Citywire printed articles sponsored by:
View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a650455
Adviser bids to appeal landmark High Court FOS ruling
by Michelle Abrego on Jan 11, 2013 at 17:11
Adviser firm In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions has applied to appeal a landmark judgment over Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) compensation.
The firm is seeking to appeal a High Court ruling allowing investors Barry and Julie Clark to pursue it for further damages despite having been awarded the maximum payout from the FOS.
That ruling clashed with a landmark court judgment made in 2010 by judge Mark Pelling that accepting a FOS award ruled out court action over the same compliant.
Advisers have voiced fears the ruling could lead to professional indemnity cover costs to jumping yet higher.
Markets
News sponsored by:
Today's top headlines
Read more...
Saturday Papers: News Corp poison pill shields Murdoch
by Himanshu Singh on May 25, 2013 at 00:01
5 comments so far. Why not have your say?
Paul Howard via mobile
Jan 11, 2013 at 17:24
Excellent news - lets hope we have a sane outcome.
report thisChris Miller
Jan 11, 2013 at 18:19
I have to say I'm torn between both sides.
On the one hand, the FOS rule of a £100k max agreed settlement theoretically puts the lid on a further claim. They were free to reject the FOS settlement and move up the claim path to court, so gambling the 100k.
On the other, the alleged negligence of the IFA has led to the purported loss of £500k. Where is the 400k going to come from.? If an IFA is found to be negligent and the losses were foresseable due to the breach, then natural justice would indicate that the claimants should be able to go elsewhere to make good the deficit to the full extent of their losses. The court seems to agree.
Imagine how you would feel if it was your half million?
report thisClive B
Jan 11, 2013 at 18:56
Section 8 of the judgement,http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/3669.html&query=in+and+focus+and+tax+and+asset+and+management&method=boolean
says the Clarks accepted the judgement but added the wording "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER THROUGH THE CIVIL COURT".
Why did anybody then think they'd accept just £100K of a claimed £500K loss as a "full and final settlement" ?
report thisPaul Howard
Jan 12, 2013 at 18:09
Chris
Not enough information has come out yet to indicate if poor advice was given (the Court case confirmed they do have the right to take it to court) and as lot of people know - what FOS says in it's decision - may not be legally correct.
(and so a Court might decide no compensation is required).
Clive B - because thats what the FOS rules originally said!
What should have happened is that FOS should have told the Complainants - you either accept the £100K - or go to court (which didn't happen).
report thisClive B
Jan 12, 2013 at 22:59
Paul Howard
I accept your point. The error appears to be with the FOS, should have made it clear that acceptance had to be unconditional.
report thisleave a comment
Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.