Return to the main website home page


Here is what FOS whistleblower and ex-adjudicator Jane Sanders says about FOS decisions
Also comments by Anthony Speight QC and Lord Neill

Jane comments on mistakes by adjudicators
" You cannot produce quality work in the volume they expect to a standard that is fair and just"




The above clip has been taken from Money Marketing web site. See the original Money Marketing page (opens in another window)


Jane also makes further comments about FOS in THE TIMES online website. See here (opens in another window). She mentions the problems of rushing to meet targets and low levels of training for Adjudicators. (Times paywall subscription required)

 

Jane comments on FOS Adjudicator's qualifications
"Under no circumstances was I to reveal my qualifications"

"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"

This clip taken from a speech by Anthony Speaight QC

 

Jane comments on how FOS Adjudicators reach and write decisions
"and pad out the letter until you have something that was considered acceptable"

"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".

This clip taken from a speech by Anthony Speaight QC

 

Jane tells how adjudicators mare up a case with comments that created an automatic bias and this still goes on.  FOS disagree

"Ms Sanders told FTAdviser that adjudicators will often “mark the case up” with what should be impartial comments, but in Mr Standerwick’s case the comments created an “automatic bias”.

She said: “In this particular case, I distinctly recall there were comments on there about him being aggressive as he was questioning the adjudicator about their qualifications and to not call him for those reasons. In my mind, this creates an automatic bias.”

Ms Sanders claims that this practice still “absolutely goes on”.

She said: “I have seen firms that have had a bunch of claims get grouped together and will go to the same team. This could been seen as a continuation of adjudications or it could be seen as segregating particular firms for different treatments.”

This clip is taken from a longer article in FTAdviser

 



Here is what Anthony Speaight QC says about FOS decisions


It is not only consumers who have problems at the FOS. IFA's also feel concerned. IFAs can find themselves the victim of a dubious decision (perhaps made by an Ombudsman who does not have IFA qualifications) which, if accepted by the consumer means the IFA is forced to accept the decision with no possibility of appeal.

The above clip has been taken from the IFAs-OK web site.  See the original IFA web site page (opens in another window)

Please also see another speech by Anthony Speaight with a damning criticism of the FOS system



Here is what Lord Neill and the Equitable Members Action Group says about FOS decisions and the Hunt Review of the FOS
Equitable Members Action Group (EMAG) are fighting for fair treatment for their members as a result of the collapse of Equitable Life and the failure of the regulators to intervene. The matter came up before the FOS. EMAG then asked Lord Neill to advise them on whether the service provided by the FOS has fallen short of the standards which policy holders were entitled to expect. His overall conclusions include the snippet shown beneath which gives the general flavour.

The Executive Summary of the Lord Neill Report can be seen on this web site. It makes interesting reading for those considering using the FOS. (opens in another window)

EMAG's Stephen Wynn has also examined and commented on the Lord Hunt review of the FOS. His conclusions are available by visiting this website (opens in another window)