F - Financial ombudsman
18/9/23
In a judicial review of the FOS’s decision as to whether it has jurisdiction over a complaint, where the issue involves the correct construction of a contract, the court should decide the correct construction because questions of construction are questions of law [61]. On the true construction of the agreement between the insurer and the retailers in the present case, the retailers had acted as agents for the insurer in selling PPI policies to consumers. On that basis, even though the retailers had not been subject to FSMA regulation when the PPI policies were sold, the FOS had jurisdiction to determine complaints by the consumers that the PPI policies were mis-sold, because the insurer had been subject to FSMA regulation.
5/4/23
THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v SHOP DIRECT FINANCE LIMITED [2023] EWCA Civ 367
In considering whether a complainant who is bankrupt referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) more than three years from the date on which he became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint (within rule DISP2.8.2R(2)(b) of the FCA Handbook), the relevant awareness is not only that of the Official Receiver (OR). It can include awareness of the bankrupt before the OR’s appointment.
20/2/15
FOS had been right to determine that it had jurisdiction in relation to a complaint against accountants and that the scheme could be regarded as a collective investment scheme. Tax advice can include investment advice even if the dominant purpose for which the advice is sought is tax avoidance.
14/2/14
CLARK v IN FOCUS ASSET MANAGEMENT & TAX SOLUTIONS LTD [2014] EWCA Civ118, [2014] 1 WLR 2502
The fact that a complaint of bad investment advice had been upheld by the Financial Ombudsman and accepted by the claimant, prevented the claimant from bringing legal proceedings to recover compensation above the maximum £100,000. The award was a judicial decision and the doctrine of res judicata applied.
SEPTEMBER 2013
Contains recent FOS case studies involving mis-selling of interest rate hedging products and packaged bank accounts.
2/8/13
When positions on the complainant’s forex trading account were opened and closed, he acquired rights within article 85(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001. Those rights were a kind of investment specified for the purposes of s 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and therefore FOS had jurisdiction under s 226 over the complainant’s complaint about the management of his account.
JUNE/JULY 2013
Contains recent FOS case studies involving negligent investment advice.
21/5/13
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF CALLAND) v FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE LTD [2013] EWHC 1327 (Admin)
The fact that it had taken the FOS 6½ years to determine a complaint was not a breach of the complainant’s right to a fair trial under Art. 6 of the ECHR. Most of the delay was down to the complainant’s own conduct. Nor would an oral hearing have assisted in resolving the issues.
Contains an analysis of complaints relating to bad weather, storm damage and flooding insurance claims.