A disgruntled adviser who said it was unfair he should pay a regulatory bill caused by rising Sipps compensation claims has failed to win his case.

The unnamed professional’s grievance centred around the fact that Sipps related claims were behind a £20m interim FSCS levy on life and pensions intermediaries earlier this year. The adviser suggested this was unfair on him because he did not recommend these products. 

In April the FSCS said advisers would have to cough up £100m in total and blamed the rise on increasing claims linked to Sipps.

FSCS officials said at the time that the costs and volume of claims relating to "bad advice by financial advisers to transfer funds from existing pension schemes into self-invested personal pensions" were driving the rising costs.

The complaint had already been ‘excluded’ by the FCA and has now also been rejected by the The Complaints Commissioner.

Antony Townsend, Complaints Commissioner, said in his report: “I understand that you do not believe that you should be required to pay a levy to the FSCS for potential Sipp mis-selling when you do not ‘recommend Sipps’. You further feel that ‘the ordinary advisers are repeatedly asked to bail out the FCA dept. failings.

“I appreciate why you are unhappy that you have had to pay a levy in respect of compensation for a product (Sipps) upon which you do not offer advice.

{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}

“However... it is not within my remit to review the level of fees the FSCS charges. For that reason, I agree with the FCA’s decision to exclude your complaint."

Mr Townsend said: “The FSCS has calculated that, due to increased costs resulting from Sipp mis-selling, it requires further funds and is looking for the firms which hold requisite Part IVA Permissions and fall within the appropriate fee blocks to meet this expenditure. As your firm falls into fee block C2 (which includes advising on life insurance and pensions) the FCA has, on behalf of the FSCS, issued you with an invoice reflecting the higher levy.

“Regrettably, the levy is therefore payable and there is nothing further I can add other than to say that, as explained to you in the FCA’s decision letter, the FCA has committed to reviewing the FSCS’ funding model (which may include, I believe, undertaking a review of the funding classes to address anomalies such as this).

"I appreciate that you will be disappointed with my decision but hope that you will understand why I have reached it.”