Position Vacant...
Share
As we all know, the Financial Ombudsman Service is searching for a replacement for Walter Merricks.
The role, which pays over £180,000 a year, is being promoted very much as a management role and candidates are not required to have any legal or regulatory background at all.
An advertisement for the job, through recruitment firm Russell Reynolds Associates, says the role is one of “leadership and direction”. It adds that “managing complex relationships” with the FSA, HM Treasury and the OFT is a key part of the job.
Candidates must have experience in leadership and strategic thinking and prior exposure to “a complex stakeholder environment”.
Relegated to the desirable but not essential list, is experience of resolving complex disputes, experience of financial services, a legal qualification and an understanding or exposure to regulation.
Bearing in mind the weight of an Ombudsman decision, which is final and binding, should the top dog have the financial services knowledge and legal skills required to make decisions on complex cases?
Or is it okay for the chief ombudsman to take a more managerial view, leaving decisions to those more qualified and experienced in financial and legal matters sitting below him to make the judgments?
Post your thoughts below.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (8)
Julian Stevens | 30 Sep 2009 4:44 pm
Position Vacant...
It would be interesting to know just how many of the CFO's minions have anything at all in the way of (relevant) qualifications and experience in financial and legal matters. Previous attempts by various parties to find out have been met with evasive non-answers which lead us to suspect the answer in most cases to be bu**er all. And, whilst we're on the subject of relevant qualifications, what about all the people who work for the FSA and whose strategic decisions for the future of the industry have such huge influence on our livelihoods? What are all those handsomely paid people being being made to do about reaching QCA Level 4?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Barry Painter | 30 Sep 2009 4:51 pm
Ombudsman Service
I believe that the new appointee should come from a predominately Legal background and direct decisions based on common law principles.He should be prepared to introduce a system where the claimant pays the fee if a claim is not upheld and not the adviser/company.This will eliminate spurious claims and encourage greater support from the Adviser community in dealing with complaints.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Lakey | 30 Sep 2009 4:52 pm
Nice Job
Well, it shouldn't surprise any readers to learn that for the Top Job no legal experience is necessary.
The FOS don't work within the law so it doesn't matter.
Walter Merricks once said that they make their own law and you know what? He was right, they have been redefining the boundaries of legitimate adviser expectation since 2001.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Ellis | 30 Sep 2009 4:54 pm
a new financial ombudsman?
Walter made an immense contribution to ensuring fair and just outcomes for financial services customers in dispute with the industry. Someone with the same knowledge and skills would be a fitting successor.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The Msytery Shopper for IFAs | 30 Sep 2009 4:59 pm
Chief Ombudsma Vacancy
MAYBE MR BEAN SHOULD APPLY!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SIMON MANSELL | 30 Sep 2009 6:16 pm
legal qualification not part of the requiremenst
Wanted: One chief financial ombudsman, leadership skills required, legal qualification and understanding of financial services not ANY PART. You must be happy to operate in a system with a lack of an Appeal process which offends the "fair trial" provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights ECHR incorporated into law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Castle | 1 Oct 2009 7:52 am
I agree
with Barry Painter's comment.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon. | 1 Oct 2009 10:20 am
Qualifications????
It's hardly surprising that legal and financial services qualifications are not mandatory for head of the FOS. I suspect they only want a 'manager', not someone who will have enough experience and knowledge to make decisions. It's so much easier to control a manager/bureaucrat.
Personally I am not surprised as some while back I applied for the important but, in the FOS structure, lowly job of Adjudicator. (Sal. C £23k)
One extensive CV, two 'on line' tests and a written case study later was invited for a 'competency based' interview. Net result didn't get the job as I was deemed 'too experienced' for the role.
I suspect the fuller version of this was that I had more experience of finance and the sales practices of banks and financial services companies than the interviewing manager.
So it appears it appears that this policy goes from top to bottom at the Ombudsman. Presumably it's the same at the regulator where lack of knowledge of the macro economic position is mirrored all the way down to regulation of the smallest business.
So disappointed? Yes, but surprised? No.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment