Mr Duffield is dissatisfied by the Financial Conduct Authority’s handling of the case, including its strong support of the scheme of arrangement.
He said: “We’re staring right into a situation where, fundamentally, the people I’m most indignant at after Woodford himself, are obviously Link Fund Solutions, who just let this go on, and the FCA. They were arrange to guard retail investors and consumers.
“The FCA has been put in place to try to help protect us, and here they’re backing this scheme,” he added.
Mr Duffield is just not the one investor who feels abandoned by the regulator. Campaign groups have criticised the offer on the table, saying that it ties the hands of investors and that the FCA’s numbers don’t add up.
In an open letter to the newly appointed City minister – Bim Afolami – Bob Blackman MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on fairer finance, accuses the regulator of failing consumers.
The letter, signed by greater than 300 supporters, demands a gathering with the minister to be able to pressure the Treasury to assist those affected and to start an independent inquiry.
Banking campaigner Andy Agathangelou said: “The FCA is deliberately, unethically, unprofessionally, immorally and possibly even unlawfully engineering an end result for the investors that may ‘save the FCA’s bacon’ but deny a good and just end result for the Woodford victims, in the event that they get away with it.”
Investor Ben Harness said he thought the FCA’s endorsement of the scheme of arrangement was a “stitch-up”. He and his wife will receive just 12pc of their outstanding loss back if the scheme is approved, he said.
He said: “I used to be comfortable to ride out the fund performance – I do know the chance of investing. Yet the suspension took that decision away from me. The FCA is just not fit for purpose.”
Others said the communications they’ve received from the FCA and Link Fund Solutions have been confusing and misleading.
Retired surveyor Graham Dickenson said investors weren’t aware that they were signing away their ability to take further motion by voting for the scheme.
“Investors haven’t been adequately consulted, are faced with a baffling series of documents and the overwhelming majority are simply not engaged, or are unable to have interaction,” he said.
Mr Dickenson also said that he believes that agreeing to the scheme would cut off any further likelihood of redress from one other source.
“It’ll neatly package all the regulatory and monetary shortfalls right into a manageable bundle, allowing all of those chargeable for protecting the life savings of consumers to flee and move on, with minimal reputational or monetary damage,” he added.
Woodford victim Martin Farrimond, 59, said he felt that the terms of the scheme hadn’t been properly explained to investors.
“The alternatives that specifically the retail investors are having to make haven’t been properly communicated. The implications of accepting this scheme of arrangement haven’t been properly communicated either,” he said.
“Together with all the opposite woes to the scheme is the undeniable fact that we at the moment are checking out that the opportunities of pursuing other parties have been closed off to us. None of that has been communicated.”