03 Feb 2012 ... "Social media" and the FOS

At the December meeting the board noted the innovative social media work being undertaken by the service. No details were given about exactly what is involved but work has been done to look at risks and opportunities this poses. It seems guidelines about how to intervene in social conversations have been drawn up and are being piloted.

I have not noticed an FOS presence on social media, though there are several places where FOS matters are discussed, sometimes in forthright terms !
However they have fairly recently established an FOS twitter feed which I have linked to below for interested readers.  It does not seem to be revolutionary, but it does get a lot more traffic than my twitter feed !

Interestingly the writer of the FOS twitter feed does seem to have authority to intervene or offer help in FOS issues and cases. See samples below where he offers twitterers the option to ring 02070935598 for help.

Hmmm...what information or advice is being given here, I wonder...and by whom. Until FOS formally advise that information given on twitter may be relied upon, I advise caution.

@Financialombuds twitter feed

01 Feb 2012 ... FOS looks to attract graduates.
New university masters course for FOS staff

The FOS seems to be aiming at recruiting more graduates. Meetings for graduates to meet FOS were advertised, but the reference has since been removed. The careers page has a specific new "opportunities for graduates" link. Following the link takes you to a page devoted to the new position of case assessor at £22k. Case assessors are junior to adjudicators who have not required degrees in the past, so it seems FOS is aiming to attract higher qualified people. A profile tells of a man who went from law graduate to team manager (£40k+) in just over a year. Turnover has been high at FOS recently as staff take similar, but better paid, jobs at banks and financial services firms. At one year from entry to team manager, FOS promotion looks to be fast.

Update After a period where recruitment adverts appeared on the FOS website, but not on the Randstad recuitment website (Randstad have a contract with FOS) things have changed. Randstad now advertises several FOS posts including "case assessor" at the slightly higher salary of £22.5k
This advert does not require candidates to be graduates.

It also seems FOS are providing training to "masters" level for some staff with a four year contract to provide accredited training going to Queen Margaret University.
FOS careers page
Opportunities for graduates
Graduate pack
Randstad financial and professional jobs website
QMU press release about the new masters course
FOS major contracts with prices

28 Jan 2012 ... Letter to the FT from a solicitor describes issues faced by businesses when dealing with FOS.

The letter refers to an article last week about interest swap cases and FOS. The writer, a solicitor experienced in financial services disputes, points out that FOS is not obliged to follow the law, appears friendly to the banks, is very slow (so slow that limitation periods can expire), and suggests courts may be a better option in some cases.
The link below takes you to the story, but only FT subscribers can read it. You can subscribe free.
FT letter 28 Jan

27 Jan 2012 ...
Chancellor reveals first details of the Financial Services Bill
The FSA is to be abolished but no news of the effect (if any) on the FOS
BBC story with brief outline

2 Jan 2012 ... FOS publishes new details and guidance of how it approaches PPI cases, with 6 case studies.

This guidance document in the FOS on-line resource focuses on whether PPI was actual sold or not and how they assess this. 6 case studies are listed. However I advise caution about using these examples to illustrate your own circumstances. In my case several case studies indicated that an interest rate of base rate +1% should be used when calculating compensation. When I asked why FOS had not applied this rule to my case, FOS said the examples should not be applied to individual cases. The FOS publication Ombudsman News has dozens of such examples but there is a disclaimer.

"The illustrative case studies are based broadly on real-life cases, but are not precedents. We decide individual cases on their own facts".

The new guidance

26 Jan 2012 ... Tony Boorman speaks to BBA seminar about the new Financial Conduct Authority. FOS should be independent of regulation.

"Securing our independence is not always as straightforward as it may first appear. But our independence from industry and consumer groups – and indeed from regulation – is critical, if we are to maintain the confidence of all parties in our independent-minded and impartial judgements in the disputes we resolve".

Hmmm...I think the FOS could do with a bit more regulation. FOS ombudsmen have medieval powers to administer what Anthony Speaight QC referred to as "unappealable, compulsory, summary jurisdiction". 20,000+ decisions last year for amounts of up to £100,000 (£150,000 soon) were faultless by definition, and not subject to appeal. Who knows what mistakes were made and passed un-noticed ? The FOS has extraordinary powers with little regulation.
Mr Boorman's speech
Anthony Speaight QC

12 Jan 2012 ... National Audit Office publishes its review of FOS efficiency, ombudsmen not buying in to change
Originally intended to focus on value for money, the NAO review now reports on efficiency, not quite the same thing, but its still an interesting read, with 5 recommendations. A bit technical though, and full of modern "management speak" which gets in the way of the message. A few things caught my eye regarding the ombudsmen panel.

Scope for ombudsmen to improve engagement with change
"Although there is strong buy-in from staff to the Service’s key priorities and
values, there is scope to improve engagement with some change projects,
particularly from the Ombudsman panel" NAO Recommendation 5e page 10

Ombudsmen raise concerns with e-enablement
"Ombudsmen raised more concerns with e-enablement than other members of staff, who generally voiced more positive attitudes towards this key change project" NAO Para 3.15 page 33

Ombudsmen not bought into new reward scheme
Ombudsmen not bought into a new collective reward scheme for all staff
NAO para 2.17, table page 27

FOS ombudsmen have medieval powers to decide cases using pretty well whatever means they think fair and reasonable. No challenges or appeals are allowed, so mistakes are rarely discovered and their decisions are therefore always right. They can do no wrong. Their concerns about change and e-enablement may reflect their perception of their own authority.

I don't know what this new reward scheme is, nor why the ombudsmen have not bought into it (para 3.15). The NAO report makes no mention of the controversial bonus scheme paid to adjudicators to encourage them to hit case closure targets, perhaps this has been withdrawn ?

FOS can't understand consumers letters on complex subjects
"A key challenge [for FOS] is eliciting as expeditiously as possible the underlying issue that the complaint is about, from consumers who are naturally not experts in financial services".NAO Key findings page 7
Well, If FOS tell consumers to put their case in their own words, and won't pay advisers' fees even if the consumer wins, this is going to happen. That's why some claimants use CMCs.

FOS apparently sees no conflict in financial businesses using professionals to put their side of the story so the firm's case will usually be brilliantly presented, benefiting from a deep knowledge of the issues, the financial product, FOS methods and standards, perhaps even the FOS personnel handling the case. The firm's presentation is then judged against the "in your own words" approach preferred by FOS for consumers.

I have always thought this arrangement was one sided; clearly biased in favour of the firms, and it seems NAO ( who refer to this as a "key challenge" ) see problems here too. If FOS has difficulty understanding the case issues, the outcome is not likely to be good. The matter is not helped by the inexperience of large numbers of newly recruited junior adjudicators, and in fact new staff at all levels, and in my experience it is not only the consumers who do not understand the issues.

