News & Views

Archived content. For investment professionals only.

Still ‘Pete Tong’ at the FOS?

Panacea Comment

11 Sep 2014

From the 7th July to 12th August this year, we conducted a survey amongst financial advisers asking them for their experiences of the Financial Ombudsman Service, its perceived fairness and how the overall complaint system could be amended in order to deliver greater efficiencies and fairness.

The survey received 183 individual respondents as well as a host of comments on each individual question, which meant the final survey report runs to 28 pages, showing the depth of feeling amongst the adviser community. We have provided a selection of comments with each question below to give a flavour of adviser sentiment on this topic.

Panacea has shared a copy of the results with Caroline Wayman, the new FOS boss, Mark Garnier MP, Andrew Tyrie MP, Martin Wheatley, Keith Richards (not that Keef) Chris Hannant and Otto Thoreson.

As a comparison we have also included the result summary of the 2100 FOS survey – most of the questions were asked in both iterations of the survey; be aware that no ‘Unsure’ option was offered in 2011, it was for 2014.

 The 2011 survey, a pre-RDR, pre-FCA period, showed that something was seriously wrong with a system that was meant to be fair, open and honest, and where complaints that firms could not resolve were considered in an unbiased fashion based upon the evidence available and/or the balance of probability.

The time seemed right to revisit this survey as we now have a re-branded, re-managed regulator in place and a new boss at the FOS since Ms Ceeney resigned in November 2013 to join HSBC as head of its customer services.

The hoped for outcome of this exercise is that there is a recognition by both regulators and politicians that all is still not as well as it should be at the FOS and that something must be done to restore confidence in a system that so many see as wrong. And that view, we are sure, is not limited to the adviser community in isolation or just to do with the lack of longstop protection.

Consumers absolutely have rights that should be strongly protected, but in doing so the adviser consensus seems to be that those rights would appear to be taking precedent over everything else. Even, very worryingly it seems, to the point that if a consumer complaint is not possible to uphold on the basis of evidence available and/or probability, another way is found. And in some cases, if this survey’s anecdotal evidence is to be believed, this means the FOS re-engineering a complaint to create a successful one that the client did not make in the first place or had any issue with.

Confidence in a fair and unbiased Ombudsman service is vital and the right of all who use or engage with the service, the complainant and those complained about. 

There is much concern both inside and outside the industry about the restoration of consumer trust and we agree that much still needs to be done.

We hope the positives can be taken from this survey may cause a pause for thought because right now many in the advisory community see that very little has changed since 2011 and part of that restoration of trust is to ensure that the ombudsman service is seen as as a neutral body and not an arm of the regulator that champions the consumer at all cost.

A particularly disturbing trend was the increase to the already large 2011 percentage (64%) of firms who had experienced false or manufactured accusations from complainants in an attempt to gain compensation?

This year that stands at 74%.

Comments from advisers on the question:

“When I suggested [the false claimant] should be sued for fraud I was told this would be ‘bad for the industry’s image’. It’s funny how the same standard doesn’t apply to  making false declarations on insurance applications.”

“In all claims to date both the client and the claims company have made blatantly fraudulent claims.”

“The adjudicator just accepted at face value the complaint from the ex-client, who produced no evidence to back up their complaint.”

Panacea Observations:

 “This is a frightening statistic and it does little in the support department for regaining trust in the industry if you are fighting a battle to see trustworthy behaviour from your clients. The ability for some consumers to lie knows no bounds it seems. In my own experiences I have seen this, with one particular example being a client who happened to be in a very senior position with the FSA at the time the complaint was made; when ‘memories’ were refreshed the complaint was dropped but the process was very stressful, something not understood by those who regulate. And stress is a big part of any complaint resolution process, for both sides. It is worsened however for the adviser firm when the complaint is simply and clearly a fabrication that could be recognised very quickly in the adjudication process but for some reasons often fails to be.”

To download, free, the full survey results with all the comments, simply fill in the form below.

We think you will be as concerned as we are at what you read.

Name:
Job title:
Company:
Email:

Please note if you are not a community member already, by submitting this form you will automatically receive our twice-weekly Bento Bulletins, which can be tailored so you can receive articles from Panacea and our supporting partners of your choosing.

Email this article Print Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Share on Google+

Comments (4)

Now that FOS has started publishing decisions online and is naming firms (but not complainaints), I wonder if the time has come to publicly name and shame ombudsmen and adjudicators who fail to take proper account of evidence - or do something stupid like (as in one case I saw earlier this year) advovate attempting market timing.

Peter Turner   12/09/2014   10:47
A good idea Peter, would you like to assist in curating. We could put a board up on the site?

Derek Bradley   12/09/2014   16:06
If others are up for it, why not?

I would also love to be able to show inconsistencies in published ombudsman decisions but I suspect that would be too great a time commitment.

Peter Turner   12/09/2014   20:49
As ever, right behind you on that Peter !

I can't believe Adjudicators cannot be properly held to account - even when they make incredibly stupid individual judgements !

Colin Caulfield   16/09/2014   09:15

Login

Not yet registered?

Please complete this form to join our community

Name
Email
Company
Select your role:
Password
Confirm Password

Join the Panacea community

Join the Panacea community for free and recieve news, guides, whitepapers, event information, special offers and more!