22nd May 2013 FOS win AGAIN at Judicial Review Full judgement here http://tinyurl.com/obcmvl7 The story in simpler terms here http://tinyurl.com/ngn3vfh JR is a get out of jail free card for ombudsmen. Its just not possible for most people to commence a JR On a different subject, with the legal ombudsman it is not possible to even make a complaint that an ombudsman may have been prejudiced, biased or unfair unless you commence a JR. Unbelievable but true...you have to pay to make a complaint. The LeO will not investigate such a complaint without a JR and have no instructions or advice to staff on how to handle such a complaint. Read the Freedom of Information request that confirms this here. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/complaints_about_an_ombudsman_sh#incoming-384185 What a system !

Try this site for launching a petition http://www.change.org/en-GB?utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature_receipt&utm_campaign=new_signature

Don't even think about it unless your case is VERY high value and you can afford thousands in costs. FOS is fireproof, with a high powered legal team. I have not heard of any case where a consumer has won at JR. The FOS remit of "fair and reasonable" is so wide its almost impossible to show FOS has done wrong. In any case a JR wont look at your case...just at how FOS handled it. Even if you "win" it could end up with FOS simply being told to reconsider how they acted...result... same decision again after reconsideration. The inability of the ordinary man to complain about a FOS decision is just part of FOS. The ombudsman is always right. All you can do is reject the FOS decision and take the firm to court.

Hi, Why not ask FOS to enforce the decision. See their factsheet page 2 on what to do if the firm wont pay. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/factsheets/final_decision.pdf

Welcome to the FOS ! But I do think the refusal of a short extension over Christmas, with advisers unavailable is unreasonable. I suggest a complaint to the Independent Assessor. She can't change the decision or actually do anything much, but she can award a small compensation payment. The current IA is a good person who has few powers but is not afraid to challenge and criticise FOS. You can complain about FOS service standards, but there is a specific procedure to follow. Check out the IA's website page at: http://www.independent-assessor.org.uk/

Not sure I can help much, it sounds tricky, but why not ask FOS to delay the deadline to give you more time to get answers before making a crucial decision without a full explanation from the firm. They will sometimes allow a delay, especially when their own procedures are so long drawn out. If you do accept the FOS decision, that is an end to it...it becomes binding...end of story. If you do not accept it then at least you can continue the battle direct with the firm and/or take them to court.

The Independent Assessor is appointed by the FOS board, but not from the board. Although the previous IA was a previous board member, the current IA, Linda Costelloe Baker was nothing to do with FOS before her appointment, indeed, sensitive to criticism about lack of independence, her selection board was modified to included a "public interest observer" though what this person did ( with non voting observer status only) is not known. The current IA is a good person who tries hard, but she has no powers to do very much and she is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED from even commenting on the merits of any FOS decisions. Even if she makes a recommendation the FOS board can decide not to follow it. (Though they have never done this in 10 years). She receives a very large salary (one of the highest at FOS if it is scaled up to show her annual rate as a comparison) and spends her time assessing "service standards" and making a few small awards (£25-£1000) for poor service standards. Her last Annual Report gives one shocking example of FOS poor service, proving that she does perform a useful role and does not seem to be afraid to criticise FOS (service standards only !). Although people who have suffered poor service from FOS can appeal to the IA, those who have suffered poor decisions have no appeals process. All Ombudsman's decisions are "fair and reasonable" and none of the 20,000 decisions FOS ombudsmen made last year have any mistakes. The ombudsman is always right and his decision is final so no appeals process is necessary. I can think of no other role in public life which has such powers. The IA's annual report is hidden away at the very end of the FOS Annual Review ... read the case study on page 78 (Its a big download unfortunately) http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/directors-report-2011-12.pdf#page=76 Her personal web site is here ... worth a look... http://www.independent-assessor.org.uk/ Another more critical view of the role of the IA is here http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk/independent%20assessor.htm The only hope for changing the FOS is to write to your MP. If enough of them get the message that change is needed we may get somewhere.

FOS has published the procedures for making an enquiry under the FoIA. They must reply within 20 days of receiving full details of the question. How this can be done when there is a massive delay on normal FOS cases remains to be seen. But there is another, perhaps easier, way to make a FoIA request which has the advantage that the public can read your question and the FOS's reply (or reasons why they refuse to reply) Why not ask your question by email on the excellent, quick and easy "What do they know" website ? Link to FOS page about FoIA requests http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/foi-making-a-request.htm Link to "What do they know" website to make FoIA requests http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/financial_ombudsman_service

The banks are required to tell you in their "final response" that you make take the matter to the FOS Taking legal action in the knowledge that you have used this option would seem unreasonable Why not write to FOS asking then to deal with your case immediately in view of this situation, or just ask them whether the bank is within its rights to do this. Perhaps ask them to tell the bank to suspend action whilst FOS considers the case.

error

If you are going to court, make sure you don't accept any FOS decision. If you accept a decision, you can't then go to court. Good luck...keep us in the picture !

