View more on these topics

Top tips for dealing with the FOS

 

Claire-Williams-MM-Peach-500.jpg

Earlier this month the Financial Ombudsman Service announced that Natalie Ceeney would be stepping down as chief ombudsman.

The chairman of the Financial Ombudsman Service, Sir Nicholas Montagu, noted (with a sense of achievement) that In the close to four years since joining, Natalie has taken the service from dealing with an annual workload of 150,000 cases to over 500,000 cases”.

This increase in cases has certainly been reflected in my own practice where the number of complaints I am being instructed to defend has increased greatly over the last year.

 With this in mind, below are some top tips for dealing with the FOS.

  • Have robust engagement documents in place

 An engagement letter and terms of business which clearly set out the scope and circumstances of the firm’s advice and services can go a long way in helping defend a complaint where the scope of the retainer is in question. Contemporaneous documentation will almost always hold more weight than a party’s recollection of events.

  •  Engage early

Most people (including adjudicators) do not like to admit they are wrong. For this reason it is important to get off on the right foot with the FOS. At the start of the complaint, even before it has been referred to the FOS, the firm should thoroughly review the file they hold on the complainant in order to ensure their final decision is as robust and reasoned as possible. 

A firm’s final decision will be an adjudicator’s first exposure to the firm so it is important to make a good impression and ensure, as far as possible, that the adjudicator’s ‘initial’ thoughts on the case are positive towards the firm.

Where a complaint is referred to the FOS, a firm should pick up the phone to the adjudicator assigned to their case at the earliest opportunity. Try and build a rapport with the adjudicator, this will put the firm in the best position to ‘help’ the adjudicator come to the right decision.

  • Time Barring

The time barring rules can be a very effective way of extinguishing a complaint. Broadly a complaint will be ‘in time’ if it is made within six years of the advice or event being complained of occurring or, if later, within 3 years of when the complainant ought reasonably to have known they had cause to complain.

Where advice was given more than six years before the complaint, the complainant will attempt to rely on the three year rule. Going back to the first point above, doing a full review of the file and working out what information was provided to the complainant over the years following the initial advice can help enormously.

For example, if the firm can demonstrate the complainant received yearly updates on a particular investment which have been showing losses for several years the firm has a strong argument that the complaint is time barred.

What can also be key to a time barring defence is if the complainant switched advisers at some point after the original advice was given. If this did occur, and the new adviser informed the complainant about the allegedly unsuitable investments, the FOS may consider that the complainant ought reasonably to have known they had cause to complain from this point and the three year period would start to run.

  • Execution-only

As discussed in an article in May, the RDR may increase the amount of execution-only business. However, when it comes to the FOS, clear, contemporaneous documentation showing that no advice was given and that it was clear that the firm was not responsible for the suitability of the product will be necessary in order to successfully defend a case on the basis of execution-only. There is no halfway house when it comes to execution-only so the firm needs to be very clear with the client, and clearly document that it is execution-only business.

  • Consider causation

Always consider whether alternative (and allegedly more suitable) advice would have made any difference to the outcome. If the answer is no then the firm may have a defence. Also, consider whether any events have ‘broken the chain of causation’. For example, a new adviser changing the complainant’s investments – if loss is suffered after this point the previous firm may not be liable for it.

If you are the new adviser, and are advising your client that their investments are unsuitable for them, do not forget to tell the client (in writing) about the time barring rules. We have seen a suggestion from the FOS that not advising a client of the time barring rules, where the client has been informed that their investments might be unsuitable (thereby potentially setting the three year time barring period running) could be cause for a complaint against the new adviser in its own right.

  •  Exposure

When considering the firm’s exposure do not forget that the FOS can award interest, usually at a rate of 8 per cent per annum simple, on the sum awarded. The FOS can order that interest be paid from the date the loss crystallised up until the date of payment. In very rare cases the FOS can also award costs to the complainant and interest on those costs. Any interest and/or costs awarded to the complainant are not caught by the £150,000 limit and will be paid in addition to it. So where the loss is significant, and crystallised several years ago, the firm could end up paying a great deal more than the £150,000 limit. This is worth bearing in mind when considering settlement offers.

