Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Reviews 11

Not happy with how this institute is run. They treat the students unfairly

They claim to be regulating actuaries in the public interest. However they are failing to investigate any actuaries involved in the loyalty premium or price walking scandal. The Financial Conduct Authority is bringing the practice to an end in January 2022, after they figured billions of pounds was made from this unethical practice of overcharging existing customers compared to new for the same motor or home insurance. Actuaries specialise in pricing insurance and it is a fundamental competence and role of a chief actuary to sign off the pricing for such companies. IFoA has a members disciplinary scheme, with an option to refer serious cases in the public interest to the FRC, but are failing to do so here despite billions of pounds of rip-off and arguably disproportionately affecting elderly. Look at reviews all over trustpilot for insurance companies and you'll see people complain their renewal premium was much higher than the same premium had they been new customers. This is no accident but IFoA is failing to address the actuary 'professionals' involved.

26 August 2021

Dear Mr Mann

I am writing to inform you that as a consequence of my recent communications with the FRC, I have submitted an allegation that I have good cause to believe that the IFoA knowingly submitted false information to the FRC. I have also made a similar complaint to the SLCC.

I believe that the IFoA's failure to investigate my allegations dated 7 October 2019 was a deliberate action and had a negative impact on my ET hearing. I do believe that if the IFoA had investigated my complaint in accordance with the Disciplinary Rules there was only one possible conclusion and I believe I would have had a different result from the ET. The matter is now with the EAT and my purpose of writing to you is to inform you that I shall be submitting certain correspondence with the IFoA and the FRC to explain the background to the EAT.

There is no doubt that Mr Scott was involved with the decision to exclude my 7 October 2019 allegations from the final Case Report prepared for the Adjudication Panel. On the balance of probability, I suspect that Mr Scott did not make this decision in isolation. This is speculation on my part but, based on my conversations with Mr Scott, I suspect that he was instructed by a person of significant influence to exclude my 7 October 2019 allegations.

In light of the above I trust you will cooperate with my request and answer the following questions:-

1. Who instructed Mr Scott to exclude my 7 October 2019 allegations?

2. What reasons were given by the person of influence to justify his/her instructions to Mr Scott?

3. If I am incorrect and Mr Scott made his decision in isolation, what was his reason?

In my view, my allegation that the IFoA knowingly submitted false information to their regulator, the FRC, is a very serious professional "crime". In our previous correspondence, I have felt that you are treating me as the "criminal" for having the audacity to inform you about a potential crime. I trust you will agree with me that something is seriously wrong if I am considered to be the criminal and the real guilty party continues to enjoy the support of the IFoA. In short, I trust you will now recognise that I have a genuine concern and that my correspondence will be treated appropriately.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. However, should you choose not to reply I shall draw my own conclusions and I will cease my communications with you.

Yours sincerely

Jeff Brown

IFoA is best at Professionalism, ethics and values.

By joining this self-regulated professional body you are consenting to be subject to their disciplinary scheme. In early 2021 it was reported in the Insurance ERM magazine (check their website for more IFoA stories) that IFoA had taken disciplinary actions against two "critics" over an 18 month period. Both these critics had taken IFoA to Court and succeeded on matters such as discrimination and data protection violations. For the first member, IFoA's disciplinary case against him was thrown out very quickly at their "public" disciplinary tribunal panel and the panel even awarded costs against IFoA, which they can do when a case is brought inappropriately or negligently. For the second member, they withdrew their case against him last minute and refused to reimburse his legal costs. Both critics were sent a statement of likely costs incurred by IFoA for bringing the disciplinary cases a couple of weeks before their hearings amounting to tens of thousands of pounds, which the IFoA would apply for in costs against them should they have lost at this panel stage. People should be aware you're not just joining some exam body, they do have this disciplinary scheme to go after you even for social media posts and things outside your actuarial work. If that's not enough, it was reported hundreds of students received letters last summer accusing them of "plagiarism" in their new online exams. There does not need to be a member of the public complaining about you to instigate disciplinary proceedings the IFoA can bring it themselves.