NAO actual review in full
NAO website

11 Jan 2012 ... Recently FOS published consultations on plans and budget 2012-13 and new case fee structure
These are lengthy documents and I don't propose to comment on them here, however a few points which caught my eye in a brief look through:

• Firm's to be allowed 25 free cases instead of 3 as now
• PPI cases to attract extra £350 case fee, but standard case fee and levy to stay unchanged
• PPI cases are running far ahead of planned caseload, 145,000 expected in 2011-12, double the assumed figure
• FOS staff to increase by around 650, including 35 more adjudicators and 500 more casework staff (including adjudicator
• Adjudicators are leaving to go to financial firms. (So did the Ops Manager)
• New cases expected to be 285,000 in 12/13, up from a forecast 259,000 in 11/12 and 206,000 in 10/11
• High staff turnover has impacted on productivity
• Cases resolved in 3 months, 47% last year 41% so far this year.
• 14% of cases still taking over a year (so far this year)

There is a huge amount in these documents, and quite a lot of "management speak" too, but it's obvious PPI has put FOS is under severe strain and it is struggling to cope.

FOS Plans and budget for 2012-13
FOS proposed case fee structure from 2013

11 Jan 2012 ... FOS declines to answer freedom of information request on grounds of expense
The FOS has answered an FoIA request made by the "What do they know" website to name banks which have not been charged any case fees recently, but have declined to give some information about which banks have less than the minimum number of complaints to trigger a case fee (currently 3 cases), on grounds that it would cost more than £450 to provide the answer.

What do they know website case details
Actual FOS response, with list of banks

Jan 09 2012... Ex FOS operation director, Simon Rouse is appointed Director, Bancassurance at Banco Santander
Simon Rouse left FOS in November, after only 16 months and now we know where he has gone. No information is available about why he left, and FOS has made no comment yet. FOS is undergoing a period of massive increase in workload, staff turnover and recruitment. A difficult year ahead is expected with PPI cases increasing fast.

According to Wikipedia, bancassurance is "a relationship between a bank and an insurance company whereby the insurance company uses the bank sales channel in order to sell insurance products". Mr Rouse will have seen the problems sometimes caused by this, during his time at FOS.

Interim Operations Director recruited for 1 year only
FOS have appointed Chris McDermott as interim operations director to replace Simon Rouse. No explanation is given on FOS's website as to why Mr McDermott's appointment is described as interim but other reports indicate that he will stay for 1 year until FOS finds a permanent replacement.

FT Adviser reports that an FOS spokesperson "pointed to the FOS’s recently published budgets and plans for the next financial year as to why the appointment was only for a year". Not sure what they are getting at here, but I doubt if FOS would have chosen two people to do one job ( with a further shake up required in a year) if a suitable permanent figure was available. FOS also failed to recruit a new company secretary recently and the interim post holder, Julia Cavanagh, got the job full time. Perhaps Mr McDermott will get the word next year ?

New FOS Executive Team
LinkedIn entry on Mr Rouse
Wikipedia on bancassurance
New operations director job advertisment
Citywire report
FT Adviser

5 Jan 2012... Board fails to recruit new Company Secretary and still concerned with staff turnover.
The FOS Board meeting on 19th October was told that the search for a new company secretary had been unsuccessful. No details were given about the methods used to search, but the post was not advertised on the FOS careers website or its recruitment consultants. Julia Cavanagh, who was doing the job on an interim basis since Barbara Cheney left in early summer, has been given the job permanently. Whether this is an ideal solution is unclear since FOS is stated to be still looking for "someone with the appropriate expertise to provide the requisite risk and governance oversight".

The board also discussed the Q2 performance review and challenges concerning staff turnover, timeliness including the 3 month timeliness target, case load volumes and other matters. The discussion on Q3 mentioned the large intake of new staff and the time to get them fully productive. (Despite this, recruitment has continued until present, so even more new staff are joining). Gareth Thomas MP has recently asked about FOS staff numbers in the House.

23rd November was the first board meeting after the departure of the operations director, Simon Rouse. The minutes record no thanks for his time at FOS or best wishes for his future career, etc.
Minutes of 19 Oct 2011 board meeting
Minutes of 23 Nov 2011 board meeting
Gareth Thomas's question in the house about FOS staff numbers

3 Jan 2012 ... IFAs are in talks with FOS, will continue in 2012
The Association of IFAs will continue ongoing “discussions” with the Financial Ombudsman Service in 2012 and push for a “fairer deal” for advisers, according to director-general Stephen Gay. Exactly what this is about is not explained but IFAs in the past have been concerned about many things at FOS, including the gap in qualifications between adjudicators and IFAs. Most adjudicators and ombudsmen do not hold current IFA qualifications yet decide on cases where IFA's work is under scrutiny. FOS in the past has declined to state minimum qualifications for adjudicators and ombudsmen. A poor or suspect decision by an ombudsman can be accepted by a consumer and then becomes binding on the IFA with no right of appeal, even if his career and business is ruined.
The IFAs have a point I think !
FT Adviser article about this

31 Dec 2011... David Davis MP asks FSA why they let Capita off so easily in Arch Cru affair.  MPs ask Capita to appear before all party group
The Arch Cru affair continues to concern. In brief, the FSA policy on this has prevented the FOS from setting Arch Cru compensation awards on a "fair and reasonable" basis. Judge refuses judicial review, but campaign group appeals.
Latest info from This is Money website
FOS Arch Cru decision, (influenced by FSA policy)

23 Dec 2011... FOS receives a freedom of information request about its policy on cases involving sharia law
This could be an interesting question and answer. The request has been made using the "What do they know" website which has the huge advantage that the public can see what has been asked and the response (or lack of it). FOS must reply by 24th Jan 2012. It will be interesting to see if any of the FOS 1000 adjudicators and ombudsmen has knowledge of this area or if they think the subject is relevant.

Another FoIA request asks what are the smallest amounts awarded by Ombudsmen and Adjudicators. There is no doubt that the whole service could be slowed down by numerous complaints about very small amounts.

Its really good that the "What do they know" website is being used for these questions. Using this site means the public learn about FOS and see their replies.
Sharia law FoIA question
Smallest amounts question

15 Dec 2011... Recruitment continues at FOS...now they need "consumer consultants" starting at £20k as well as even more temporary adjudicators to start in Feb. on £205 per day.
The new trendy advertising style continues, "Sometimes you have to stand back from a problem to see what's straight and what's wonky", and even the call centre type jobs now have a letter from the Chief Executive as part of the job specification inviting applicants to apply if the job "grabs" their interest. The Randstad website did not mention these consultant jobs on 15th Dec. though they do advertise the adjudicator posts. FOS recruitment in Autumn 2011 has been huge and looks to continue until February 2012.
Consumer consultant job specification
Randstad recruitment website

12 Dec 2011... Law firm gets involved with the Arch Cru redress situation, offers "no win no fee" arrangement
The FSA decision to set compensation on Arch Cru at less than FOS might have set, is causing concern. FTAdviser website reports that one law firm is ready to offer a "no win no fee" service to investors to retrieve their full compensation.

This story could run and run as the implications of the FSA's policy on Arch Cru becomes better understood. It may be a tough time for IFAs as investors look for ways to increase their compensation.
FTAdviser article
FOS Arch Cru decision, influenced by FSA policy

12 Dec 2011... A correspondent on the Consumer Action Group FOS forum is affected by FOS staff turnover
He tells how his wife's case had been affected by staff leaving the FOS and others taking over her case. FOS then ruled in favour of the bank, despite all the paperwork having been lost...link to details below.

Staff turnover amongst adjudicators has been a big problem for FOS and was discussed by the Board at their board meeting in July. Since then there has been a very large recruitment campaign. The FOS Operations Director also left recently.

Consumer Action Group forum case details
FOS board July meeting discusses adjudicator turnover

• Adjudicators
• Ombudsmen (now removed)
• Team leaders
• Heads of casework
• Operations director (now removed)

27 Nov 2011... 2 cases in the press where FOS thought low offers were acceptable. Consumers eventually got more by persisting with their claims

Thisis money.co.uk has one story, scroll down to "Complaints to Nationwide were ignored"
The other case is in the Observer 27 Nov  Around £5000 lost fraudulently, FOS thought £100 offer was "reasonable"

27 Nov 2011... PPI contract adjudicator jobs quickly filled ?

The £4,000,000 contract with Randstad for recruitment may be paying dividends
On 4th Nov, 71 FOS jobs were advertised
On 17th this dropped to 32
On 18th it was up to 45
Today, 27th Nov only 6 adjudicator jobs left,
5 are for mortgage complaints adjudicators and one is for a permanent (£24.5k) adjudicator specialising in futures and options and investment banking, clearly a specialist appointment.
The FOS careers website still wants team managers and ombudsmen, but it looks as though the PPI adjudicator posts have been snapped up.
12th Dec update, no FOS jobs left on Randstad website, FOS careers page still has adjudicator vacancies

23/24 Nov 2011... FOS publishes controversial provisional decision by Principal Ombudsman, Tony Boorman into a case concerning the "Arch cru" fund

This is clearly a landmark decision. Mr Boorman is No. 2 at FOS, second only to Natalie. He would not have looked at this case unless it was very important. The IFA rejected the adjudicator's view and the matter went to an Ombudsman. Mr Boorman decided to take it himself.

IFA's are already worried that the publication will lead to more claims against them. At a parliamentary meeting on 23rd Nov. the FSA made it clear that IFAs should carry responsibility for Arch Cru investment problems. An FSA spokesperson quoted Mr Boorman's decision.

Mr Boorman does not take many decisions, he is too busy at conferences, seminars, enquiries and minding the FOS shop. This decision was a big one. When ALL FOS decisions are published next year we will be able to see more of what he and other senior ombudsmen do.

This case will run and run. It seems that in September the FSA did a deal which restricts the amount FOS can award in a "fair and reasonable" decision on Arch Cru redress. Mr Boorman mentions this in his decision. Hmmm...FOS is not so independent after all perhaps ? An IFA campaign group has asked for a judicial review of this arrangement. Its being handled by Anthony Speaight QC who sems to specialise in FOS work.
More info when I have had time to look at it properly.

Mr Boorman's decision
FTadviser article about this decision
Citywire article about this
FTadviser on FSA comments
Citywire on the JR of the FSA deal

23rd Nov 2011... FSA appoints new FOS Chairman

The FSA has appointed Sir Nicholas Montague to take over as FOS chairman in January 2012. Sir Nicholas is the former chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, with over twenty years as a senior civil servant working on issues ranging from pensions to public service reform. £75,000 for 2 days a week.

FOS announcement
FSA announcement
FOS press advert for chairman

19th Nov 2011... Major FOS recruitment drive starts as a senior manager leaves amid high staff turnover

FOS seems to be in some sort of recruitment crisis. It appears PPI cases have risen from 1000 to 3000 per week. Despite advertising for adjudicators several times in 2011, a new campaign has just commenced for permanent, contract and temporary "PPI adjudicators" and "mortgage complaint adjudicators" against a background of concern at FOS board level and elsewhere about adjudicator turnover.
Update 27 Nov, all PPI posts removed from Randstad website

Team leaders are also required and now also ombudsmen. £65k-85k

All this happens just as the operations director, Simon Rouse, has left, and the operations planning manager may also have gone, (his post has been removed from the senior operational team).

Operations director and ombudsman applicants must apply direct to FOS, Randstad, the new £4,000,000 recruitment consultants does not list these positions currently as far as I can see.

David Thomas has a title change from "Principal Ombudsman" to "Lead Ombudsman". Whether this is up, down or sideways is not explained. He was listed on the FOS website "executive team" page but is now shown on the "ombudsmen team" page. Mr Thomas is one of FOS's most senior and experienced managers, appointed soon after the service was set up. He acted as chief ombudsman for some months when Walter Merricks resigned. He was expected to retire in 2011. A move with only 6 weeks to go to the end of the year, suggests he may be staying on to steady the ship.

Randstad recruitment
FOS careers web page, job details and how to apply

18th Nov 2011... "IFAonline" website reports that an FOS adjudicator was appointed after just 1 month of training
IFAonline.co.uk reports that at 25 yr old law graduste has been appointed at FOS after just a month of training. It seems this came out because someone's son was boyfriend of the adjudicator concerned. ( I wonder if he still is ?)
FOS confirm they are recruiting "heavily" and have defended their selection and training policies.
IFA online magazine article about this adjudicator
Adjudicator qualifications and experience have been a concern for some time, with IFA's saying their qualifications are far higher in financial services matters than the adjudicators ruling on their cases, this applies to ombudsmen too. Few, if any ombudsmen are IFA qualified, but can make un-appealable decisions that could ruin an IFA's business and career. It not right.

FOS are currently recruiting for adjudicators, team leaders and ombudsmen, whether this is due to high turnover or PPI pressure, or both, is not known.
FOS careers website with job details

17th Nov 2011... FOS twitter feed offers help to tweeters
The FOS official twitter feed seems to offer a direct route to FOS assistance via a phone call to whoever is running the twitter account. Tweeters with problems are offered a phone number to ring. Check the FOS twitter feed for details.

There is not much activity on FOS twitter...but I regret to say it's a great deal busier than my own "@FOS_problems" twitter site which is now published at the top left of this webpage. Readers are free to add comments, or better still join as a follower. Click on "Join the conversation"

STOP PRESS...Our Twitter followers rise by 25%...there are now 5 !
Bad news...down to 4 !
FOS's own twitter feed

According to the consultation paper and annual review, adjudicators handled 89% of FOS cases and ombudsmen handled 11%, so there is no possibility that omitting adjudicators' decisions (FOS calls them "views") can properly represent FOS work or standards as a whole. Leaving out 89% of the cases is likely to lead to stiff criticism of FOS's declared "commitment to transparency" and must surely damage the service's credibility. Some people may ask why FOS wishes to keep these views secret ? The consultation paper's arguments are weak on this issue.