A face to face meeting with FOS is very very rarely permitted...don't raise your hopes. I would still follow the complaints procedure using your latest info from Cahoot to make the point that Cahoot now admit a second contract should have been signed, and the adjudicator does not understand the issues. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...-standards.htm

Bob, If you want to try complaining to FOS you should follow their procedure as given in this web page. Run down to "Complaints about our service". They do like you to follow the laid down procedure http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/our-service-standards.htm If you dont like the FOS response, you can ask the independent assessor, but she has no authority to investigate or comment on the merits of your actual case, just on FOS standards. If you have had a formal response from an Adjudicator, you can ask for the case to be escalated to an Ombudsman but this will take months and won't get far if they say thay cant actually handle your case (!) I would read the web page above and write to the Team Manager in the first place. Try to keep it short, stick to the main points, be polite and see what happens. Good luck

Think about suing Cahoot in the small claims court

Since you have not accepted the FOS decision, you can still take the matter to court if you wish. If you had accepted the decision, you would be stuck with it. It sounds like a complex case, perhaps beyond the abilities of some FOS adjudicators and ombudsmen. But anyway, you are not bound by the decision if you have not accepted it. I dont know if the police should be involved, but legal advice from a suitably qualified barrister might be the best way forward.

Dave, This is really good news...Well done ! Its worth thinking about what has happened in your case FOS seem to have changed their 'initial' decision. Who was it that told you initially that the bank had done nothing wrong, was it someone who did not have an adjudicator's qualifications ? Who were they to offer advice ? The adjudicator was wrong in his assessment of suitable damages, the bank paid 30 times more than he thought was "fair and reasonable". We do not know the adjudicator's qualifications or experience but clearly they were not up to the job. The adjudicator tried to pre-judge the Ombudsman's decision "an Ombudsman is likely to consider etc. etc.", apparently to try and discourage a referral to an Ombudsman. This has implications for the impartiality of what the FOS consider to be an 'appeal' to an Ombudsman. How did he know what the Ombudsman would think, had they discussed it ? The bank asked for the matter to be referred to an Ombudsman, they were confident the adjudicator's friendly decision would be confirmed. The adjudicator did not take the authority to actually SET the compensation at what he thought was a fair figure, he just passed messages back and forth and accepted what the Bank offered. It is one of the prime scandals of the FOS that Adjudicators and Ombudsmen do not usually check or make their own independent calculations of compensation. The bank caved in when faced with court action with the prospect of a Judge looking at the facts. Perhaps now we see why they were happy to refer it to an Ombudsman You are one of the few people to stand up to FOS, ignore their recommended solution and go to court. I wish I had done the same. I wonder how many other people should be doing the same thing.

An Insurance Company (Europ Assistance) has declined to pay out on a claim resulting from the Icelandic volcano eruption and subsequent disruption of aviation by the dust cloud. The claimant went to FOS who said that the volcanic dust cloud was "weather" and told the firm to pay the claim. The firm asked for a JR of the decision. The Case was initially handled by an adjudicator (who looked up "weather" in Chambers dictionary), but ended up with Caroline Mitchell who is lead ombudsman. This is a hugely important issue as it may impact on all travel insurance, and indeed other insurance policies in the future. It may be that the case has such important implications for the insurance industry, that the ombudsman should have invoked the "test case" procedure, and the firm requested this, however Ms Mitchell specifically decided not to do so and she explains why in her decision. Ms Mitchell therefore issued a standard FOS Ombudsman "decision" which is binding on the firm, (if the claimant accepts the decision). It look as though Europ Assistance have reacted to this by asking for a Judicial Review. It is not obvious (to me) whether the JR is of the failure to use the test case procedure, or the assessment of volcanic dust at "weather", or both. The JR judges will have to consider the effect of their ruling on all manner of disturbances in the air and elsewhere which might or might not be considerered to be "weather". Volcanic dust clouds Radioactive emissions and dust clouds from nuclear accidents, (the recent Japanese nuclear accident cause huge air travel disruption) Desert sand storms where dust reduces visibility and can close airports Flocks of birds (borne along on the wind just like dust). Birds can close airport runways Smoke from fires near airports, blown on the wind, reducing visibility and so on. This could run and run ! Ms Mitchell's discussion of the issues in her decision makes very interesting reading. It is not often we get the chance to read an actual verbatim 'decision', (though Natalie Ceeney recently said that they would all be published in the future). The above clips are taken from the FOS problems website http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk Caroline Mitchell's actual ruling (the actual ombudsman's decision) http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/travel-insurance-ash-mar11.pdf FOS letter to claimants, whose cases will now be delayed http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ash-JR-update-Jul11.pdf FOS Technical Resource page regarding Insurance matters http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/travel-insurance.htm#fd

If the Adjudicator closed the case because she was going on maternity leave, I suggest you complain about this to the Independent Assessor. She won't look at the merits of the case, but she may find a breach of FOS "service standards". Surely the case should have been passed to another Adjudicator rather than closed in haste.

