Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

full-time-mum

I agree that the process is far too slow and drawn out.

Having been through the process, we felt as though our word wasn't held in as much esteem as the IPA. Discrepancies in our testament were taken to show we hadn't listened, rather than that we had misunderstood, whereas discrepancies in what the IPA said seemed to be totally disregarded.

We were also in the position where the adudicator agreed with us but the IPA appealled and the ombudsman agreed with the IPA - we didn't seem to be able to have any dialogue regarding this change of face whereas, with the adjudicator we could go backwards and forwards until we understood what they were saying and they understood what we were saying.

It seems that we were in a financial position to take a risk, therefore the advice given was acceptable even though everything we said indicated that we weren't prepared to take any risks.

Maybe its just sour grapes, but we've come out of the process feeling that the ombudsman was all about the professionals sticking together - the process didn't seem very transparent.

Stress

magpiecottage wrote: »

What was the case about?

The firm refused to conduct the PIA pension review in the mid 90's.

If you had to take it to court to enforce the decision, the FSA is likely to want to know about it.

Complained to FSA 1999-2001 nothing happened, also requested FSA invoke Sec 382 of FSMA in 2007, they refused hence court action. Also complained to Complaints Commissioner...

www.fscc.gov.uk/documents/final/GE-L0676.pdf

but also got nowhere.

shortchanged_2

full-time-mum wrote: »

Maybe its just sour grapes, but we've come out of the process feeling that the ombudsman was all about the professionals sticking together - the process didn't seem very transparent.

I have to agree with you on this one full-time-mum

magpiecottage

Stress wrote: »

Complained to FSA 1999-2001 nothing happened, also requested FSA invoke Sec 382 of FSMA in 2007, they refused hence court action. Also complained to Complaints Commissioner...

www.fscc.gov.uk/documents/final/GE-L0676.pdf

but also got nowhere.

I can see why you were frustrated but it would not be the fault of FOS or the PIA Ombudsman Bureau, one its predecessors. This is because they only have jurisdiction if the firm was subject to lawful regulation at the time of the events or volunteered to subject itself to jurisdiction of such a scheme.

FIMBRA was what was known as a "Self Regulatory Organisation" and the one that regulated most IFAs. (Providers had their own who also regulated their "tied" advisers called LAUTRO). However, unless and until it was accepted into membership, FIMBRA had no jurisdiction over an IFA firm.

Although it could only act against its own members, it could be argued that FIMBRA had a duty of care to report concerns that a firm was trading without authorisation to the senior regulator - the Securities and Investments Board (which became the Financial Services Authority).

If it didn't that would not be the fault of SIB/FSA and it could hardly act on something it knew nothing about.

There would, though, be one other possible route for a person in your position and that would be a complaint to the insurance company receiving the transfer.

The logic would be that before a product provider accepted business from, and paid commission to, an intermediary who was not authorised would only be permitted in very limited circumstances prescribed in LAUTRO rule 4.3. H

Thus, had the provider complied with the LAUTRO rules then the transfer would never happened and there is a causal link between the provider's breach and the investor's loss.

Obviously if you have won in court this is now irrelevant and it is not an easy path to identify. I think it exists, though.

gazzatt2

magpiecottage wrote: »

You mean 1988 but the reason is that on 29 April 1988 the Law changed and put a requirement on advisers to ensure recommended products were suitable for their clients .

But, like most legislation, it was not retrospective. In other words, the new law is not applied to what happened in the past.

So your case has to be treated in the same way as if the Law had never changed.

That may sound harsh but it is the same principle that says you cannot be prosecuted for driving along a road at 50 mph on 31 July if the speed limit was only imposed on 1 August.

If the firm selling the policy (not necessarily the provider) was a member of the Banking, Building Societies or Insurance Ombudsman schemes at the time, you CAN take the case to FOS but the case will be assessed against the standards applicable at the time.

Again this is normal. The FSA holds copies of its old regulations on its website so this can be done and will make copies of the rules of its predecessors available under the Freedom of Information Act.

thank you for that I did mean 1988 in all my dealings with the building society that sold me the endowment no one told me that the law was changed in 1988 hence the cut of point for my claim

magpiecottage

That would still allow you to make a complaint to the building society if its employee sold the policy to you although you may have passed the FOS time limit for complaints.

If, though, you have already complained and been told the FOS has no jurisdiction, you CAN go, assuming it was a member of the Building Societies' Ombudsman Scheme.

trudij

We went to the ombudsman with my late fathers insurers - they refused to pay out on accidental death, despite him choking on a piece of meat.

I had ambulance reports stating quite clearly that they removed the blockage which caused the choke, but the ombudsman agreed with the insurance company that the ambulance report was irrellivant, as the coronor had found ischemic heart disease (I also have doctors notes (going back years) clearly saying that his heart was fine for an 82 year old man) and fluid on the lungs (he was an 82 year old male,who had just choked.... of course there was going to be a certain amount of fluid!!)

but no - apparently you can deliberately choke on a piece of meat....

not impressed with the lack of investigation by the ombudsman at all.

magpiecottage

Sorry to hear of your loss but I can see the point of both FOS and the insurer. Normally the insurer will take what is said on the Death Certificate or the coroner's verdict.

They were not present at the death and it is simply a case of it being the stronger evidence.

So really your problem is with the coroner or the doctor who certified the death, rather than the insurer.

In reality very few people die accidentally, which is why accidental death cover is so cheap - it very seldom pays out.

shortchanged_2

magpiecottage wrote: »

In reality very few people die accidentally, which is why accidental death cover is so cheap - it very seldom pays out.

I call that typical insurance talk. i.e anything to get out of paying out. It's all in the smallprint!

Also why are they selling accidental death cover it if they know that there is VERY little chance of them ever paying out for it. I call that deception. Just another money making scam for insurance companies. No doubt they give it the hard sell but I'll put money on it that they don't inform you that there is very little chance it will actually be of any benefit to you.

magpiecottage

shortchanged wrote: »

I call that typical insurance talk. i.e anything to get out of paying out. It's all in the smallprint!

Also why are they selling accidental death cover it if they know that there is VERY little chance of them ever paying out for it. I call that deception. Just another money making scam for insurance companies. No doubt they give it the hard sell but I'll put money on it that they don't inform you that there is very little chance it will actually be of any benefit to you.

The product is generally not sold by independent advisers but by direct mailings, inserts into magazines and so on. It does what it says on the tin - but that is all.

If the mailing or insert was received before 14 January 2005, then there is nothing you can do unless you can demonstrate a misrepresentation that had caused a loss.

This would mean showing not simply that your father believed it would pay out in the event that his death was attributed to the cause eventually recorded on his death certificate but that he only believed that because of something said in the documents provided to him (or said by an employee or representative of the insurer).

It would be insufficient to demonstrate that he had simply assumed it would but had not enquired.

Subsequent to that date, the insurer would have been bound by FSA Principle 7 (as well as the other ten!). This would have placed a requirement on it to have due regard for the information requirements of its customer and you might be able to argue that he needed to know the likelihood of a valid claim in order to make an informed decision.

What that boils down to is that there is an obligation to make you aware of the possibility that a product you buy might not do the job that the firm can reasonably suppose you want it to do.

It would not, for example, need to tell you that it will not make the tea because any reasonable person would buy a kettle, not an insurance policy for that purpose.

It would, on the other hand, put an obligation on an adviser selling an endowment policy to cover a mortgage that it might not produce enough to pay it off in full at the end (as well as the possibility of a surplus which seemed realistic 20 years ago even if it doesn't now).

I have not seen your case but I am not at all sure, though, that you would have been able to persuade me that the standard was not met on the basis that I think most people would recognise that most people die from some kind of illness which, whilst sad, is not an accident and that even murder, whilst it may be violent and, for the deceased, unexpected, was a deliberate act and, by definition not an accident.


So in summary, the premiums are very low because the chance of a payout are very low. It is the same as a bookie offering long odds. If it pays out you do very well but it probably won't.