Note the post on the Friends First Crystal Development Fund re the FSO below: I am an investor in the Crystal UK Development Fund, I am at an advanced stage in putting together a case to go to the High Court, if you invested in the Crystal UK Development Fund and want to discuss with me before you are statue barred contact me at :
Crystalukinvestor@gmail.com.
Copy of post
We invested in this too. PAYE workers with two young kids. Got advise from accountant to invest in this. No fact find done. Told no risk. Not risk takers. Not high net worth individuals. Brought a case to the Financial Services Ombudsman (FSO) and it took 18months for the FSO to say it wasn’t under their jurisdiction. Absolutley dreadful service from the FSO. Complained but got nowhere. Waited so long for the FSO to come back to us now told by a solicitor that the statue of limitations kick in now so we can’t sue for negligence. Paying interest on loan but reckon Ulster Bank will start looking for more. Would love to hear from others who invested in this or anybody with advise.
This is a direct transcript of the letter received from the FSO-taking out the name of the Accountant and his company:
I refer to these four linked matters which were referred to me to review and to make a determination in respect of the jurisdiction of the Bureau to continue to investigate the complaints made having regard to the circumstances and nature of the cases.
I confirm that I have reviewed the files including all correspondence and submissions to date.
Following some preliminary investigation an issue has arisen which goes to the jurisdiction of the Bureau. Under Section 57BX(2) of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act, 2004, the Financial Services Ombudsman has sole responsibility for deciding whether a complaint is within his jurisdiction.
Firstly, it is clear from the submissions of the parties that the position of each of the four Providers is that they each seek to attribute liability in the matter to one or other of the other three Providers. The issue of liability is central to the dispute given the inter-twined nature of the investment as between the four separate providers. In order to make a determination on the issue of liability it would be necessary to exchange documentation as between all of the parties to the dispute. In my view, this would require a process of discovery which is beyond the remit of the Bureau and is more appropriate for a court. Given the manner in which liability has been put in issue, the usual exchange of documentation which takes place under the procedures of the Bureau will not adequately allow for this issue to be properly addressed.
There is also the related issue of inter-party indemnification which also arises from the manner in which liability has been put in issue - the procedures of the Bureau do not allow for inter-party indemnification.
Secondly, one of the Providers, XXXX Financial Services Ltd. has submitted that this entity (which is regulated) was not the entity (within the XXXX Group) which either promoted or sold the product the subject matter of this complaint. It appears on the balance of probabilities that an unregulated entity was most likely involved however that issue is not at this time finally determined. Should it be the case however that an unregulated entity is involved then the Bureau would have no jurisdiction to investigate the conduct of such an unregulated entity. Indeed the position of XXXX is essentially that insofar as it was involved at all, it or one of its partners acted as a conduit only for the exchange of information between the Complainants and one of the other Providers, Liberty Asset Management and that it did so due to a family relationship between that partner of XXXX and the Complainants.
Whilst this issue cannot be determinative as to jurisdiction it is a relevant factor since if further investigation revealed that an unregulated entity was involved that would compromise the entire investigation due to the inter-twined nature of the investment. Only a court would have jurisdiction to investigation both regulated and unregulated entities.
The FSO cannot investigate the conduct of non-regulated entities. In addition the FSO does not have powers to compel third parties to a complaint either to engage with the investigation or to produce evidence to be considered in the investigation no matter how relevant such engagement or evidence may be to an investigation.
In all the circumstances, I am of the view that an investigation and adjudication as to issues alleged in the complaint are more appropriate for a court of law having regard to the nature of the issues to be determined, the parties required to be involved, the sums of money involved, the remedies sought and where non-regulated entities can, if required and approprirate, be made party to the proceedings. Court proceedings will ensure that the full range of the rules and procedures of court are available to the parties, including third-party procedures, cross-party indemnification, discovery, subpoena of witnesses and so forth. The Bureau is not established for and does not have the powers to deal with cases of that nature.
Under Section 57BX(2) of the Central bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act, 2004 the Financial Services Ombudsman has sole responsibility for deciding whether a complaint is within his jurisdiction. Section 57BZ of that Act provides:
(1) Without limiting section 57BY, the Financial Services Ombudsman can decide not to investigate a complaint, or to discontinue an investigation of a complaint, on the ground that
(a) There is or was available to the complainant an alternative and satisfactory
means of redress in relation to the conduct complained of
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the FSO has decided not to investigate this complaint. This decision was arrived at following a full and thorough review of the file and submissions.
I must emphasise for the avoidance of doubt, that no determination in respect of any of the allegations made or indeed on any aspect of the substantive complaint itself is being made. A determination as to the jurisdiction of the Bureau to investigate the complaint only in being made.
