Report comment

Why would anybody think the rogue unregulated and uninsured firm is (i) not going hold client money (as defined by the accounts rules); (ii) gong to tell the client that the firm is uninsured; (iii) not going to cut and run?

I simply don't really get it. Nor do I get why anybody with an IQ anywhere near average would think (a) this is a good idea and (b) it is not going to end in tears.

Mr Phillip is seemingly obsessed with cutting consumer protections as is apparent with his obsession on reducing pii to either £1/2 m or now nothing. He wants to restrict the rights of persons to claim on the compensation fund. And now this.

When it goes wrong I trust the response from the SRA , the courts and the LEO to the client will be "well Mr client, you win some and you lose some". There will only however be losers from this.