Sue the FOS? With or w/o Esure?

maddogb

antrobus wrote: »

I think they're covered by s102 FSMA 2000

Neither the competent authority nor any person who is, or is acting as, a member, officer or member of staff of the competent authority is to be liable in damages for anything done or omitted in the discharge, or purported discharge, of the authority’s functions.

Unless there is 'bad faith' or a contravention of the HRA 1998.

outstanding effort my man, honestly good research there, fortunately for me that appears to have been dropped in an amendment

• s. 102 omitted by 2012 c. 21 s. 16(14)(f)

and therefore we can sue them!

huckster

That appears to relate to FCA and not the FOS.

The 2012 changes related to changing functions from FSA to FCA.

magpiecottage

antrobus wrote: »

I think they're covered by s102 FSMA 2000

Actually, it is paragraph 10 of Schedule 17 of FSMA:

"(1)No person is to be liable in damages for anything done or omitted in the discharge, or purported discharge, of any functions under this Act in relation to the compulsory jurisdiction to the consumer credit jurisdiction.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply—

(a)if the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith; or

(b)so as to prevent an award of damages made in respect of an act or omission on the ground that the act or omission was unlawful as a result of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998."

Of course, the OP is at liberty to attempt to sue FOS but if the ombudsman relied upon a reputable guide, it seems unlikely that FOS would accept it was bad faith.

maddogb

That's one of the subtleties I'm trying to get sorted in my head before the need for action arises.
The system of using guides as a sole method of valuation is severely flawed and contradictory to most insurers settlement t&cs.
If I were to sue esure alone they could simply claim they were following the FOS guidelines. Working on a strategy for dealing with that.

antrobus

magpiecottage wrote: »

Actually, it is paragraph 10 of Schedule 17 of FSMA:....

There you go. I thought it was somewhere. Logic would dictate that you can't sue what is a tribunal. (Not that logic is necessarily a good guide to the law.)

magpiecottage wrote: »

... Of course, the OP is at liberty to attempt to sue FOS but if the ombudsman relied upon a reputable guide, it seems unlikely that FOS would accept it was bad faith.

I suppose you could give it a whirl under HRA. Being 'deprived of his possessions'; to whit the full value of said Skoda Superba 1.8Tdi SE, or whatever it was.


But I would have thought it would be simpler, easier, and cheaper just to sue Esure. You can only win one set of damages. (Although there is no limit to the costs you can lose.)

maddogb

antrobus wrote: »

There you go. I thought it was somewhere. Logic would dictate that you can't sue what is a tribunal. (Not that logic is necessarily a good guide to the law.)

I suppose you could give it a whirl under HRA. Being 'deprived of his possessions'; to whit the full value of said Skoda Superba 1.8Tdi SE, or whatever it was.

But I would have thought it would be simpler, easier, and cheaper just to sue Esure. You can only win one set of damages. (Although there is no limit to the costs you can lose.)

stop being bitter because you were proven wrong.


The problem with suing esure alone is the defence of following industry guidelines like many before "I was just following orders guv"
In joinder it may be found the FOS share liability.

huckster

If you sue 2 entities, could you end up having to pay 2 lots of costs ?

Get proper legal advice before you end up in a position you wish you had not started.

maddogb

huckster wrote: »

If you sue 2 entities, could you end up having to pay 2 lots of costs ?

Get proper legal advice before you end up in a position you wish you had not started.

in small claims courts it's pretty much unheard of to allow costs but they do warn you, been there done that.
it cost the last guy who tried to screw me £10,000 in costs and that made the final settlement over double the amount I had asked him to refund.

maddogb

Oh it just gets better and better


It turns out that my car is no longer sat waiting in the yard for the insurers to come to some agreement with me but has now been sold, despite me telling them 3 weeks ago I wanted it back for an engineer to assess.


it seems Esure believe they are above common law, unfortunately for them DVLA don't agree and want to get the police involved.

dacouch

The people you want to sue have a solution for this, but as you have no faith in them it's pointless contacting them