To: Angela Faherty, editor From: Name and address supplied I write in response to Peter Madigan's ...
To: Angela Faherty, editor
From: Name and address supplied
I write in response to Peter Madigan's interview with Reidy Flynn of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in the May issue of COVER.
During her interview, Flynn ridicules the idea that customers should have to contribute to the costs of unsuccessful complaints against advisers. She concludes that charging as little as £25 would not act as a deterrent - she is right - but £180 might (half of the current £360 charged by her outfit) and would certainly be more equitable.
Ms Flynn goes on to say "Do you know that only 30% of complaints are upheld" (I understand it is even less if you look at IFAs in isolation), yet she still thinks it is reasonable and just to charge advisers 100% of the cost for 100% of the complaints made against them, without any recourse for the customer where the complaint is not upheld.
The instigators of the current regime surely hadn't figured on the effects of the no-win no-fee unregulated claims companies that understand the ridiculous nature of the beast that is the FOS, and therefore push every customer whose complaint has been declined by a firm to go on and complain to the Ombudsman.
After all their costs are sunk, there is no FOS levy and therefore there is no deterrent to these firms pushing their customers to swamp the Ombudsman and in so doing, costing IFAs £360 a pop, while dramatically increasing the amount of time it takes the genuinely ill-advised to get justice.
Ms Flynn, please understand this - if you can gamble nothing with a possible return in the thousands, then every punter is going to gamble, no mug-punters here, just mug-IFAs.
Ms Flynn, I implore you to talk to real people about real issues. Do not ignore the obvious, and invest some time in understanding the benefits of technology.
• Do you agree? To voice your views, please email angela. [email protected] or phone 020 74849711
