Retired IFA John Calland is appealing the Royal Courts of Justice’s dismissal of a judicial review he brought against the Financial Ombudsman Service regarding a pension misselling case.
The judicial review, heard on 8 May, relates to a FOS decision to uphold a £48,000 pension misselling case against Calland. The FOS found the client received unsuitable advice in April 1992 to take out a personal pension rather than join his employer’s occupational scheme.
Calland was ordered to pay £48,105 plus interest at 8 per cent per annum from 27 July 2011 until payment, plus a £250 payment for distress and inconvenience.
Calland says the case was solicited by the FOS and the client never complained to him directly.
He also challenged the FOS’s decision not to grant him an oral hearing and claimed the FOS took too long to resolve the complaint in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was referred to the ombudsman in July 2005 and a final decision was not issued until February 2012.
On 21 May, the honourable Mr Justice Males dismissed the judicial review and ordered Calland to pay £35,000 in FOS legal costs.
Males said while the FOS Independent Assessor found in December 2006 the claim, along with a number of others, had been solicited by the ombudsman, the client “clearly indicated he did wish to complain” to the FSA, which passed the case to the FOS.
He said there is “nothing in the rules to require that the complaint must be made by the customer directly to the IFA”.
Males added that while the case took a long time to resolve, much of the delay was caused by Calland challenging the FOS’s jurisdiction and procedures. He added it is “far-fetched to think oral questioning of the client almost 20 years after the event would add significantly to the known facts”.
Calland is applying to the Court of Appeal to reopen the case, claiming the judgement contains factual inaccuracies.
Kitsons Solicitors partner David Turner, who is representing Calland, says: “This has been a long ordeal for John and as far as he is concerned it is not over.”
Calland has been fighting a 10-year battle with the regulators which has resulted in a separate legal case against the FSA, which he sued for harrassment last year. The judge is yet to return his decision following a second strike out motion by the FSA, which was heard in November. Full details can be found here.