The impression of FOS standards will be further biased because the ombudsmen are the experts and expected to get it right (there is no appeal against ombudsmen's decisions). The adjudicators are a much larger, less experienced, lower qualified group, with a high turnover, where any mistakes must be more likely to occur. Adjudicators also receive incentive payments to meet case closure targets which increases pressure on them. On Nov 5th 2011, The Times reported a case when an adjudicator got it wrong and was overturned (eventually) by an ombudsman.

It should be said that FOS may have, at last, realised that problems exist in this area. A recent advert offers some adjudicator jobs at double the usual salary (£47k), and asks for graduate applicants for some jobs. FOS is also piloting a new "masters" level adjudicator qualification programme.

The Government has made it clear that FOS should publish final decisions in the future. FOS is consulting on how this should be done. The consultation is aimed at "financial businesses, consumers and those representing them – as well as other stakeholders interested in the work of the Financial Ombudsman Service". There is no reason why members of the public or firms who have been affected by FOS decisions should not respond to the intention to publish these in future.

The consultation document is a well argued readable paper in plain english which gives the FOS reasoning and intentions. The primary flaw in FOS's arguments is their intention to hide the adjudicators' views and doubts about how they can handle and present the vast amount of information to be published. The Operations Director has just left so all this presents a tough start for his replacement.

The FOS consultation document and how to respond
My response to the consultation
FOS board July meeting discusses adjudicator turnover
FTAdviser article quoting Natalie on the bonus of £4000, also Jane Sanders

16th Nov 2011... Recruitment continues at FOS.
Adjudicators salaries rise to £47,000, but some still £24,500. Team managers needed at an increased £40,000 to £58,750
The Sun website mentions concerns about high staff turnover at FOS and the Guardian spoke of long delays. They may be right, as recruitment seems to be building up and FOS salaries rising. Adjudicator pay now rises to £47,000 for some positions, but many are still at £24,500. A new advert for team managers offers £40,000 rising to £58,750, rather better than the blank £40,000 mentioned in September. These new salaries appear on FOS Careers website page.

Low salaries at FOS, (for the financial services world) have been a concern for some time, suggesting that FOS does not feel the need to attract the best, more experienced joiners. This seems to be changing, perhaps the £47k figure refers to the new graduate adjudicator positions advertised.
See lower down for a selection of adjudicator job links
Team manager links not available 16/11
FOS Careers web page
Randstad, new recruitment consultants

A further article by Laura Whately in the Money pages of The Times draws attention to the uncertain way FOS handles complaints where a credit card PIN was used fraudulently. An adjudicator's initial ruling in favour of the credit card company was overruled by an ombudsman after The Times drew attention to the proper legal position and FOS re-considered.
Due to The Times paywall, I cannot give a meaningful link to this article.
More detail is available in my August panel opposite (CASE1)

Nov 2011... Guardian article tells of long FOS delays
This article gives a good description of FOS delays. Apparently you can be pushed up the waiting list if you are in financial hardship (not sure who decides this), everyone else has to simply wait their turn, which may be 18 months to 2 years in some cases it seems. One claimant mentions a 3 year delay. The article confirms that more people are unsatisfied with adjudicator decisions and so ask for an ombudsman to handle their case, this causes further delays. Many cases will be dealt with quicker by the small claims court, they say. The judge will obviously take a more legal approach to the evidence, FOS's main test is whether the adjudicator thinks the settlement is "fair and reasonable".
Guardian article in full (with picture of Natalie)

Oct 2011... New FOS non-exec director appointed
The job specification stated that it is essential that the candidate has:
"experience as a chief executive, operations director or equivalent of an organisation at least as large and complex as the Financial Ombudsman
Service". Advertised pay was £21k for 2 days a month.
The new director is Gywn Burr from Sainsburys, some background here

Oct 2011... Why does the FOS want to withold details of the compensation awarded to unidentifiable complainants in example cases ?   There must be a reason !

The FOS Head of Knowledge and Information Management, Ms Jacqueline Rees, has declined a request under the Freedom of Information act to disclose the amount of compensation actually awarded for distress and inconvenience in FOS example cases, pointing out that FOS is not subject to the FoIA. (But FOS is now, in fact, subject to the act).

"(we) do our best to be as open and transparent as possible - publishing extensive information about what we do on our website and answering questions about our work where we can"

FOS will soon be required to publish decisions in full, and the Chief Executive, Natalie Ceeney, recently welcomed this change, she said:

"Making these decisions publicly available is something we very much welcome. It will help in “busting” many of the myths about decisions we have made. It will also help to give clarity to firms on what complaints-handling standards are, as we see them."

So whilst FOS wants to be as open and transparent as possible, and the Chief Executive wants to "bust" myths about decisions, the Head of Knowledge and Information Management declines to give the information requested even though the cases are de-identified and no one can possibly be disadvantaged by disclosure of the sometimes very small sums involved and no personal information will be revealed. We are not told the reason for this.

The question was asked on the "What do they know" website which allows the public to see FoIA questions and responses.

This has now moved on. FOS is now subject to the FoIA, hopefully the questioner will ask again

FOS examples of awards for "distress and inconvenience" (scroll down)
The "What do they know" website question and FOS's actual replies
Natalie's speech welcoming the publication of decisions

Sept 2011... FOS board discusses:
FOS case closure targets and high adjudicator turnover
The July FOS main board meeting minutes were published in September and contain reference to board member concern "about the tension between providing a quality service and achieving closure targets". The use of financial bonus incentives to close cases has been a concern for a long time. Natalie Ceeney was not present at the July board meeting where this matter was discussed, however in a recent article she was reported as saying:

"The average amount that our case-handling staff earned last year in additional pay, for example, was £4,000. The number of cases resolved and the time taken to do so of course feature in these arrangements as we are keen to ensure that we keep waiting times down for our customers

The general aim of our additional incentive payments is to reflect the many additional hours of unpaid overtime that staff are prepared to work to deal with our ever increasing case load."

However Jane Sanders, the FOS whistleblower and director of commercial resolution specialist JSCS, has claimed that adjudicators are given fixed targets to close a number of cases per week to get a bonus, a claim the FOS has denied.

Wikipedia also mentions a number of FOS different performance bonus schemes for adjudicators, claiming that although there is an increasing emhasis on quality at FOS, the bonus schemes have focused on quantity.
(NB. Wikipedia needs to be used with care regarding FOS, the source and quality of the information is not always clear)
The FOS board now seems to be concerned about this so there must be something in it.

The board also discussed increased staff turnover rate.
It seems increased adjudicator tunover is putting a strain on non-ppi casework capacity. Reason given for leaving include better opportunities and salaries elsewhere. Adjudicator salaries have risen a bit in recent adverts, but are still low for the advertised qualifications in the City financial world. The board were told that recent intakes are of particularly high quality and get intensive induction and training on starting.

FOS board July meeting minutes
Original article quoting Natalie on the bonus of £4000, and Jane Sanders
Wikipedia FOS page
Adjudicators advert and job profile also agency advert with salary £24500

Sept 2011... Top 3 Ombudsmen earn more than the PM
Details of top FOS salaries are in the Annual Report
Natalie Ceeney, Tony Boorman and David Thomas all earn more than the Prime Minister according to an IFA website. It has to be said that a lot of other people do too !   £224,596 is not a huge salary for the Chief Executive of FOS.
But the Annual Report does have interesting info on FOS salaries and perks. e.g. It seems some of the 720 Adjudicators can earn up to £54,809 ! (Most get around £25k plus case completion bonus though)
Executive salaries are on Page 40, Adjudicators and others Page 42
FOS Directors Annual Report
ifaonline.co.uk

Sept 2011... Legal Beagles forum now has links to this site
The Legal Beagles forum has a section on PPI cases and some contributors have added links to this website. I offer this link in return. There are some comments on FOS experiences and matters. One writer mentions a dispute with Cheltenham and Gloucester, which was handled by an Ombudsman who used to work for the firm. I know nothing about this case, but if it is correct, surely she should have handed the case to a colleague.
Legal Beagles forum

Sept 2011... FOS recruiting more adjudicators (£24.5k)
Team managers (£40k)...advert withdrawn after a week.
The reason for hiring more adjudicators was initially not clear as the PPI case load is now declining, but may be a sign that less adjudication work is to be contracted out in future. However the July board meeting discussed concern about increasing (internal and external) Adjudicator turnover, so that must partially explain the new recruitment campaign. Also apparently FOS is recruiting at a rate above turnover. Its only a few months since FOS advertised for these same jobs. In fact they have re-used the old adverts with 165,000 cases quoted as last year's FOS caseload: it was actually 206,000.

FOS board July meeting minutes

FOS vacancies Sept 2011
Adjudicators advert and job profile also agency advert with salary £24500
Team managers advert and job profile (Advert. withdrawn mid Sept 2011)

Sept 2011...Independent Assessor's Annual Report 2010-11 is disappointing
My comments and thoughts on this year's report
Directors Report 2010-11 (with IA's report on page 60)
My overall view of the role of the Independent Assessor

Sept 2011... Adjudicators involvement in Ombudsmens' "final decisions" new info in Wikipedia
In her independent report of the FOS some years ago Professor Elaine Kempson (now on the FOS board) noted that adjudicators sometime flag up the most important documents when referring cases upwards to ombudsmen. This drives a coach and horses through the FOS's claim that a reference to an ombudsman can be regarded as an independent appeal of the adjudicator's decision. Futher confirmation was given on the Consumer Action Group website recently where one writer published a letter where an adjudicator seemed to know in advance what the ombudsman would say, stating: "an ombudsman is likely to consider the bank's offer as fair and reasonable in the circumstances and a decision is likely to reflect this".

Another writer on the CAG website said and adjudicator 'let slip' that his decision was taken by an "assistant ombudsman".

Wikipedia now says that until recently adjudicators drafted out final decisions for ombudsmen but it now refers to adjudicators moving to a position called a "decision writer" to carry out this task. I have also seen a reference to decision writers as a previous position held by a newly promoted ombudsman but this has now been removed.

Wikipedia also confirms that FOS has contracted out a lot of adjudication work, thus raising costs. This information was also published in the FOS Board Annual Report.

In my case (5156222/KM/46) a very senior and very experienced ombudsman approved the adjudicator's award even though ( FOS later admitted ) it contained a £3000 tax error so he clearly did not re-examine the adjudicator's work very carefully or properly check the amount of the award. Making the same mistake(s) as his junior does suggest he relied on the adjudicator's views without checking carefully enough.

NB. Wikipedia needs to be used with care, the source and quality of the information is not always clear. This information has changed twice recently.
Wikipedia FOS page
FOS Annual Report
Consumer Action Group FOS forum

Excellent tip from the Consumer Action Group Forum.  If necessary, remind FOS of their statutory powers
If you are using FOS to settle a dispute with a firm and the firm won't send you information that you need, FOS have apparently been known to say they have no powers to force the firm to provide the information. A member of the Consumer Action Group FOS forum points out that the Financial Services and Markets Act specifically gives FOS power to require the firm to provide the information.

FSMA para 231 has the details
Consumer Action Group FOS forum

FOS Directors Report published with Independent Assessor's Annual Report tagged on the end at page 60.

For 8 years the Independent Assessor's Report has been included in the FOS Annual Review but not this year, it has been tagged onto the end of the Director's Report. (Page 60, different font). There must be a reason for this change which was discussed by the Board in May so it is a deliberate policy The two reports are very different, the Review tells of the FOS work and what the FOS actually does and is of great interest to the public. The Report is dry stuff with the accounts, not much to interest the user of the FOS's services. Directors Report 2010-11 (with IA's report on page 60)
FOS Board minutes May 2011

FOS knows best ?... Not this time !
Taking court action resulted in 30x more compensation than the adjudicator thought 'fair and reasonable'

A report on the Consumer Action Group website tells of a case where FOS looked at the dispute and found that the bank had done nothing wrong. The claimant asked for the case to be reviewed and FOS changed its mind, the adjudication was in his favour. The bank decided to appeal to an Ombudsman, but after some discussions they did offer to settle and offered £150 compensation for inconvenience. The claimant said this was not enough but the bank declined to pay more and FOS said the matter should now go to an Ombudsman for final decision.

The adjudicator seemed to know in advance what the Ombudsman would decide, he told the claimant "an ombudsman is likely to consider the bank's offer as fair and reasonable in the circumstances and a decision is likely to reflect this".
The claimant did not want the huge delay necessary to allow an Ombudsman to decide on the case, so he took the bank to court. The bank settled out of court (at the last minute), paid £4500 compensation, removed a default from his account and paid his costs !

What can we learn from this, (please read the full story from the link below):

• FOS seem to have changed their 'initial' decision.
• The adjudicator was wrong in his assessment of suitable damages, the bank paid 30 times more than he thought was "fair and reasonable". We do not know the adjudicator's qualifications or experience.
• The FOS adjudicator tried to pre-judge the Ombudsman's decision "an Ombudsman is likely to consider etc. etc.", apparently to try and discourage a referral to an Ombudsman. This has implications for the impartiality of what the FOS consider to be an 'appeal' to an Ombudsman.
• The bank asked for the matter to be referred to an Ombudsman, they were confident the adjudicator's friendly decision would be confirmed.
• The adjudicator did not take the authority to actually SET the compensation at what he thought was a fair figure, he just passed messages back and forth and accepted what the Bank offered.
• The bank caved in when faced with court action with the prospect of a Judge looking at the facts.

Read the full details on the Consumer Action Group website, including the text of the adjudicator's letter pre-judging the Ombudsman's decision

FOS Company Secretary, Barbara Cheney's name quietly removed from FOS "Executive Team" list
No other announcement on the FOS website about this change as far as I can tell, but the Board's Annual Report tells us she has "tendered her resignation". The June Board minutes thank her for her contribution over the last 11 years. Her signature is not on the version of the Annual Report published on the FOS website.
FOS Executive Team
June Board minutes

FOS repeat their mantra that "using a third party will not improve (claimants') chances in any way"

The Observer had a short article suggesting that annuity mis-selling may be the next big issue at FOS. An un-named FOS "spokesman" made the above comment, hoping to avoid a rush of claims from claims management firms I suppose. I disagree !

FOS likes a claimant to put his case in his own words. Unlikely to be much help when the claimant is naive or very aged and does not understand what they have been sold. Some ordinary people may not have english as their first language and be poorly educated and socially deprived and simply unable to present their case well. On the other side, the Banks and Insurance Companies field their team of highly skilled "Customer Service" staff, paid fat salaries, who know all the rules inside out and are very familiar with the products, regulations and FOS procedures. They may well have dealt with the same FOS adjudicators before and know their strengths and weaknesses. Which side is better equipped to put their case effectively ?

Deciding the merits of the arguments in most cases, are the FOS adjudicators, qualifications unknown (but probably unqualified in the Financial Services arena), salary low, paid bonuses to meet their work targets, many inexperienced. Try as they may to be fair, these people must be influenced by the skill of the presentation of the case.

But perhaps the FOS knows best !   I paid over £1200 for a professional actuary's opinion of my case. An expert witness and qualified financial services professional, he firmly supported my arguments and pointed out that the bank's advice was negligent and would have resulted in a FAIL if given in a basic IFA exam. The Ombudsman brushed aside his evidence, thought the firm's advice was fine, deliberately misquoted my expert in his decision, made no calculations, ignored FOS guidelines and rubber stamped the Adjudicator's view. The same Adjudicator who recommended the firm's offer despite a £3000 tax error, then could not explain why tax had been deducted.

Hmmmm....perhaps the FOS spokesman is correct, using a highly skilled, professionally qualified third party expert certainly did not improve my chances in any way.

"Ombudsmen who are an affront to the rule of Law"

This is a most interesting talk by Anthony Speaight QC to the Professional Negligence Bar Association in January 2011. It refers to the way the FOS operates and concerns that the Legal Services Ombudsman may be going the same way. The talk generally refers to things from the IFA or Financial Firms' point of view, but the principles apply to consumers as well, the same FOS staff are involved. He has some interesting quotes from Jane Sanders the FOS whistleblower and comments on FOS's failure to follow some of Lord Hunts recommendations. Here are some snippets:

"There is a lot of talk from FOS about how much it values transparency, but the reality seems to me to be that it is a somewhat secretive organisation. For instance, Jane Sanders
(an ex adjudicator) says:"

"Whilst at FOS, I was told that I must reply, when challenged, that my qualifications have no bearing on the job at hand; I do the job at hand because FOS says I am competent to do so. Under no circumstances was I to reveal my qualifications.
It was explained to me when I questioned what appeared to me to be a ridiculous stance that the position was that the training was so comprehensive that the background qualifications I held were of little consequence; this despite the fact that formal induction to the service is actually 1 week and you begin issuing views under a mentor a few short weeks later"

"FOS decisions have been observed to contain the same passages of text over and over again
The explanation for this provided by Jane Sanders, a barrister who previously worked at FOS, is that standard text is provided by the FOS computer system. That system has been created so as to take a decision writer step by step through a tree of decision-making. She has written:-

"You input data onto Excellence (the all singing and dancing database designed to support adjudicators in the Endowment team) including the complainant's policy number, target maturity sum, basic sum assured, number of dependents, the complainant's age and other salient factors from the point of sale and press a button.

Voila! Excellence creates a template letter which, in the loosest way possible, was tailor made to the complainant's case. You then take further standard paragraphs, emailed to you from your mentor, for you to store on your system, and apply them depending on the type of case you have, and pad out the letter until you have something that was considered acceptable".

The article in full
More quotes by Jane Sanders

FOS Recruiting adjudicators (again)

FOS recruiting Adudicators again. The last advert was for 9 month fixed term contracts but since then the Board has been advised that it takes 7 months to get an adjudicator up to speed. The current advert seems to be for normal positions, and has a pay rise too !

Interestingly FOS also want Consumer Consultants, and the job is advertised in a combined advert with the adjudicators.

Consumer Consultants should have experience of working in large volume telephone or back office customer service environments. May suit call centre staff, could they be based abroad I wonder ? Unfortunately the adverts are out of date, quoting FOS caseload last year as 165,000, when it was actually 206,121 new cases

Non exec director(s) also required
NB. Only the most highly qualified candidates are sought.
The job specification states that it is essential that the candidate has:
"experience as a chief executive, operations director or equivalent of an organisation at least as large and complex as the Financial Ombudsman
Service".  That should reduce the number of applicants !   It will be interesting to see where the sucessful applicant comes from.
Full position specification here   
(Marked "Strictly private and confidential" for some reason, despite being published on a public internet web site)

FOS vacancies, mid June 2011
Adjudicators, pay is £24,500 pa (may/may not include bonus ?)
Consumer Consultants, £20,000 pa (no info on bonus)
Team Managers also wanted at £40,000 pa
Non-exec directors at £21,000 pa for 2 DAYS a month

Adjudicator and Consumer Consultant advert
Adjudicator job profile and Agency job description
Consumer consultant job profile
Team manager advert and job profile
Non exec director position specification

Team manager applicants have to take the SHL verbal reasoning test, (pass mark 50th percentile) no mention of this for the other jobs.
Wikipedia on percentiles
Website with FOS interview tips and comments

Lawyers Peter Hamilton and Antony Speaight QC submit proposals to the Treasury about a major reform of the FOS.

"In response to the Government’s second round of consultation, Anthony Speaight, QC, and I have submitted a paper to the Treasury in which we have set out our constructive proposals for the reform of the FOS. We have had a meeting with the Treasury to discuss our ideas."

Peter Hamilton's article
More detail of the proposals

FOS staff 'not qualified' to adjudicate, says MEP
European Parliament member Geoffery Bloom MEP writes critical letters to Natalie Ceeney about the FOS

Mr Bloom wrote:
"If it is a serious FSA requirement for an advisor to be specially qualified to give advice on a pension transfer it is surely commensurate with professional natural justice that the adjudicator is at least equally qualified. One might argue more so."

We do not know the full details of what was written originally by either party to give rise to this response, but the letter makes very interesting reading. It seems the European Parliament is taking an interest in FOS's medieval powers, and the absence of any appeal. Here is a taste of it !

"Thank you for your response, I detail here why I find it unsatisfactory and certainly not supportable in my capacity as a member of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee which now holds the ‘watching brief’ for UK financial regulation."

"I do not support this breach of English Law principles. I do not believe any procedure which can lead to the loss of jobs or livelihoods should be outside the scope of statute or common law, the presumption of innocence and trial by one’s peers. A judicial review is laughably inadequate, just a confirmation the quango followed its own obscure rules."
More details of what happened
Mr Bloom's letter in full

and a UK MP joins in the criticism
Paul Burstow, Care Services Minister writes too

Mr Burstow threw out Ms Ceeney's defence of the current system stating: "Natural fairness to me would appear to lie in being able to demonstrate confidence to those being judged, that those sitting in judgement do have a full understanding of both the issues involved and the rules and protocols applying to the cases that they investigate".
More details of Mr Burstow's intervention

It seems an FOS spokesperson said:
"Like a court, we do not require our staff to list out their qualifications after their name, we prefer the quality of their work to speak for itself". For an example of what FOS quality can mean please read this:
FOS case no. 5156222/KM/46

Independent Assessor gets a proper photo on her website
( at last ! ) but her credibility is further reduced by having her Annual Report left out of the FOS annual review !

The IA's own independent website www.independent-assessor.org.uk (which is actually owned and registered to FOS) has had a reverse image of her for the last six months. I cannot believe the IA would print such a picture herself, so it looks as though FOS put the picture there when they made up the website for her. Whatever...it has been there embarrassingly since December 2010. Anyway, at last someone has taken the trouble to put a proper picture of the IA on her own website.

In a yet a further setback to her authority and credibility, the IA's annual report has not been published in the FOS Annual Review for 2010-11.

Some confusion now surrounds this !   In the second week of June 2011, after the publication of the FOS annual review, the IA's personal website was changed to state that her annual report would be not be published in the annual review, but in the annual report. This is new...for the last 8 years the IA's report has been in the FOS annual review. The FOS Directors report is formal document containing the board's annual report and audited financial statements, I doubt if many ordinary members of the public read it, whereas the annual review is much more accessible to the public.

Further confusion is caused by the 2010-11 annual review itself, which only mentions the existence of the IA on page 72 where it tells us nothing about her work and says her annual report will be published on the FOS website.

We shall have to wait and see where and when the IA's report finally appears, and whether the board write a response to it as required by the IA's terms of reference item 16.

The Independent Assessor remains a job with a very high salary (£56k for 2 days a week) but little authority or responsibility. She can ask questions, but FOS can decline to answer, and she can make recommendations but FOS can ignore them. Now there is a list of things she must not comment on and her annual report is not worthy of inclusion in the FOS annual review. The role needs a complete overhaul, see my separate article.

The removal of the IA's report from the annual review does look like a reduction in status and importance for her. There must be a reason ...
On top of the recent changes to her terms of reference, I wonder if she is happy in her work ?

Independent Assessor's new personal website (with new pic !)
FOS website about the Independent Assessor with terms of reference
My view of the Independent Assessor's role (now with updated example)
FOS Annual Review (PDF file 1.6mb)
Independent Assessor's Annual Report-(skip to page 60)

The Wikipedia FOS entry now has a link to this website
and a direct link to my evidence to Lord Hunt. I did not add these links, someone else did, but I have corrected one url which contained an error.
NB. Much of the Wikipedia FOS page needs editing. Use it with caution, but there are some good links to FOS information.

Take care with Wikipedia
One recent change added a comment on why some IFAs claim that FOS actions are in breach of their human rights. In particular because there is no appeals procedure and requests for personal hearings are usually denied by FOS which was said to be against the Human Rights Act. These remarks only lasted a few days and have now been removed, we do not know if they are right or wrong. Wikipedia needs to be used with caution regarding the FOS.
My evidence to Lord Hunt
Wikipedia FOS entry

Decision writer position at FOS ?

One new thing (to me) is the mention of a position at FOS that I was not previously aware of namely " Decision writer ". A newly appointed Ombudsmen previously held this post as well as being an Adjudicator. Perhaps some Adjudicators are not allowed to write their own decisions ?

STOP PRESS ... FOS removes the mention of " Decision writer " from the list of previous jobs held by an ombudsman. Looks as though Adjudicators can write their own decisions.

7 Trade Bodies call for curbs to FOS authority
Association of British Insurers, Aifa, the British Bankers’ Association, the Building Societies Association, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Association of Financial Mutuals and the UK Cards Association are writing to Treasury Financial Secretary, Mark Hoban.

Main points:

• The FOS’s role and relationship with the Financial Conduct Authority to be clearly set out in statute to give firms confidence that if they comply with FCA regulations they will not face retrospective interpretations of the rules
• For the FOS to be removed from the process of determining regulatory issues with wider implications to stop the ombudsman straying into regulatory functions
• For consideration to be given to claim management companies being regulated by the FCA rather than the Ministry of Justice and to CMCs contributing to funding the ombudsman
• For the FOS’s right to prevent firms taking test cases to court when important or novel points of law are in evidence to be removed
• For the FCA to undertake regular reviews of the FOS’s operations, policies and procedures but not compromise the ombudsman’s operational independence
• That the FOS be required to consult with stakeholders before issuing policy notes or guidance.

Read more
FOS responds

The FOS Board is concerned about the Service's reputation and finances.  
The FOS Board meeting 1st Feb 2011 had an interesting comment on the future, the Board agreed that (underpinning various priorities), "was the criticality of coming through the next year with the Service’s reputation intact and with the cost basis on the correct footing".
For such a comment to appear in the Board minutes, there must be real concern about these matters despite Natalie's comment recently that "We're not taxpayer funded so should not be affected by public sector funding reductions".
FOS Board minutes Feb 2011

FOS/FSA wins high court judicial review case brought by BBA about PPI insurance. BBA will not appeal.
BBC article
BBA initial response
FOS initial response ( now removed from FOS website )
Robert Peston's view
BBA further response, (decision not to appeal)
FOS further response ( after BBA decide not to appeal )
BBA (and others) lobby the Treasury Financial Secretary
Court judgement in full (experts only !)

FOS compares Adjudicators' and Ombudsmen's qualifications with Judges and Magistrates
"What makes a good adjudicator or ombudsman is more than just letters after their name. It is the ability to stand back and listen to all sides of the story – to weigh up the arguments and arrive at decisions fairly and impartially.
This is also the defining characteristic of judges and magistrates – who similarly don’t need to list their qualifications to demonstrate their ability to do the job."   Hmmmmm...
FOS careers page

FOS now recruiting self employed ombudsmen
"appropriately qualified and experienced individuals to join our ombudsman panel on a self employed, fee-paid basis".

FOS moves away from long term Adjudicators and Ombudsmen. As it appoints even more new senior managers on normal contracts, recent adverts for Adjudicators are for a 9 month fixed term contracts. Now they seek to recruit self employed Ombudsmen. News on another web site tells that 100 'contractors' were hired last year at £210 per day. The reason for this policy is not explained, but in my opinion it is unlikely to help long term staff morale and retain long term top quality employees, especially if the temporary staff earn more than the permanent ones, we shall see.

