View more on these topics

Advisers question FOS impartiality claims

Advisers have called into question claims made by the head of the Financial Ombudsman Service that the complaints adjudicator is “not a consumer champion”.

Earlier this week, Caroline Wayman told a committee of MPs that the FOS’ job was not to “advance the cases of the individual” but to provide a “level playing field”.

Wayman said: “What we are trying to do is provide fairness to both parties…There’s absolutely no question of us shifting in terms of that core impartiality.”

One adviser, who asked not to be named, tells Money Marketing that they believe there is still too much leeway in how the FOS can interpret complanits from consumers.

They say: “Ms Wayman has seriously misled the Treasury select committee with her statements. She has failed to describe the ‘inquisitorial remit’, a power held and utilised by FOS to interpret a consumer complaint any which way they choose to do so.

“In other words the outcome is not dependent upon the adviser proving that the advice they provided is suitable because the adjudicator or ombudsman is not subject to the same suitability standards as the professional adviser.

“Ms Wayman should be recalled to the committee to properly answer their questions and confirm the qualification levels of each adjudicator and ombudsman. She should also show evidence of the checklists and scorecards they use when examining complaints to prove they are fully considering suitability to a high enough standard.”

Other commenters questioned whether the independent assessor of complaints over FOS’ service standards should continue to be appointed by FOS’ board itself as is currently the case.

However, others came to the defence of FOS’ impartiality. Two-thirds of consumer complaints are rejected by the service.

One commenter wrote: “It is obviously completely wrong that we can be awarded against without the right to appeal but the cases that I have looked at appear to have been judged fairly and correctly.”

While ombudsman rulings are final. advisers can challenge procedural points on how the FOS arrived at its decisions and overturn them in court through a judicial review.

FOS has previously defended qualifications among staff, arguing that the core investigation and decision making skills of its adjudicators should be applicable to a wider range of cases and also help make the service more efficient.

Recommended

HMRC-HM-Revenue-Customs-700x450.jpg
3

Is this the answer to pension freedom withdrawal over-taxation?

The solution to this widespread problem is sitting under HMRC’s nose It is with keen interest I read the comments in the press about the unfairness of HM Revenue & Customs’ approach to taxing pension freedom payments under PAYE. The problem is that it currently taxes such withdrawals on a month 1 basis, which assumes […]

Justice-Fine-Ban-Court-Gavel-Judge-700x450.jpg
27

Waspi women should be given £15,000 each, Lib Dems say

The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to correct the “injustice” faced by the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign by giving them £15,000 each. Stephen Lloyd, the Liberal Democrat spokesman for work and pensions says the Government should do so immediately. Lloyd argues successive administrations have failed to help women who are set […]

Prudential advice arm architect joins annuity provider

Fixed-term annuity provider Primetime Retirement has hired Russell Warwick, who helped create Prudential’s financial planning business. Warwick, who has worked in the pensions industry for more than 30 years, has been appointed managing director of sales and marketing at the company. Primetime Retirement is a subsidiary of Key Retirement. Warwick’s most recent position at Prudential […]

Trevor Greetham – Investment Clock

Trevor Greetham, Head of Multi Asset at Royal London Asset Management, presents his latest video update, sharing his current views and the positioning of our multi-asset funds. Watch the video here Download The value of investments and the income from them is not guaranteed and may go down as well as up and investors may […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Advisers need relevant qualifications and experience, so why not FOS.

  2. R01 should be the bare minimum

  3. “While ombudsman rulings are final. advisers can challenge procedural points on how the FOS arrived at its decisions and overturn them in court through a judicial review.”

    A pointless throwaway comment. In most cases, if the FOS loses, they simply correct the procedure and the result stands. They can also challenge on the basis the decision is essentially ‘absurd’. This is all largely irrelevant in practice. The real point being that the FOS can make decisions that no court could and which may result in depriving an adviser of their livelihood with no chance of appeal. That’s the story.

    • Given the huge costs of a judicial review, how many advisers are likely even to consider that route as an option?

      Also, if the FOS is so impartial to the interests of both parties in a complaint, on what basis does it seek to justify routinely ordering the exonerated party to pay £200 or more to the complainant for “stress and inconvenience”? Where’s the stress and inconvenience in concocting an unfounded, spurious or vexatious complaint?

Leave a comment