Most readers of these discussions will probably be consumers (like me) but the FOS can be hard on IFA's too. It cuts both ways. For instance if an unqualified ombudsman makes a mistake and issues a bizarre decision, and the consumer accepts it, then the IFA has a binding decision imposed on him without argument or appeal. It's a disgrace really especially as from next year decisons of up to £150,000 will be involved. Anyway an MP and MEP have got involved and criticised FOS. Its all in these three links which are well worth a read regarding how an unqualified staff can pass binding and non-appealable judgement on a qualified financial practitioner. Mark Burstow MP (and Minister) contacts FOS http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Regulation/News/article/20110602/80a3ab78-8d07-11e0-8595-00144f2af8e8/Minister-tells-Fos-that-staff-need-to-be-IFA-qualified.jsp Geoffery Bloom MEP writes as well http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Regulation/Regulators/News/article/20110516/9abac380-7fbe-11e0-8dba-00144f2af8e8/Fos-staff-not-qualified-to-adjudicate-says-MEP.jsp Mr Bloom's letter in full...he does not mince words, especially about Judicial Reviews http://v2.panaceaifa.com/img/20/documents/Bloom%20to%20Ceeney%20130511.pdf I also liked a comment from an FOS spokeperson in one of the above links that "Like a court, we do not require our staff to list out their qualifications after their name, we prefer the quality of their work to speak for itself" He should take a look at this for an example of FOS quality http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk/full.htm Perhaps writing to your MP about FOS problems is a good way forward after all. My experience of asking MPs to take up things is that they just pass letters back and forth, but these two have actually intervened and made points to Natalie Ceeney, FOS Chief Adjudicator. Auntie

A bad experience, but you are not alone in experiencing bizarre decisions by the FOS. Take a look at the case described in detail on this website www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk I am afraid the Ombudsman is always right, all 200,000 decisions made last year were correct. No Ombudsman can over-ride another and there is no appeals process. The Ombudsman is Judge, Jury and Executioner. By offering you the chance to open a NEW case, the Service Review Manager avoided admitting errors in the first case. The Service Review Team has been closed down at FOS now and the Manager has been moved. You have the right to take court action, but only if you do NOT ACCEPT the FOS decision. The Independeent Assessor will not look at the merits of your case, and has little authority anyway but you could consider appealing to her if you feel the FOS "service standards" have been breached. However FOS dont have to do what she says even if she finds in your favour and she usually only awards a small cash sum in any case. A Judicial Review is possible, but expensive and complex (few try this route) and it wont look at the merits of your case but only whether FOS has acted properly within its regulations. Write to your MP complaining about the lack of an independent appeals process at FOS. If enough of us do this, it might eventually get somewhere. You could try to get one of the press financial journalists interested. The Times sometimes runs articles critical of FOS Sorry...but join the club !

Dont accept the FOS desision if you want to retain the option to go to court. Once you have formally accepted the FOS Ombudsman's decision, you cant go to court...you must choose one route or the other

You can allow the Ombudsman to make his ruling on the case. I would do that and see what he says. The restriction on going to court is that you cannot go to court once you have accepted the FOS decision. You can see what the FOS Ombudsman says...reject the decision if you disagree with it and still go to court

dirk..."contractor" ??? ...were you an Adjudicator ? FOS are now looking for self employed, fee paid Ombudsmen, and recent adverts for Adjudicators were for a 9 month fixed contract. Something is up...perhaps a shortage of funds as the huge number of PPI cases is bringing in no money because the cases are not 'closed' so no fees are paid by the firms.

Main points from the article Consumers getting compensation of less than expected Critics want a separate body to impose sanctions and enforce payments 1st example case of Mr O'Brien and father with dementia, who calculates redress should be £344,000, was offered £28,400 by the firm. FOS Ombudsman accepts the lower figure FOS makes no check on firm's calculations usually Adrian Sanders, MP now involved 2nd example case is my own. Accepted Ombudsmans decision but then learned Ombudsman had not followed FOS guidelines which would have raised offer by £8000. Full details at ww.fos-problems.co.uk (change ww to www to get the proper address, I am unable to post links yet) FOS makes few referrals to FSA (20 in 5 years !) Comments on Adjudicators low experience, salary and training compared with the firms' experts Quotes from Jane Sanders the FOS whistleblower about adjudicators Its a long article, the lead article in the Personal Finance section. Calm and accurate with telling points well made by Mark Atherton, the journalist.

You can say 'incompetent' if you think they are and have evidence to back it up...but it may be best to stay really calm if you can, and incisively take the Adjudicator's reasoning apart. Be polite and keep it as short as possible, emhasising the main issues not every tiny thing. By the way, Adjudicators and others are sometimes incompetent. In my case they said an award was taxable, though their own guidelines said differently, fought for months to defend this, eventually reducing the tax from 20% to 10%. Later the Principal Ombudsman overruled the Adjudicator, Ombudsman and Service Review Team and said it was not taxable at all. That is incompetent ! I am not allowed to post links yet, but if you google "financial-ombudsman-problems" you should get to a web site about incompetence at the FOS