The Board has recently discussed the 7 months it takes to get an Adjudicator "up to speed". On that basis Adjudicators on 9 month contracts will not have much productive time at FOS.

FOS Board minutes Feb 2011 (see page 2)

FOS Feb 2011 Board meeting discusses staff attrition rate and the current 7 months it takes to get a Adjudicator up to speed.
( A recent advert for Adjudicators was for a 9 month contract ! )

• FOS admits to high attrition rate of staff during their probation period, so comments about this on another web site may be correct. On another forum (post #108) a contributor says last year FOS recruited about 100 contractors on £210 per day...he was one of them. Not a move calculated to raise morale among the new Adjudicators on less than half that and a nine month contract. Could this have affected the attrition rate, I wonder ?
• New procedures will get Adjudicators "up to speed" within 4 months... apparently it now takes 7 months. New adjudicators are on a 9 month contract so as soon as they are up to speed, they depart.
• PPI cases are putting "pressure on operational systems" at FOS.
• PPI cases are also causing concern with regard to FOS finances.

FOS Board minutes Feb 2011

Independent Assessor has new Terms of Reference. Authority further restricted, few other changes

In an Orwellian restriction on the IA's already limited authority, the FOS Board has produced a list of items which she is not permitted to comment on !
So if she investigates a service complaint and in doing so, comes across a serious error of judgement by FOS, we know she cannot investigate this, but now she is not even permitted to comment on it !

It would be nice to know if these tighter restrictions on the IA's role have been introduced because the new IA has dared to speak out...Perhaps she will explain in her first Annual Report

New Terms of Reference
FOS Board minutes Dec 2011 (IA's first report, see para 7)
My view of the Independent Assessor's role (now with updated example)

Independent Assessor has new (independent ?) website domain owned by FOS

The purpose of this is unclear as it contains little information not already on the main FOS site, however the IA writes in her own words.  She defends her independent status but I am not convinced by her explanation, particularly her reassurance that she has had 3 jobs with "Independent" in the title !   

As long as the IA is appointed, paid and works closely with those she is assessing, I don't think she is 'independent' in the sense of the word that most ordinary people understand.

The IA's independence is not helped by her new website domain name "independent-assessor.org.uk" being one of several "independent-assessor" domain names actually registered as being owned by FOS itself. She has also chosen to use the same photo as the FOS independent assessor website page. Unfortunately the photo is printed back to front !  I can't imagine she would deliberately print her own picture the wrong way round on her own website so, combined withe the domain ownership, I think there is a possibility that the site may not be as independent as it looks.

The IA remains a job with a high salary but little authority or responsibility. She can ask questions, but FOS can decline to answer, and she can make recommendations but FOS can ignore them. Now there is a list of things she must not comment on. The role needs a complete overhaul, see link below to my separate article.

BUT, the new site does clear up one mystery. The reason she uses a PO Box rather than a normal postal address. It seems this is to keep her mail separate from FOS mail. Well...that certainly seems a good idea !  However why this task cannot be entrusted to the FOS mailroom is not explained. She does now publish her email address though, it is:
independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

Independent Assessor's new website
FOS website page about the Independent Assessor
My view of the Independent Assessor's role (now with updated example)

FOS concerned about finances
It seems that the impact of large numbers of PPI claims is causing concern regarding finances and reserves at FOS,
Article in FT Adviser
Ombudsman News # 92

This should give the new Director of Finance and Performance, Julia Cavanagh, a busy start in her new post.

Its not long since Natalie said
"We're not taxpayer funded so should not be affected by public sector funding reductions"
It looks like there are other problems.

FOS is moving away from long term employed Adjudicators and Ombudsmen. Recent adverts were for Adjudicators on 9 month fixed term contracts and self employed fee paid Ombudsmen. Perhaps to avoid redundancy payments and pension contributions, the flexible benefits package, etc. The Times said Natalie was credited with a more commercial approach at the British Library, and cost cutting antagonised famous historians during her time at the National Archives
The Times article on Natalie

Double standards, does inheriting a portfolio mean that someone has investment experience ?
A January 2011 article on the FOS website about stockbroking complaints highlights a case where a consumer inherited a share portfolio. FOS says...

"The fact that Mrs B had inherited a portfolio of shares did not make her an experienced or knowledgeable investor" (Case 48/13)

But in practice things are a little different. When my Aunt inherited a portfolio at age 70 yrs, having never previously invested in anything except bank and building society deposits, and never traded, the Adjudicator said...

"We refer to investment experience when a person has experience holding an investment....If a person has held a portfolio of shares for several years it is likely that the portfolio has suffered some degree to loss/fluctuations and therefore the investor does understand the levels of risks associated with these investments"
(FOS case no. 5156222/KM/46)

Money Marketing magazine says FOS has refused to reveal the qualifications of Adjudicators.
The recent advert for Adjudicators sets high standards for 'ideal' candidates, no need to keep those secret one would think, perhaps the actual qualifications of those actually employed are lower.
Money Marketing Article

Complaints about FOS standards

The way complaints about FOS service standards are handled has been quietly changed. Heads of Casework ( who are not apparently Ombudsmen themselves, not on the list anyway) now handle complaints about Ombudsmen's standards. It seems that some complaints are being handled not by the Heads of Casework themselves, but by their assistants.

This change is apparently to speed up complaint handling, a much needed requirement. I once wrote to a member of the SRT in the following terms to try and get a response:  

"Can you please update me on the latest situation regarding (my case),

• it is 6 weeks since your last letter to me
• 9 weeks since my last letter to you in which I requested clarification and explanations
• 5 months since you personally commenced to deal with this matter
• 8 months since I complained to (the Adjudicator) that the calculations were in error
• Over 2 years since I originally brought this matter to the FOS"

Natalie and Lord Hunt's differing views about 'Ombudsman News'
Chief Ombudsman Natalie Ceeney praises Ombudsman News. She says the case studies in that publication are popular with chief executives and heads of financial firms. It seems that FOS use O.N to provide feedback to firms about complaints. Details in
Ombudsman News 89
Ombudsman News 87

• "it is not clear to the reader whether material in old issues represents current FOS thinking on the issues discussed;
• more generally, it is odd to use a magazine format as the main reference digest for significant decisions;
• it is not clear that a member of the public using the service for the first time would know what the magazine covered."
  
  "Even in a revamped form, this publication cannot improve communication to the extent required so I also I recommend another, more radical, change, namely that the FOS should develop a public interactive system – which I call "FOSBOOK" – as the main means of recording and promulgating details of its developing practice and decisions."

Full Hunt Review
See para 5.4 and 5.5 for his comments on O.N in full.

What is or is not published in Ombudsman News matters little because the Ombudsmen can largely do whatever they wish without fear of appeal against their rulings.

FOS says the Hunt Review's recommendations have largely been implemented. One notable exception is the FOSBOOK disussed above and recommended by Lord Hunt to replace Ombudsman News as a reference digest.

I can't find the FOSBOOK on the FOS website yet !