on earth are the general public, who are not financial ‘gurus’, expected to understand and decipher this information?”
This whole experience has left Mr N with “zero comfort in anything the FCA say” and he has “zero trust or belief in them”.
As the Complaints Commissioner is expecting a number of complaints, it is planning to manage all objections as a group complaint.
In May 2023, Mr N was told by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that he will receive full compensation for the £120,000 he invested in B&G, after a two-and-a half-year wait.
FOS instructed that Mr N will also receive £750 for the distress caused by this process.
Mr N’s FOS claim had a priority marker as he is not able to work due to a mental health problem and he has no income.
Money Marketing reported on Mr N’s situation earlier in May and he thought the earlier article published had helped in FOS deciding in his favour regarding the case.
In a statement published on its website last week, the FCA said: “We accept that we failed to consider all the information we had about B&G Finance Ltd and its related companies in the round.
“This meant issues were addressed individually rather than collectively, which may have changed our engagement with the firms.
“However, we do not believe that the missed opportunities would have altered the outcome of our interactions with the firms or ultimately prevented Basset & Gold plc’s failure.
“Given we were not the direct cause of the investor losses which were caused by the failure of Basset & Gold plc and related entities, we will not pay any redress for failures, but have apologised to complainants for our historic failures.”
