0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

FOS under fire

19 September 2013

FOS faces another round of criticism, sparked by a parliamentary debate  that considered, in light of the reckless and vexatious approach claims management companies have taken to the filing of PPI complaints, whether FOS should be reformed. Nic Dakin (MP for Scunthorpe) initiated the debate, during which he claimed: “The Financial Ombudsman Service places all the risk with businesses, which means that CMCs can act with impunity and without risk.” In its current form, FOS may exercise its discretion to adjudicate on claims and award up to a maximum of £150,000 plus interest – usually without hearing oral evidence.

Concerns with the current system include significant delays and uncertainty with complaints often spanning several years; that there is no duty of disclosure so the true nature of a complaint may be concealed and concerns by respondent firms that they are still required to pay a £550 fee[1] per complaint should they wish to contest a complaint, even if the complaint is vexatious (a concern that has been highlighted by the vast swath of PPI complaints lodged by claims management companies with little or no evidence to back up the complaint).  It should be noted, however, that the number of cases that FOS will investigate without charge to the respondent has been increased from three to twenty five in a bid to address this latter concern.

More fundamentally, there is an inherent imbalance between complainants who need not accept the decision as opposed to respondent firms who find themselves bound by a final decision accepted by the complainant.  There is no right of appeal for the respondent firm other than Judicial Review in very limited circumstances.  This disparity, coupled with the fact that FOS is not bound by precedent and it need not apply the law in its decisions is both worrying and arguably at odds with the respondent’s Article 6 rights to a fair trial.

In light of the above, perhaps it is time for the government to rethink the role of this quasi-judicial body and reform it into a tribunal-based system underpinned by the rule of law.


[1] For the year 2013/14, rising up to £855 in PPI cases.

focus on...

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory newsletter - February 2020

Read our latest insurance newsletter for our clients and contacts across the financial services market with quarterly updates and insights on topical legal and regulatory issues.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up