View more on these topics

Apfa: FOS must play its part in reforming adviser liability

Caroline Escott

One of the issues that crops up most often in conversations with advisers is their fear about future claims. Adviser liability is also the factor we mention most frequently when asked by the likes of the FCA and the Treasury how to broaden access to advice or what steps can be taken to get advisers involved in relatively new markets such as secondary annuities.

No one disputes the need for consumer protection when it comes to financial advice. It is clear from just a cursory glance at the headlines that negligence exists. However, it is in both policymakers’ and advisers’ interests to reform the current situation.

One aspect of financial advice liability is the lack of a long stop on complaints. The other is the way in which liability in specific complaints is assigned in practice. Members have come to us with concerns about the decision-making of the Financial Ombudsman Service, where advisers were unable to gain access to the adjudicator in charge of their claim or where the scope of a complaint had been expanded for reasons that appeared unclear.

In response to these complaints, we began our project to improve confidence in the FOS’s processes. We asked members and other stakeholders for cases that illustrated issues with the FOS approach. These included concerns about the lack of an independent appeal, the training and qualifications of FOS staff in dealing with what are often complex issues and the feeling among advisers that greater emphasis was placed on consumer evidence than their own.

The discussions with the FOS are ongoing. However, what became clear from our conversations was in many areas the ombudsman’s stated policy was hard to fault. The problem was the reality of members’ experiences in certain cases appeared to be at odds with what the FOS said it would do.

Take the following example. While the FOS states consumers and advisers have equal access to adjudicators throughout the process of judging the claim, our members would tell us time and time again they would be unable to contact someone on the phone.

The FOS confirmed to us in meetings its policy was to ensure both advisers and consumers could readily contact the relevant official and we have been pleased to note chief ombudsman Caroline Wayman’s comments that it is working to improve the situation.

Similarly, the FOS states each official examines all the relevant facts and arguments, and listens to each side of the story. However, members relayed concerns that adjudicators failed to take into account certain key aspects of a case while appearing to automatically trust the consumer’s version of events without supporting documentary evidence.

We will shortly publish our own guidance for advisers on how to deal with the FOS and what to expect. Where there is a “gap” between policy and reality, we are happy to take this forward on members’ behalf.

There remains a great deal of work to be done with the FOS, including discussion of what we feel is the use of inappropriate indices in calculating compensation, as well as its approach to claims on Ucis. However, we hope our guidance and continuing conversations with the likes of the FOS and other regulators will be a useful part of a campaign to reform adviser liability.

Caroline Escott 
is senior policy adviser at Apfa

Recommended

Kim North: Ditching guidance in favour of advice

I know we cannot all get what we want all the time but I have always believed advice should be available to everyone. Why? Because research shows time and time again money under advice is more efficiently managed for individuals in both sickness  and health, in poverty and in prosperity. But it is important consumers know […]

The Downsizing Delusion: Why relying exclusively on your home to fund your retirement may end in tears

By Steve Webb, director of policy The British obsession with homeownership can have dangerous consequences. A recent survey by Barings¹ found that up to three million people of working age were planning to rely wholly on the value of their home to fund their retirement. We are not talking about people investing in buy-to-let or […]

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. But the fundamental problem remains that none of the bodies to which APFA is putting forward its representations on this and various other issues, most notably the longstop, is under any obligation to take the slightest notice of any of them. So they don’t. It’s all very well for APFA to bang away valiantly on various drums and for Lord Deben to make a tub-thumping speech at its annual dinner but, if no one in a position actually to change anything is listening, APFA needs to formulate a Plan B and one of those, it seems, it simply doesn’t have. It’s all just talk.

  2. Look at Chris Hannat and Caroline Escot’s linked in profile and compare it to the staff APFA have been dealing with as part of the longstop working party, which only has 3 advisers on it, Alan Lakey, Tim Harvey and I and you’ll realise why APFA will do nothing about the Longstop except talk a good talk.

Leave a comment