Sesame FOS uphold rate far lower than the banks and SJP
Share
Sesame was the only IFA firm and St James’s Place the only other adviser business included in the FOS’s list of complaints data on individual companies, published today . The average uphold rate for all businesses is 59 per cent.
The FOS received 144 complaints against Sesame between January and June this year. In terms of resolved cases during this period, there was an uphold rate of 32 per cent. This compares to the 59 per cent of upheld complaints against St James’s Place advisers. During this time 61 new complaints were received against SJP.
Sesame says the number of complaints against the firm is "extremely small" considering the 250,000 pieces of business its 3,000 ARs write each year.
There was a 71 per cent uphold rate for complaints received against Barclays while Lloyds subsidiary Black Horse had 95 per cent of complaints upheld, the majority involving general insurance.
Lloyds TSB bank had 81 per cent of its complaints upheld while Egg had 88 per cent of complaints upheld.
Abbey National had 67 per cent of complaints against it upheld while subsidiary Alliance and Leicester had 66 per cent of its complaints upheld.
Northern Rock had 78 per cent of its complaints upheld while Tesco has 78 per cent upheld.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (3)
Alan Lakey - IFADU | 15 Sep 2009 12:56 pm
Clearer Than Ever
These figures might be miscontrued by some but they provide yet more irrefutable evidence that the IFA proposition is more robust, more trusted, more beneficial and more succesful than the bancassurers and direct sales forces. Why is it that the FSA fails to acknowledge this when devising the schemes that impact on us and when designing the hoops that we have to jump through just to continue doing what we are already doing.. Regulatory dividend, do I hear? No, that was only my voice, sorry.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 15 Sep 2009 2:27 pm
Upheld does not mean valid
Having seen so many determinations being made by the FOS which no reasonable, experienced and qualified observer would support, whether they be uhholds or dismissals, I can only ask why we are still being subject to a mandatory and binding arbitration scheme which is unappealable. And, how many cases are now more than 15 years old? The longer this goes on the more unfair is the illegal practice of ignoring the 15 year long stop.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 17 Sep 2009 12:59 pm
Claimants must pay
Just think how much it costs IFAs to deal with cases which go to the FOS when they have no merit? These cases clog up the system, the naswer is to charge claimants 9or their agents) £200 to have the complaint investigated, just as they do with high hedges. Of course the fee would be refundable if FOS uphold the claim in a way the courts would.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment