21st August 2025

Starmergeddon on the port bow

Justin Urquhart Stewart wrote on Linkedin this week: “This is madness from a government which is threatening most families' largest asset, namely their property. At a time when we need to be encouraging everybody's confidence, threatening the value of this vital asset is frankly stupid and displays an astonishing level of ignorance”.

A key part of financial services regulation is the need to treat customers fairly, consumer outcomes and expectations are clear and very simply explained for anyone in doubt here. There are some very specific considerations for vulnerable customers too.

The FCA is given its power by government and legislation. That means that if any of us go ‘off piste’ we can expect sanction or at worse get struck off.

With that thought in mind the financial services industry is very concerned about what damage is being done to the economy. In June one very major player observed that investors cannot trust a Labour government as their constant policy reversals have undermined their credibility.  

The British state is rapidly losing control of its finances; I seem to recall some wise words along the lines of a Labour Government fails when it runs out of everyone else’s money.

As we approach the end of August we are seeing more failure warnings as the money runs out. 

Inflation will be up to 4% later in this year, Government bonds close to highest level since 1998, public sector wage rises outperform the private sector, U-turns on winter fuel payments and welfare reform foiling any attempted repair of the public finances, employer NI rises seeing job losses, pub closures at a record high, doctors still striking, green levies killing manufacturing with increased energy costs, gangs still not smashed, oh, and don't forget all the billions for Ukraine continues.

This all has to be paid for and it will be by more tax and borrowing. Wealth taxes and stamp duty changes are being mooted, and, the first quarter of 2025 has seen a dramatic surge in business closures across the UK, with 2,718 companies shutting their doors between January and March. I could go on….. 

All these warning signs are the first of many more to be aimed at the current administration by big and small players in the financial services sector, but do they, will they care?  

If trust has gone, what redress should, or could the nation have on those who may be putting us in harm’s way beyond a four year wait for an election? 

What about the responsibility of government ministers to those they purport to govern and protect? The phrase ‘What’s good for the Goose is good for Gander’ springs to mind and seemingly does not apply when it comes to politicins?

Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies. It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament and the nation they serve, correcting any error at the earliest opportunity. But what about the electorate, do they not matter in the ‘accurate and truthful department’? 

Could there be a cunning plan out there to get us all, including working people out of jail?  

Is the UK administration guilty of Misfeasance? A legal action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the officeholder has misused or abused their power by acting in a way that will likely cause harm or injury to someone, either by deliberately targeting them or by acting without proper authorisation. It involves an intentioned abuse of power and requires proof of bad faith or recklessness, not just negligence. 

Given that the government has now been in office for over a year and considering the very many criticisms being levelled at various key ministers, are the following some of the key elements of potential legal action to prove ‘Misfeasance in Public Office’?

• Ministers hold an elected public office and are acting in that capacity. 
• Abuse of Power: The minister or ministers, including the PM must have knowingly misused or abused their power, or acted recklessly. 
• Bad Faith: The minister or ministers, including the PM’s actions must be intentional or reckless, not just negligent. 
• Knowledge of Probable Harm: The minister or ministers, including the PM must have known that their actions would likely cause harm or injury to someone. 
• Causation: The minister or ministers, including the PM actions must have caused actual harm or loss to someone. 

Have the minister or ministers, including the PM made decisions that they know will negatively impact or even benefit a specific individual or group, despite having other options?

UK society and its legal system is based on the rule of law and that executive or administrative power should only be exercised for the public good, not for improper purposes. Misfeasance in public office is a legal remedy available to help rein in the abuse of that administrative or executive power. 

However another option could be Malfeasance? This is the wilful and intentional act of doing harm. In many cases it could be argued that a minister or ministers, including the PM made decisions that they know will negatively impact specific individuals or groups, despite having other options? It could be that government ministers are guilty of both

The key consideration in bringing any such claim for either Misfeasance or Malfeasance is the burden of proof. 

In this case the claimant bears the burden of proving the minister or ministers (including the PM) actions or misconduct, including the intentional or reckless nature of the actions, the exceeding of authority etc all resulted in creating harm. 

This is a very specialist area of law to be sure. Sadly, I suspect the bar for any of these actions would no doubt be set very high by the politicians concerned.

But, it’s a funny old world, you never know? 

Back in 2006, IFA Alan Lakey tried very hard to bring Lord Myners to book for in effect lying to parliament about the longstop, the lack of parliamentary consultation and its subsequent removal.  

He complained to Parliamentary Ombudsman who advised him that as Myners was now a Lord so any complaint should go to the Ombudsman for the House of Lords. 

Strangely enough parliamentary privilege also tied the Lords Commissioner’s hands and the various ethics committees informed Alan that making untruthful statements does not fall within their remit 

Any legal thoughts anyone? Do post below.

Business Development