Adjudicator vs. Ombudsman

GaryBC

Hi all

I'm in the process of reclaiming my PPI - having so far successfully followed all the guidelines here - but I now have a daft question!

My case has been assessed by an adjudicator and he has upheld my claim.

The bank is contesting his decision so he has passed it to the ombudsman.

This is where I get lost! I was under the impression that the FSA investigate the case - employing an adjudicator to deliver an unbiased finding. Given that he has delivered his findings and it is being contested, how can it now be 'escalated' to the ombudsman? Hasn't the ombudsman already engaged the adjudicator to make a recommendation on his behalf? And if the adjudicator has - in this instance - found in my favour, what is to be gained (aside from buying time) in referring his decision up to the very people who employed him to make the decision? Is it even conceivable that the ombudsman will do anything other than accept the adjudicator's findings 100%?

I'm sorry if that rambles a bit but I guess what I'm trying to get to grips with is the relationships between the various agents involved (FSA, FOS, Adjudicator).

You may have guessed also that I am an outsider to the finance industry! So could any answer please be couched in extreme Janet & John terms? (Words of one syllable and the like!!)

This has been dragging on since last July so it would be nice to know it we're approaching the end!

Cheers,
Gaz

di3004

GaryBC wrote: »

Hi all

I'm in the process of reclaiming my PPI - having so far successfully followed all the guidelines here - but I now have a daft question!

My case has been assessed by an adjudicator and he has upheld my claim.

The bank is contesting his decision so he has passed it to the ombudsman.

This is where I get lost! I was under the impression that the FSA investigate the case - employing an adjudicator to deliver an unbiased finding. Given that he has delivered his findings and it is being contested, how can it now be 'escalated' to the ombudsman? Hasn't the ombudsman already engaged the adjudicator to make a recommendation on his behalf? And if the adjudicator has - in this instance - found in my favour, what is to be gained (aside from buying time) in referring his decision up to the very people who employed him to make the decision? Is it even conceivable that the ombudsman will do anything other than accept the adjudicator's findings 100%?

I'm sorry if that rambles a bit but I guess what I'm trying to get to grips with is the relationships between the various agents involved (FSA, FOS, Adjudicator).

You may have guessed also that I am an outsider to the finance industry! So could any answer please be couched in extreme Janet & John terms? (Words of one syllable and the like!!)

This has been dragging on since last July so it would be nice to know it we're approaching the end!

Cheers,
Gaz

Hi Gaz

What normally happens is, that the Adjudicator is the first stage, if they upheld in your favour and the other party does not agree, then your case is moved on to the ombudsman for review, its likely the ombudsman will also agree with the adjudicator's decision, then what the ombudsman says goes.

In this case it's also stated that due to the distress and inconvenience this have caused - you will likely receive a further payout for this as well, for going as far as this have.;)

GaryBC

I didn't realise the Adjudicator doesn't actually work for, and report directly to, the Ombudsman!

D'oh!!

Compensation hadn't occurred to me. Would this be raised by the Ombudsman as part of his final ruling? Or would we need to make a separate case? (Like throwing into the pot the fact that we're currently in a Debt Management Plan and that this sum of money could well have been a contributing factor in forcing us that way?)

Thanks, Di.

di3004

GaryBC wrote: »

I didn't realise the Adjudicator doesn't actually work for, and report directly to, the Ombudsman!

D'oh!!

Compensation hadn't occurred to me. Would this be raised by the Ombudsman as part of his final ruling? Or would we need to make a separate case? (Like throwing into the pot the fact that we're currently in a Debt Management Plan and that this sum of money could well have been a contributing factor in forcing us that way?)

Thanks, Di.

Your welcome Gaz.;)

I noticed you mentioned the FSA as well, the FSA are different company to that of the FOS, the FSA are regulators where the FSA does the investigations of financial complaints, but it can be easily mixed up.

So basically when the case is with the Adjudicator, they do I believe have someone like a charge manager to help them come to the decision before sending the decision, and if this fails by the other party or if you wasn't happy (such as if they did not go in your favour then the Ombudsman will review).

Maybe you could mention it to them about the further redress, but in my own experience if my case did go as far as the ombudsman its been the case for me, so worth checking, even though I do think it will be included.:)

src007

Some good information from Di,

Because the adjudicator is just one person issuing a decision on a case, the FOS have an appeal process. Like anyone, an adjudicator can make a mistake!

For this reason the FOS have an appeals process - when one side think the adjudicator has got it wrong they can ask for (a more experienced) Ombudsman to review the decision.

That said, Ombudsmen and adjudicators assess complaints in the same way and so nine times out of ten the Ombudsman will agree with the adjudicator. However there is that one in ten chance that a decision could be changed on review.

1) You may want to find out if the bank appealed because of the Judicial Review. If that is the case they no longer have a leg to stand on as the banks lost the court case. They may at some point concede (when they finally find the decision in the mountain of complaints in their basement :rotfl:).

2) If the Bank appealed because of the merits of the case you will be in for a long wait. It currently takes 2 years for an Ombudsman's Final Decision. :eek: