Tim Jenkins’ Post

You’ve probably heard that if a customer brings a complaint to your door, they usually need to do so within six years of the event. However, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) also recognises that it’s possible to remain unaware of a problem after six years have passed. If this is the case, the complaint must be made within three years of the date when the problem was first discovered, or could reasonably have been discovered. Additionally, the FOS could consider a complaint in the event that “exceptional circumstances” have caused a delay in filing a complaint. And this is where it all becomes a little murky. What would you consider as “exceptional circumstances”?

You’ve probably heard that if a customer brings a complaint to your door, they usually need to do so within six years of the event. However, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) also recognises that it’s possible to remain unaware of a problem after six years have passed. If this is the case, the complaint must be made within three years of the date when the problem was first discovered, or could reasonably have been discovered. Additionally, the FOS could consider a complaint in the event that “exceptional circumstances” have caused a delay in filing a complaint. And this is where it all becomes a little murky. What would you consider as “exceptional circumstances”?

What NOT to do when managing a complaint against your financial services firm (5/5): 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝘃𝗲: 𝗦𝗵𝗵𝗵! 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗺𝗯𝘂𝗱𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻 However, the firm responds to the complaint, even when it is confident the response is fair and closes the matter, don’t forget to provide details of the Financial Ombudsman Service and the customer’s right to escalate the complaint. Now you know the five rules, if you need any specialist support, head to the link in the comments and we’d be happy to discuss.

When it comes to complaints, timing is everything. Were you aware that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has strict time limits for considering complaints? Here's what they are: 👉 More than six years have elapsed since the event being complained about happened 👉 If later than six years, the complaint must reach the FOS three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint. These rules stand unless the Ombudsman deems exceptional circumstances. Even if a complaint seems 'too old,' a solid defence is still crucial. Don't wait until it's too late—ensure your defence is rigorous and robust from the start.

When it comes to complaints, timing is everything. Were you aware that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has strict time limits for considering complaints? Here's what they are: 👉 More than six years have elapsed since the event being complained about happened 👉 If later than six years, the complaint must reach the FOS three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint. These rules stand unless the Ombudsman deems exceptional circumstances. Even if a complaint seems 'too old,' a solid defence is still crucial. Don't wait until it's too late—ensure your defence is rigorous and robust from the start.

Extremely important event happening tomorrow which has the potential to change the way we all feel about the balance of fairness in society. That's right, the Financial Ombudsman's consultation on Charging Claims Management Companies closes tomorrow. We think this is a genuine opportunity for the FOS to address the obvious economic imbalances that exist within the system and create a system which is fair, gives due regards to their customers and protects the principle that consumers should be able to access financial remediation free of charge. Our response can be found here: https://lnkd.in/egGTjBHe https://lnkd.in/ejkSr4rK

The Financial Ombudsman Service publishes determinations on its website. If you ever find yourself reviewing decisions based upon "load-bearing walls necessary for stability of the structure" you'll notice; 1) FOS is inconsistent in its own determinations, and 2) The underlying cause of complaint is often because consumers are unaware whether a particular retaining wall is necessary for structural stability of the home or not. Given the Consumer Duty is now in force, it would be far more straightforward for insurers to endorse policies to show whether a particular retaining wall is covered or not. Theoretically they will have reviewed plans, sent an auditor to site and have a duty to communicate clearly with policyholders (along with root-cause analysis of complaints) so should be able to easily identify which ones are and aren't covered before any policy incepts. Theoretically FOS could say lack of clarity over the scope of cover (that is entirely within the insurer's gift to rectify) means it is fair and reasonable to provide cover. https://lnkd.in/exFHxFGq

Facing a decision from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that seems completely wrong? 🤯 Here's what you need to know: 🔒 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: Once the Ombudsman's decision is made and accepted by the complainant, firms have limited options but to agree, even if the decision feels unfair. 💰 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠: Many firms, faced with a wrong decision, weigh the high costs of challenging it versus just paying up. Often, the latter wins out. 😟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲: While consumers and claims management companies walk away with hefty cheques, firms are left depleted of funds and in a risky position with their professional indemnity insurer. If this sounds like you, get in touch: 📧: mail@jencap.partners ☎️: 029 2000 2325

Great news from the Financial Ombudsman Service reported this morning by Citywire New Model Adviser. Extended case resolution times have a profound impact on all involved in cases that go to the Ombudsman, including litigation funders, law firms and claims management companies that raise complaints on behalf of their clients and, most significantly, the clients themselves, for whom the stress and anguish of waiting for a decision often stretch far beyond the financial implications. And while many consumers who have been the victims of financial mis-selling and get a favourable decision from FOS inevitably end up with a longer wait to get their money when a firm fails and their claim goes to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, efficiency improvements at FOS at least help things move a little quicker. It’s also great to learn that FOS is looking at integrating AI into its processes - we posted earlier this year about the potential positive impact of the FSCS planning to do the same - and at setting up an online service where law firms and CMCs can submit case files. Features that make it easier for consumers to get financial justice and fair redress as quickly as possible can only be a good thing for claimants, while law firms and litigation funders can benefit too from cash flow improvements owing to the reduced time funding is tied up in specific cases. #litigationfunding #financialmisselling #financialjustice #financialombudsmanservice

Facing a decision from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that seems completely wrong? 🤯 Here's what you need to know: 🔒 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: Once the Ombudsman's decision is made and accepted by the complainant, firms have limited options but to agree, even if the decision feels unfair. 💰 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠: Many firms, faced with a wrong decision, weigh the high costs of challenging it versus just paying up. Often, the latter wins out. 😟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲: While consumers and claims management companies walk away with hefty cheques, firms are left depleted of funds and in a risky position with their professional indemnity insurer. If this sounds like you, get in touch: 📧: mail@jencap.partners ☎️: 029 2000 2325