29th May 2014

APFA: Ombudsman not taking on board adviser complaints evidence

New figures from the Association of Professional Financial Advisers (APFA) reveal that advisers feel the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is at times failing to take their evidence into account when ruling on complaints, and does not always explain the reasoning behind its decisions. 

The research, carried out for APFA by NMG Consulting, reveals that just under one in five (18%) of advisers have had a complaint against their firm referred to FOS in the past three years. Of these, almost half (47%) say most cases were found in the firm’s favour, compared to a quarter (26%) saying most were found in the complainant’s favour. However, a third of these advisers (34%) also said that FOS’s ruling did not take account of their evidence in all cases and one in 12 (8%) said the reasoning for the decision was not always provided.

Chris Hannant, Director General at APFA, said:

“While it is positive to see that only a small number of advisers have had complaints referred to FOS, it is worrying that advisers feel the Ombudsman does not value the evidence they provide. 

“This issue may only be affecting a small number of advisers but it is nonetheless an important one. Advisers put a lot of time and effort into responding to complaints and presenting evidence to FOS and the Ombudsman should take this into account when ruling on cases. In addition, if advisers do not understand the reasoning behind FOS’s decision they cannot do anything to ensure similar issues do not arise in the future.

“If FOS is disregarding advisers’ evidence it needs to provide a valid reason for doing so, otherwise it must clearly demonstrate that the evidence has been considered and explain the reasons behind all its decisions. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep this issue front of the Ombudsman’s mind.”

 

So, do advisers think that the FOS treats them unfairly, check out our poll now and tell us.

Regulation

Registration

Free Registration and CPD

Read More

Related Articles_

YouGov: Are Consumers Getting Better Outcomes as a Result of the Consumer Duty?

Nearly three years after the introduction of Consumer Duty, are firms delivering the improved outcomes the FCA intended? Drawing on insights from more than 65,000 UK consumer interviews, this on-demand webinar from YouGov explores how perceptions of financial services have evolved since implementation. Discover which sectors and brands are leading the way, where gaps remain, and how different customer groups, including vulnerable consumers and younger generations, view their experiences today. Gain valuable insight into the latest Consumer Duty trends and what they could mean for firms looking to strengthen customer outcomes.

Read More

Panacea Conversations - Beyond the Questionnaire: Rethinking Attitude to Risk

Attitude to Risk is one of the foundations of good financial planning, yet it’s often reduced to a questionnaire and a risk score. In the latest episode of Panacea Conversations, compliance expert Tony Catt explains why the real value lies in the conversations behind the questionnaire. We explore adviser bias, client psychology, capacity for loss, vulnerability, and why risk shouldn’t be viewed solely through an investment lens. If you want to strengthen your Attitude to Risk process, this is a conversation worth hearing.

Read More

Panacea Conversations - Beyond the Questionnaire: Rethinking Attitude to Risk

In this episode of Panacea Conversations, we explore one of the most fundamental, and often misunderstood, aspects of the advice process: Attitude to Risk.

Read More

Comments (2)

The capricious antics of the FOS have been well documented in articles and in responses to the Lord Hunt Review, etc.

The fact that they operate in an unaccountable non-appealable environment with no recourse to a personal hearing and a bias towards the complainant is, as a judge once said to a claims management company, lamentable.

From a personal point of view I find it outrageous that as an APFA Council member, supposedly discussing, debating and formulating policy, I have to learn of this survey and its results via the press and Panacea Adviser.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark methinks.

Alan Lakey   29/05/2014   17:04
Alan

Your last paragraph - that really is a very poor show. But what is the betting that those on the Council representing the big firms and networks knew all about it?

I know how much angst is generated when a small IFA receives a complaint. Unlike the big boys this comes straight out of our pocket and impinges our probity.

The only 2 complaints (so far touch wood) that I've had in 25 years were a long time ago. I altered my process and am now a lot more fastidious in who I am prepared to accept as a client. I think that is vital element No.1.

Vital element No.2 is to find out (whenever and wherever possible) where the skeletons are buried. In this way you have better insurance than PII!!

Vital Element No. 3. Be absolutely transparent at outset and ensure everything is in writing. Work on the basis that Rory Percival is sitting on your right shoulder all the time.

Harry Katz   30/05/2014   17:22

You need to be logged in to comment on this article