The Independent Assessor

PO Box 35738London

E14 9YU

29June 2012

Your complamt about the Fmancial Ombudsman Service: case 1%93014

You know that I am appointed by the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service toreview complaints of poor service. I confirmed to you the service complaints that Iwould be looking at and required the Ombudsman Service to suspend its investigation. Ihave now examined the Ombudsman Servicc's case file and this is my review andconclusions:

The Head of Casework confirmed that a Case Review Adjudicator looked at yourcase and checked to see if everything was available to move to the next stage on 19March 2012. You complained that this was not possible, as you wac invited tosubmit any further points in a letter dated 21 March &om the Adjudicator, within a3 week dendline. Given that, the Case Review Adjudicator could not find that thecase was ready to be put forward to an Ombudsman, as anything you supphed upto the deadline of 11 April would need to be considered by her.

I agree with you that there is a conflict here. Normally, a case review Adjudicatorconducts a routine quality review just before an Ombudsman is ready to look at the caseand issue a final decision. That stage has not yet happened, but will do once your casehas formally been referred to an Ombudsman, and doser to the time when anOmbudsman takes the case on.

On 16 March the Adjudicator said that she was still reviewing your case. On 19 Marchanother Adjudicator undertook a routine quality check. The Adjudicator wrote to you on21 March and explained that before the case went to an Ombudsman, thae would he nreview to check that the Ombudsman Service had all the information and she said thatyou had until 11 April to provide any further points or information. The Adjudicator stillhad control of the case, and would not refa it to an Ombudsman until after the 11 Aprildeadline.

If you and/or the financial business provide submissions, the Adjudicator looks at themto see if they affect the assessment and does one of two things 1) issue another

assessment to cover material points; 2) confirm that the next step was an Ombudsman

and make the appropriate administrative arrangements.

The case reviewer jumped the gun, but the Adjudicator still had control of the case. Ihope that is a clearer explanation than the one provided by the Ombudsman Service.

I also note that when you complained about the Adjudicator's assessment on 23 March

the Team Manager had to amend his 4 April reply and the Head of Casework hasapologised to you for causing confusion. I can confirm that the Team Manager was

correct in saying that disagreement with an Adjudicator's assessment goes to anOmbudsman, and an assessment is not retracted, nor is the case passed to another

Adjudicator or another team.

You complained that due to obfuscation in how the Ombudsman Service operates,

it was not possible find out how the Adjudication process works and if all of it isbeing performed correcdy and internal controls are being executed to check this.

The Ombudsman Service wrote to you on l9July 2011 to explain that the case would be

passed to an Adjudicator once the Ombudsman Service had received the bank's case file

and responses. The Adjudicator then sent an introductory letter on 14 October whichexplained her role in more detail. I am also satisfied that she explained that her

assessment was not the final decision, and that you could refer the case to an

Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman Service has a series of internal quality controls of which one is a"local" review before a case is passed on to the Ombudsman section, and the second is

by a review Adjudicator just before an Ombudsman takes the case on. If the reviewAdjudicator finds that something is missing, or has not been addressed, the Adjudicator

will be asked to undertake any additional work If all is well, you will not know that the

internal review has taken place but I think the "warning" in the Adjudicator's letter issensible so that a review Adjudicator's role does not come as a complete surprise.

I am satisfied that the Ombudsman Service and the Adjudicator in particular have

provided the normal level of explanations on the Adjudicator's role, which is;

a)

b)

c)d)

e)

f)

To decide what is the central issue - the crux of a case - that lies within the

Ombudsman Service's remit.To see if the complaint should be upheld, and if so attempt to reach an agreed

settlement.To obtain evidence that is material to the outcome.To issue a provisional assessment and provide the opportunity for you and the

bank to comment on that assessment.To refer the case to an Ombudsman if you or the bank do not accept the

provisional assessment.To continue to handle correspondence, other than routine updates which are

issued by the Ombudsman department where necessary.

{indicated that you could make a Freedom of Information Act request for more detailed

information on the role of an Adjudicator and the assessment process and I understand

that you have now done that.

OPINION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I agree with you that the Ombudsman Service failed to be consistent and transparent inthe way that it has handled your complaint and in some of its explanations on proper

process. There were also admin failings which will have undermined your confidence in

the Ombudsman Service's efficiency: for example, I note that on 1 February, theAdjudicator recorded your preference to have correspondence by email but sent some

correspondence by post. I note that after you escalated your complaint to a Head of

Casework, he agreed with you and has offered what 1 find is a reasonable sum incompensation.

The Financial Ombudsman Service has guidelines for compensation it orders a financial

business to pay and it uses the same guidelines for its own failings. My close comparatorsare

administrative error which caused the consumer to write or phone a few of timesbefore the problem was sorted out = 50

I am rather mystified that the Head of Casework noted that the Adjudicator hadindicated she would write a second opinion on the case but had not The Adjudicator's

21 March letter is a further assessment in that the she comments on your 17 Januaryemail, notes the issues that are matters of regulation and adds her views on the bank's

possible response, and on its offer to merge on"-line credentials which was no longer

relevant No matter what the Ombudsman Service caUs the Adjudicator's work - view,opinion, assessment, adjudication - they are all provisional assessments under the

Financial Services Authority's DISP rules that govern the way the Ombudsman Servicehandles complaints.

I note your allegation that the Team Manager Red when he explained Ombudsman

Service policy on what evidence and documents you are entided to. However, I amsatis6ed that the Team Manager's explanation was correct in that you can have evidence

that is material to the outcome, subject to anything that is classed as commerciaUyconfidential, typically underwriting criteria or security systems.

You have asked the Ombudsman Service to stop work on your case. I recommendthat the Ombudsman Service should mark the case as dosed unless you confirm no later

than 2OJuly 2012 that you wish to refer the complaint to an Ombudsman.

Finally, I note your observations on the rights of older customers. The Ombudsman

Service does treat complaints from those who are over 80 as a priority but according toyour complaint form, you have a few years to go before that would apply.

(Mrs) Linda M Costelloe Baker OBEIndependent Assessor