This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM-Cover-Top-240714.jpg
Categories:Other,Regulation

FOS will be tested over long stop rule

  • Print
  • Comments (5)

Alan Lakey (grey)

The Financial Ombudsman Service has been in the news recently by virtue of the increase to the compensation limit, the publication of its 2010/11 annual report and the leaked criticism from a number of trade bodies about the quasi-regulatory role it enjoys.

The FOS is everybody’s favourite whipping boy but seldom has a target so deserved the arrows of fury.

It is unique in that it functions without the constraints of law that limit the activities of every other UK organisation. This freedom results from its FSA-derived rules, empowered by the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000.

The accusation of being a consumer champion, which the FOS energetically rebuts, stems partly from the manner with which it carries out its investigations.

Unlike a court, the FOS is able to depart from the specific allegation being levelled and pick through the advice process looking for some aspect it does not like. This inquisitorial process often results in the original allegation being rejected but another, often disassociated matter, being used to uphold the complaint.

The FOS has been subject to 14 judicial reviews and so far has emerged victorious in all of them. One reason is the FSA rules and the FSMA enable enormous latitude and legally the FOS has found itself on firm ground. However, the FOS is not able to override statute and neither is it able to ignore the requirements of the Human Rights Act, although it has so far succeeded due to product providers and trade bodies exhibiting a lack of appetite for a challenge.

A recent survey conducted by PanaceaIFA discovered an overwhelming majority of respondents finding fault with FOS procedures. One area which is sure to antagonise any adviser is where an opportunistic complaint is levelled by a client or a claim management company. Some of these are clearly vexatious or devoid of logic yet the FOS invariably accepts jurisdiction causing the adviser hours of unnecessary work, interaction with his PI insurer and, potentially, payment of a £500 case fee.

Another area causing outrage is the interpretation of the dispute resolution rules which set out how the FOS is able to deal with complaints. English law provides for three separate time limits - six years from the date of the action in question or, if later, three years from awareness that there is a reason for concern, with an overall long stop of 15 years. The FOS accepts the six-year rule, plays with the three-year rule and totally ignores the 15-year long stop.

The lack of a long stop is the most emotive as it singles out our industry for a removal of human rights. No rationale is used for this confiscation of rights apart from some mumbling about the long-term nature of financial advice. The FSA refuses to disclose its legal opinion on the matter, simply stating its legal counsel considers it was Parliament’s intention to remove the defence. As I have pointed out previously, the long stop was never discussed, debated or commented on when the FSMA was being drafted and the legal opinion is dubious. At some point, this opinion will be tested.

Alan Lakey is partner at Highclere Financial Services

  • Print
  • Comments (5)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (5)

  • It's like three men in a boat.
    Laywer, accountant and IFA having provided advice to the same client in connection to investment and tax advice in a Trust.
    They all look at their file and realise they made a mistake.
    It looks like they are all in the same boat, without a paddle
    The lawyer says, sorry, my professional body’s complaints procedure only reviews cases up to 6 years. If you want to pursue me, you can only do so through the courts after that and even then I would claim my right to a longstop of 15 years, so foxtrot oscar.
    The Accountant says, sorry I am claiming my right to a 15 year longstop and will not even look at whether I was professionally negligent.
    The IFA, says sorry I am claiming my right to a 15 year longstop and will not even look at whether I was professionally negligent.
    The complaint goes to the FOS and the staff there (who will not tell you their qualifications, but may well be solicitors and accountants, like many staff at the FSA) say, are let me have a look at that….. no sorry the IFA was/was not at fault Mr client and here is the bill Mr IFA for you’re innocent or guilty complaint…..
    The IFA says, how is that justice? He chooses to leave the industry and with no upheld complaints and lost of happy former customers who now end up going to the banks with all their accountants (Mr Shred was an accountant not a banker, don't forget)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When, by what means and by whom will this opinion be tested, Alan? We wait with bated breath.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When? As one of my now retired, petrified colleagues would say "Jam for tomorrow"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Ombudsman was basically set up to provide a fair, reasonable and cost effective solution to public claims against power of the organisations.

    Perhap now is a good time to demand equity in the way the Ombudsam System operates and terminate the postcode lottery.

    Why is the FOS on the instruction of its master the FSA allowed to demand penalties up to £150000, while the Legal Services Ombudsman is limited to £30000? What is the logic?

    As all individual Ombudsmen Services are established on the same original legal rules, is it not time for Parliament to ensure common practce?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Here's a bitter irony. Go to http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/annual/ar10_11/appendix5.pdf and, if you read it very carefully, you can find the length of the longstop for complaints against the FSA. As decided, of course, by the FSA.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

The Cost of Advice

Sponsored by Brooks Macdonald

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think advisers will benefit from Chancellor George Osborne's guidance guarantee?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments