View more on these topics

FOS accused of ignoring adviser evidence in rulings

The Financial Ombudsman Service is failing to take adviser evidence into account in around a third of cases, according to research conducted by the Association of Professional Financial Advisers.

Responding to a survey carried out by the lobby group, 34 per cent of advisers that have had a complaint referred to the FOS say the ruling did not take their evidence into account.

Some 8 per cent of advisers also reported that the reasoning for a ruling was not always provided, while around one in five said a complaint against them had been referred to the FOS in the last three years.

Of the complaints that were referred to the FOS, 47 per cent said most cases were found in their favour while 26 per cent said most were found in the complainants favour.

Some 8 per cent said that they’d had an equal number of each outcome and 18 per cent either didn’t know or the case was still being investigated. 

Apfa director general Chris Hannant says: “While it is positive to see that only a small number of advisers have had complaints referred to FOS, it is worrying that advisers feel the Ombudsman does not value the evidence they provide.

“This issue may only be affecting a small number of advisers but it is nonetheless an important one. Advisers put a lot of time and effort into responding to complaints and presenting evidence to FOS and the Ombudsman should take this into account when ruling on cases. In addition, if advisers do not understand the reasoning behind FOS’s decision they cannot do anything to ensure similar issues do not arise in the future.

“If FOS is disregarding advisers’ evidence it needs to provide a valid reason for doing so, otherwise it must clearly demonstrate that the evidence has been considered and explain the reasons behind all its decisions. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep this issue front of the Ombudsman’s mind.”

A FOS spokesman says: “In every case we investigate we consider the evidence provided by both parties before reaching a decision of what we think is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.”

The survey was conducted with 216 advisers in April this year. 

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. It is no surprise that advisers become disgruntled with APFA when even Council members read of surveys and initiatives via the medium of the internet and/or the press.

    Nothing changes it seems

  2. good day for golf 29th May 2014 at 7:46 pm

    I had one upheld against me and didn’t even have the right to respond!
    Sesame took the money out of my account to pay and did not contact me.
    I asked them about it and they said in email from legal very bluntly – “its none of your business as an ex-member”
    Nice!
    I just foot the bill.
    I found out later with much pushing with fsa and fos- I lost because first time buyers should be treated as cautious investors according to FOS and therefore give them the money back plus interest etc…
    I asked the FOS where it is stated in any text book first time buyers should only be treated as cautious investors? Never got a response.
    Whole thing is a sham.
    And Sesame can’t even defend that- what hope is there?

Leave a comment