Independent assessors review and opinion dated 10/07/2013.

The request was refused by Financial Ombudsman Service Limited.

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,

Please disclose the Independent assessors review and opinion sent to the FOS dated 10/07/2013.

Yours faithfully,

c factory

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

Dear Requestor

I am emailing to confirm receipt of your request for information. We will shortly begin considering your request and you can expect to hear back from us by 14 November.

Yours sincerely
Information rights officer
Policy department
SQP2, 183 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9SR
Email: [Financial Ombudsman Service request email]

show quoted sections

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Requestor

Please find our response attached.

Yours sincerely
Information rights officer
Policy department
SQP2, 183 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9SR
Email: [Financial Ombudsman Service request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Information Rights Officer,

Please confirm the following is the independent assessors review and opinion dated 10/07/2013. Please also perform an internal review of your response, pointing out the specific pieces of personal information belonging to the complainant in the quoted independent assessors review and opinion dated 10/07/2013.

10 July 2013
Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman Service: case 11794709
You know that I am appointed by the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service to review complaints of poor service. I confirmed to you the service complaints that I would be looking at and I have now examined the Ombudsman Service's case file.
This is my review and conclusions: Background:
You submitted your complaint to the Ombudsman Service on 11 June 2012 by email and it opened the case for investigation on 14 June. On 30 June you asked for a copy of the financial businesses file. The case was allocated to an Adjudicator on 6 July who wrote to you and explained he would be able to send you the material evidence once he had concluded the investigation.
The same day you raised a complaint as the file had not been sent and an earlier request for a letter had not been dealt with, in your view, quickly enough. A Team Manager responded on 9 July. You sent a letter for a senior manager on 23 July. A Head of Casework responded to your service complaint on 21 August.
On 22 August the Head of Casework said the Adjudicator would be able to send you, by secure message, copies of the documentation which had been material to his consideration.
On 24 September the previous Independent Assessor sent you her review of your service complaint.
On 28 September the Adjudicator sent his assessment and said he had sent the evidence that was material to your address by recorded delivery for security purposes.
On 3 October you asked the Adjudicator to also email you the case file. I can see the Ombudsman Service and previous Independent Assessor had explained that neither

party is entitled to see the full complaint file which includes the financial business's file. The Adjudicator replied the following day and explained he had sent the material evidence by recorded delivery and he could see delivery had been attempted on 29 September. He helpfully explained you could visit the East Manchester delivery office to collect it.
On 21 October you emailed again asking for the status of the case file disclosure. The Adjudicator referred you to his previous email, presumably because nothing had changed from his earlier answer.
On 23 October the documents were returned to the Ombudsman Service as they had not been collected. The same day you emailed and asked when the file would arrive. I note you had not told the Ombudsman Service you would not be able to receive or collect the documents.
The Adjudicator responded on 25 October and said he could not send the documents electronically for security reasons but could resend them by recorded delivery if you would be available to receive them. You did not reply and the Adjudicator followed this up on 1 November explaining he would resend the documents by recorded delivery on 8 November if he did not hear from you. You replied and said you would be available on Sundays as you rarely work on that day and would know well in advance if you were.
The Adjudicator told you on 5 November that the post office does not deliver on a Sunday but pointed out if the delivery took place when you were not available you would be able to collect it from your local delivery office which I thought was helpful. You thought the Adjudicator was making unreasonable demands, dictating to you and forcing you to jump through hoops. The Adjudicator let you know he was not trying to make things difficult but ensure your details were kept safe. He let you know he was looking into the possibility of having your documents delivered on a Sunday by some other means. On 13 November he confirmed a Sunday delivery would not be possible and that he would be sending the documents again by recorded delivery.
The Adjudicator followed the delivery online and emailed you on 20 November to let you know delivery had been attempted on 15 November and was being held at the East Manchester delivery office. He also let you know you could rearrange delivery online. On 11 December the documents were returned to the Ombudsman Service as they had not been collected.
On 23 December you made a service complaint as you thought the Adjudicator was providing unfair treatment and discrimination. His Team Manager replied on 9 January 2013 and told you the Ombudsman Service will accommodate requests for certain forms of communication but it may not always be possible.
On 14 January you asked for your concerns to be passed to a senior manager. A Head of Casework replied on 11 February. She explained the Ombudsman Service does try to fulfil any preferred methods of communication where it can, but it is not always possible. She thought the Adjudicator had explained the reason why to you.

On 14 February you sent a list of alternative ways to send the material evidence that would be suitable for you. One of the options was to send the documents encrypted by email and post you the password. The Ombudsman Service let you know it was looking into your requests.
On 8 March an Executive Assistant emailed you the documents by encrypting the information and sent you a password separately to your postal address. She let you know that was not something the Ombudsman Service would normally do and would not be able to do it regularly due to IT resources.
You asked that everything be sent by email in future. On 19 March the Executive Assistant let you know it could not guarantee all documents would be sent as standard attachments in a PGP message and that its decision would depend on the circumstances and documents and would be made on an ad hoc basis.

* You complained that the Ombudsman Service has refused to send you material documents by secure email and reneged on an earlier promise by the Head of Casework to do so.
I agree that the Ombudsman Service changed its mind after the Head of Casework told you the Adjudicator would be able to send the information by secure message. The Ombudsman Service has explained it does try to accommodate communication preferences but I do not think it is required to send information in a certain format just because it may have done before or because it has been requested. I was pleased to see when the Ombudsman Service decided it was going to send the documents by recorded delivery instead of secure email the Adjudicator let you know and explained the reason for the decision.

