Thursday 1 March 2012

You think that MW previous post was mad...

Today I have learned through co-conspirators about a judgement made by a senior judge concerning some work on the actions of the Financial Ombudsman's Service.

Apparently the Law - presumably the FSMA 2000 - says that the FOS can, when considering a complaint brought to it, simply state that it is not minded to take into account any fact or thing as it decides, and does not have to explain why.

And as you may be aware, short of a judicial review (very expensive) there is no appeal for firms regarding FOS decsions.

You clearly cannot run an equitable society where capricious bureaucrats have such arbitrary power and zero accountability.

What next? What next?

4 comments:

Bayard said...

"You clearly cannot run an equitable society where capricious bureaucrats have such arbitrary power and zero accountability."

Surely all bureaucrats have arbitrary power and zero accountability in practice, if not in theory.

Steven_L said...

The FSA just make up their rulebook too. FOS have made some curious decisions by the looks of it.

Take landbanking scams. The banks seem to have screwed up their DD and not asked landbanking companies for big bonds to take credit card payments. Seen as most of the money arrives in the form of a solicitors cheque they must have assumed it was all kosher.

A search around the internet suggests that one guy had his claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act rejected on the grounds that the deposit he paid by credit card was not a 'deposit' but a 'plot reservation fee' and the plot was reserved correctly.

In law, this is a nonsense. But like you say, the FOS is not bound to make judgements by reference to the law.

Mark Wadsworth said...

What's next for the FSA? Another tactical withdrawal, no doubt.

Lola said...

MW - Hahahah I hadn't noticed that. The previous reyewlaytor was the Personal Investment Authority - PIA, or Pakistan International Airlines...