8th July 2010
Passion for fairness??
The Sunday Times this weekend carried an advertisement for FOS Ombudsman position/s at a salary of £64,000 plus benefits. The organisation describes itself as a Statutory not for profit organisation with a commercial focus, professional rigour and a “passion for fairness”.
Successful applicants will “probably” have knowledge and experience of at least one of the following-: the law, dispute resolution, regulation, government, professional services or - retail financial services”.
The new Ombudsman, Natalie Ceeney was quoted when taking up the role as saying “I am proud to be joining the Financial Ombudsman Service at such a critical point in its history. Under Walter Merricks' ten years as the first chief ombudsman, the service has firmly established itself in the role intended for it by Parliament.”
Whilst accepting and understanding fully the need to have such a service, this is an interesting statement as many IFAs and possibly product providers too view the operational role of the FOS as seeming to ignore the laws laid down by Parliament, instead, in the words of Walter Merricks, the FOS is "making the law" themselves and that is neither right or constitutional and certainly not what Parliament intended within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).
The FSA still seems reluctant to disclose legal advice in relation to longstop removal as referred to in paragraph 2 of the FSA Board minutes dated 18th September 2003 and despite FOI requests, the information regarding this has still not been released by the FSA who explained that the information was “legally privileged and that the public interest test weighed in favour of the maintenance of the exemption” (i.e. non disclosure).
History would dictate that statements such as this are normally made because sight of the legal advice would do little to support the decision in question. The decision to withhold legal opinion surrounding the decision to invade Iraq springs to mind as a good example.
I would hope that Ms Ceeney recognises that for a service such as this it is vital for it to be seen to be fair in it’s dealings with all and to adhere to the laws of the land. By discriminating against the industry (yes that means providers as well as IFAs by removing the defence of a previously enjoyed 15 year longstop, still afforded to all in the UK except those that fall within FOS jurisdiction) it is not demonstrating a “passion for fairness” in any way at all.
This is a very serious matter which many hope will be addressed by the CPMA when it is formed and ideally but probably not by the current management.
All should be very afraid of a continuance of this blatant retrospective overriding of statute by a “statutory” body as well as the HR act conflict it creates. It does not only apply to those firms with a long trading history but those “new borns” too as they, their business partners and spouses will also be carrying forward unbridled liability, possibly to their grave if the longstop removal remains uncorrected.
You need to be logged in to comment on this article