Can crucial factual inaccuracies in an Ombudsman's final verdict be corrected?

ako100

In our experience with our subsidence claim with AXA, no they can't. There appears to be no mechanism, beyond seeking legal advice, to do this.

eskbanker

You can make a service complaint to FOS and then the independent assessor:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/who-we-are/customer-service/service-complaints

Isthisforreal99

Not sure what an insurance claim has to do with Budgeting and bank accounts. And basically half (if that) a story.

MyRealNameToo

ako100 said:

In our experience with our subsidence claim with AXA, no they can't. There appears to be no mechanism, beyond seeking legal advice, to do this.

You normally effectively had 3 goes with the ombudsman, the Adjudicator/Investigators initial opinion, their final opinion, the Ombudsman's initial opinion. If your responses to the initial ombudsman's opinion doesnt convince them then thats it. You can reject the Ombudsman's final decision but thats the end of the line. 

Experience says that "factual inaccuracies" is often very subjective. The problem is people often send pages of drivel, once had a 25 page complaint letter. Thats simply not manageable and so whoever is looking at it will have to slim it down to the nub of the issue. They won't refer to all the rest of the stuff around it but doesnt mean they've totally ignored it either. Some may think they picked the wrong area to focus on but then thats a cross they build from themselves when they started on page 2. 

What's the case number so the anonymised version of the ombudsman's response can be read?

dunstonh

An ombudsman would have discussions where you have the opportunity to put across what inaccuracies you feel exist.     Some inaccuracies would be irrelevant and just noise to be ignored, whilst others could have a material impact.   Normally, the Ombudsman will not rule until both sides have had a chance to make their points.

Once the FOS has made its final decision via an ombudsman, that is as far as the free-of-charge-to-use service is concerned.  Next stop is the courts and at your own financial risk.   You can complain about the FOS and potentially pay for a judicial review.  But that is complaining about the process rather than the decision.

MyRealNameToo

dunstonh said:

You can complain about the FOS and potentially pay for a judicial review.  But that is complaining about the process rather than the decision.

Judicial reviews are for financial services companies as the law doesnt give FS companies a route to challenge the decisions of an individual case once an ombudsman has made a decision and the customer has accepted it. 

The judicial review won't even change the outcome of the case(s) in question but will effectively provide guidance to the ombudsman on future cases it considers on the same matter. As such a consumer would go to court on the case itself not a judicial review to benefit future complainers (if the courts agree the ombudsman was wrong). 

ako100

eskbanker said:

You can make a service complaint to FOS and then the independent assessor.

Thank you. We have complained to the Ombudsman Leader, the FOS Customer Complaints Adviser and the Independent Assessor. All say they cannot comment on factual errors in the verdict because that would mean commenting on the merits of the case.

ako100

Isthisforreal99 said:

Not sure what an insurance claim has to do with Budgeting and bank accounts. And basically half (if that) a story.

I'm new to this forum and so apologise if I have done this wrong, however my screen tells me that I posted in the Insurance and Life Insurance section which seemed to be most appropriate for the issue.

ako100

MyRealNameToo said:

ako100 said:

In our experience with our subsidence claim with AXA, no they can't. There appears to be no mechanism, beyond seeking legal advice, to do this.

You normally effectively had 3 goes with the ombudsman, the Adjudicator/Investigators initial opinion, their final opinion, the Ombudsman's initial opinion. If your responses to the initial ombudsman's opinion doesnt convince them then thats it. You can reject the Ombudsman's final decision but thats the end of the line. 

Experience says that "factual inaccuracies" is often very subjective. The problem is people often send pages of drivel, once had a 25 page complaint letter. Thats simply not manageable and so whoever is looking at it will have to slim it down to the nub of the issue. They won't refer to all the rest of the stuff around it but doesnt mean they've totally ignored it either. Some may think they picked the wrong area to focus on but then thats a cross they build from themselves when they started on page 2. 

What's the case number so the anonymised version of the ombudsman's response can be read?

We defintely seem to have reached the end of line including contacting the Independent Assessor. The factual errors were significant and material and only appeared in the Ombudsman's final verdict, which we could not question. On the other hand, previous errors by the investigator could be corrected. All complaints provoke the response that factual errors in the verdict cannot be addressed because that would mean questioning the merits of the case (PNX-5414757-V4D2)

ako100

dunstonh said:

An ombudsman would have discussions where you have the opportunity to put across what inaccuracies you feel exist.     Some inaccuracies would be irrelevant and just noise to be ignored, whilst others could have a material impact.   Normally, the Ombudsman will not rule until both sides have had a chance to make their points.

Once the FOS has made its final decision via an ombudsman, that is as far as the free-of-charge-to-use service is concerned.  Next stop is the courts and at your own financial risk.   You can complain about the FOS and potentially pay for a judicial review.  But that is complaining about the process rather than the decision.

We were only able to provide feedback (and correct inaccuracies) to the investigator. Once the case passed to an Ombudsman no feedback was allowed and new factual errors appeared which were significant and material. These errors could not be questioned because they were in the final verdict. We have complained about the FOS through all avenues except the courts (which we can't afford and our policy does not cover legal costs) and each time are told that errors in the fianl verdict cannot be addressed because that would mean questioning the merits of the case.