Do not underestimate the cost of management time in dealing with FOS complaints. FOS complaints usually take several months, if not a year, to conclude and there is a heavy burden on firms to engage with and provide information to the FOS. In some cases a reasonable and early offer can save a considerable amount of time, as well as money.

Whatever the reputation of the FOS, it is not going anywhere and wields considerable power over firms. As a result, it is up to firms to try and make the system work for them as far as possible. This has got to be better (and less costly) than a head-in-the-sand approach.

Claire Williams is a solicitor at Foot Anstey

Recommended

George-Osborne-Profile-at-Podium-in-2013-700.jpg

AS2013: OBR improves growth forecasts and predicts surplus by 2018/19

The Office of Budget Responsibility has improved its growth forecasts and revised borrowing figures downwards, which the chancellor says will see Britain running a small surplus by 2018/19. Delivering the Autumn Statement today, chancellor George Osborne revealed the OBR’s latest forecasts for the UK economy. At the Budget in March, the OBR forecast growth this […]

Investment principles and risk

Why the US Budget storm hasn’t blown over yet John Housden Last month’s US budgetary rows have been deferred, not settled. The US entered its new financial year on 1 October with no approved budget, causing a bureaucratic shutdown.  The sad fact is that the US Congress has not agreed a budget since April 2009. […]

Recording sickness absence cover - thumbnail

White paper — recording sickness absence

The latest figures from the Department for Work and Pensions illustrate that sickness absence is still a major cost to businesses, with an annual bill for sick pay and associated costs to employers of £9bn. This paper from Jelf Employee Benefits looks at the importance of recording sickness absence for any employee health strategy and how this can be carried out in an efficient manner to reduce absence, improve employee engagement and drive up profits.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I very much agree with what Claire says. With complaints you really do need to get your retaliation in first – and the sooner the better.

    Always remember that the mild mannered client in front of you is a money grabbing liar who will happily stitch you up.

  2. Our client agreements explain about time barring AND !omgstops as not all our work is regulated by the FCA and the lomgstop allies when FSCS become involved. The FCA didn’t like the fact we explained it in our agreements and are trying to get us to remove it, BUT the existence if time bars and longstols are a fact and NOT to mention them would be failing to treat our clients fairly and would be misleading.

  3. Small screen no spell check

    Our client agreements explain about time barring AND !ongstops as not all our work is regulated by the FCA and the longstop applies when the FSCS become involved (as with the Keydata debacle).

    The FCA didn’t like the fact we explained client responsibilities and timebars in our agreements and are trying to get us to remove them, BUT the existence if time bars and longstops are a fact (The GERMAN BGB (§ 852( 1 )) provides for a long-stop of thirty years from the moment when the wrongful act was committed ) and NOT to mention they may apply where a firm ceases to trade or passports in would be failing to treat our clients fairly and would be misleading.

    But then the underhand removal of mention of the English Longstop when the handbook changed from PIA to FCA was NOT clear fair and NOT misleading and most of us didn’t realise we’d been stitched up until about 5 years after FSMA 2000

  4. Infinite judgment is NOT a legal system it is a religion.
    Finite is a legal system.
    The F – pack believe themselves, judge, jury executioner and to also control to gates to heaven and hell.
    Much like the Soviets. Maoists and Kymer Rouge, not judgement except their judgement, they are always right even if their opinion has since changed and all its staff had. Law by hindsite

  5. If only it was as simple as Claire implies.

    The FOS frequently ignores contemporaneous documents preferring the foul-tinted recollections of disgruntled consumers.

    Additionally, the timebar situation is far from clear. The rules enable a defence that the consumer ‘ought reasonably to have known’ that he/she had a problem but getting the FOS to accept this is extremely difficult.

    Worst of all, the actual complaint may be rejected but the FOS may locate some aspect that is unappealing to them and then find in favour of the consumer over a complaint that has not actually been made!

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com