Robert Marshall questions why software providers are not subject to greater scrutiny by the regulator.
In these days, when the last thing any of us need is more regulation, one group that appears to have gone untouched are software providers.
It is incumbent on the user to have in place a contract that protects their interests, and secures their ability to operate effectively and in full compliance.
So, if you are down and out for however long, your means of getting back on your feet are pretty limited - let alone being able to remain in compliance.
True, in some instances there is cover that can be purchased. But tell that to an irate client and top it off by saying "you’re not sure when you will get back" and see what they say.
It does seem odd that the FSA’s understanding of what actually happens in a broker's office only appears to got worse, irrespective of the time that has lapsed under their regime.
I understand the official view is that if you are not happy with your supplier then change them. Clearly the goon who thought that one up never appreciated what is actually involved if you ever did want to change.
“The FSAs understanding of what actually happens in a broker's office only appears to got worse, irrespective of the time that has lapsed under their regime.
As with all software suppliers, the software guys blame the hardware and vice versa. Failing that, it must be the users fault, and if that idea fails, then say it’s all down to the cleaners who removed the main supply plug to insert their vacuums!
My issue is that if the broker is held obliged to be compliant but is totally reliant on that compliance as a result of their software suppliers ability to deliver 24/7.
When things go wrong, how can it be fair justice that the broker is subject to discipline and not the software supplier?
Having a contingency plan in place is all well and dandy, but as a small broker losing a day’s or more income here and there because of an issue not of your creation is just not on.
I understand the regulations in place for which our revered Regulator appears to take no responsibility, or have bothered to raise in the name of fairness, make no requirement for software suppliers to be regulated at all.
I also understand all you can do, since the FSA have no intention of lifting a finger, is write to your MP. Yes, that will go down a treat and probably be dealt with when we are all six feet under.
“The Broker is held obliged to be compliant, but is totally reliant on that compliance as a result of their software suppliers ability to deliver.
And on the point of regulation and needed changes, I read yesterday the issue concerning equality is to be raised to the highest agenda, with a requirement that women’s rights and earnings are to be the same as a mans for the same job.
Well knock me down with a feather duster - I don’t know anyone who doesn’t do that already and anyone who doesn’t really should be ashamed of themselves.
What needs to be mentioned is the crass ignorance that continues to perpetuate from our Regulators under the auspices of fairness in all things. There has to be a qualification to that fairness which needs to be appropriate and sometimes and interpreted in the widest sense.
Regulators need to get off their comfy fully-pensioned seats and see what is really going on and realise the rule books they created need constant updating.
Robert D Marshall is Director of Trident Insurance.
