View more on these topics

Give us the chance to have our say on the Ombudsman service

One of the most important regulatory events this year was the announcement by Ruth Kelly MP, financial secretary to the Treasury, of the detail of the N2+2 review. N2, the date on which the FSA received its formal powers, fell on November 30, 2001. Two years on, I believe it is appropriate for the government to examine how this environment-changing piece of legislation is working.

I welcome the proposed investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into the impact of the Financial Services and Markets Act. I hope it looks at the impact of regulations made under the FSMA on smaller institutions. Often it is smaller institutions like local and regional building societies that add vitality and innovation to a market while remaining more in touch with their customers than some large organisations. It would be a tragedy if regulation designed to protect customers destroyed some of the choice they currently enjoy.

The BSA is pleased that the financial secretary has included the FOS in the review. We believe an effective Ombudsman is an essential tool. We support the points made by Kelly – that she would not favour changes which undermined the independence of the Ombudsman and that she would not support any change which meant the Ombudsman was no longer free to consumers, nor would she support any change that required the Ombudsman to determine cases other than on their merits.

We are pleased, however, that she is suggesting the operation of the Ombudsman service be examined in two areas. Firstly she says there should a review of the circumstances in which the FSA takes regulatory action instead of individual cases being determined by the FOS. Secondly Kelly considers it appropriate to examine whether Ombudsman decisions should be subject to some form of appeal in specific circumstances.

When the FSA introduces regulation it is obliged to consult, to consider the results of the consultation, to publish feedback and to undertake a cost benefit analysis. If the FSA finds a firm guilty of breeching its rules there is a mechanism by which firms can appeal – the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal – entirely independent of the FSA.

The position with the FOS is different. Through its decisions on individual cases it is able to create case law which has, in areas such as interest rate setting on both the savings and the mortgage sides of building society business, the same impact as FSA regulation. Yet for the FOS there is no consultation on the principles used to reach these decisions, there is no feedback, there is no cost benefit analysis and no right of appeal. In the parliamentary debates which led to the creation of the FSA there was concern about the accountability of the regulator. Ministers were keen to create a series of checks and balances to prevent overbearing power being concentrated in too few hands. That has been achieved with the FSA but not with the FOS and we need to take advantage of the review to put this right. We must move to a situation in which we have the same consultation and accountability mechanisms for what has become an alternative regulatory mechanism which can have the same impact on financial firms&#39 operations as can the main regulator.

I would not object if, after the review, we ended up in the same position we are in now. If, following proper consultation, feedback and analysis, the same outcome is reached on, for example, dual mortgage rates or Tessa and ISA savings rates as does now, so be it. But at least we will have had the opportunity to talk about the framing of the rules and have our concerns listened to.

I would also like to say a word about the appeals mechanism the BSA has in mind. Firstly, this would be a limited mechanism. An FOS decision on a simple case of maladministration where a firm had made a mess of things would not be appealable. Major decisions which have huge potential regulatory impact would be. Having said that, the BSA envisages a system in which any decision on an individual complaint would stand. There would be no question of the consumer having to go through an appeals process. Rather it would be open to a firm to contest the point of principle created by the individual case so that the wider implications of the decision could be examined outside the context of the case itself.

We all need to think through these issues carefully and the BSA is happy to consider other approaches to achieve the right outcome. We will therefore be energetic participants in the debate started by the financial secretary.

Recommended

SLB raises its rate to 5.10%

Standard Life Bank is increasing its standard variable rate from 4.85% to 5.10% with effect from November 19, following the 0.25% base rate increase. Anne Gunther, chief executive of Standard Life Bank, says: “It is important to put this rise into context. It does not mean misery for consumers. We expect the Bank of England […]

London rental yields hit 7%

London rental yields have hit 7% as Paragon Mortgages&#39 buy-to-let Index shows further recovery in the capital. The index reveals that yields have risen in the capital from a low of 6.56% in July to 7% in October. The trend in the capital is symptomatic of a general firming of yields in southern parts of […]

Destini buys two more IFA firms

Destini Financial Services has purchased two more large IFA firms &#45 Applewood Associates, one of Sesame&#39s largest IFAs and Essex, and Kettering-based Bervale Mead financial consultants. This brings the number of IFAs taken over by Destini to 11 over the last 12 months. Both purchases were made for a mixture of cash and Destini shares. […]

Lib Dems say regulation failure is allowing irresponsible lending

The Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor has proclaimed that regulation has allowed banks to lend irresponsibly. Commenting on Tuesday&#39s Monetary Policy Committee minutes, Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor, says: “The most pressing issue for the chancellor is to address the failure of regulation that has allowed banks to lend irresponsibly and fuel unsustainable levels of […]

Singapore cover image - thumbnail

White paper — Singapore International Insights

Jelf Employee Benefits assesses key trends within the international private medical insurance provision of organisations with employees in Singapore. Benefit structure, cost management and healthcare facilities are examined and key considerations are highlighted. This edition will be of particular interest to global human resource directors and benefit managers with local and expatriate populations in Singapore.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up