* That the reasons given by the Ombudsman service for not sending the material information by secure email were, in your view, unreasonable. You think recorded delivery provides no more security than standard post.
The Ombudsman Service explained the reason for not sending the material information by secure mail was due to security and to get your information safe. As the information sent contained details specific to your complaint I do not think the reasons given were unreasonable.
Recorded delivery means the Ombudsman Service can trace the document and confirm who has signed for delivery. If you are not in when the post is delivered you can collect it from a local office and this usually requires you to present identification. I think that makes recorded delivery more secure than standard post.

* You noted that the Ombudsman Service has sent you over 60 emails- including emails from the Operations Director so it must be happy with this method.
The Ombudsman Service has not told you that it will not correspond by email on this case so it seems happy to use this method for general correspondence. However, email may not be the most suitable method in all circumstances and the Ombudsman Service explained to you why it would not send the material information by PGP secure message on this case.

* You complained that the Ombudsman Service was downright rude by demanding that you must be in a certain location for a number of hours, if not the whole day to take delivery from the Ombudsman's supplier. You complained that it is inconvenient, constitutes an unwelcome intrusion, fails to take into account lifestyle needs and is unnecessary.
I cannot see that the Ombudsman Service demanded you stay in to take delivery of the documents. On the two occasions delivery was attempted by the Royal Mail it was not successful so I assume you had not stayed in on those days to take delivery. After the first attempt the Adjudicator let you know you could collect the documents yourself from the sorting office. That means you could have arranged collection at a time that was convenient to you. You did not let the Ombudsman Service know there was any reason why you could not arrange to collect the item yourself so there was no reason for it to think this was not a suitable option.

* You noted that the Head of Casework's excuse of not commenting on other cases contradicts the Head of Casework Operation's previous explanation that the Ombudsman Service can comment generally on other cases.
The Ombudsman Service has explained that it will comment generally on other cases if they think it is necessary or relevant and it is sure someone else's personal data is not disclosed. In my view the Ombudsman Service had provided you with its reason not to send the documents as you wanted which I think was sufficient. As each case is dealt with on its own circumstances and merits, in my view, it is not always useful to comment on other cases either specifically or generally.

* You noted that the Head of Casework refused to reply after responding to your complaint and you had to deal with the Executive Assistant. You think your complaint has been side stepped either by refusal or staffing issues.
Part of an Executive Assistant's role is to assist senior managers with service complaints and this can include any follow up correspondence. I cannot see that the Head of Casework refused to reply and the Executive Assistant let you know she had been asked to acknowledge your email on the Head of Casework's behalf. I also do not think your complaint was side-stepped as the Executive Assistant responded to your request for alternative options.

* You noted that the disclosure was only securely sent by email on 9 March 2013 after the Ombudsman Service had exhausted its unreasonable excuses.
It appears to me the documents were sent after the Ombudsman Service had considered your suggested alternatives. Your suggestions were made on 14 February and the Ombudsman Service sent you the documents by encrypted email on 8 March, just over 3 weeks later. This does not seem unreasonable as the Ombudsman Service first had to consider the suggested alternatives and then make the necessary arrangements to get the documents sent.

* You think that different departments operate almost autonomously when sending disclosure.
In a way I think you are right about that. The Ombudsman Service explains that it looks at each case individually depending on the circumstances and what might work or be right in one case might not be appropriate in another. It is at the Ombudsman Service's discretion how it chooses to disclose documents on each case so there will be a certain degree of autonomy rather than a rigid, set process.

OPINION

There is no dispute that the Ombudsman Service chose not to send you documents by PGP secure message in line with your preference. I am satisfied the Ombudsman Service was not required to do so.

I have considered whether their actions prevented a fair process. In this case I am satisfied the alternative of sending the documents by recorded delivery was a reasonable one and there was nothing to indicate you would be prevented from either taking delivery of the item or arranging collection at a later date.

When you provided suggested alternatives I am satisfied the Ombudsman Service gave this fair consideration and sent you the documents in a reasonable timeframe. It also considered the additional comments you made on your case following receipt of the documents and gave you the option of referring your case to an Ombudsman. I am therefore satisfied fair process was not prevented.

It appears to me that you like consistency and it can be difficult for some people to get used to the Ombudsman Service's approach as it will depend on the individual circumstances. I was pleased to see the Ombudsman Service has let you know that it can not guarantee all documents will be sent by PGP secure message and it cannot guarantee it will be able to send documents by encrypted email with a separate password in future. Although you may not find this agreeable I think this was helpful as it shows the Ombudsman Service does not necessarily set a precedent by its actions.

Yours sincerely

Ms Amerdeep Somal
Independent Assessor

Yours sincerely,

c factory

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

Dear Requestor

I am emailing to confirm receipt of your request for an internal review. We will be back in touch with our response by 6 December at the latest.

Yours sincerely
Information rights officer
Policy department
SQP2, 183 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9SR
Email: [Financial Ombudsman Service request email]

show quoted sections

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

1 Attachment

Dear 'C Factory'

Please find our response to your request for an internal review of FOI 588 attached.

Yours sincerely

Information Rights Officer| Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza | 183 Marsh Wall | London | E14 9SR
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Information Rights Officer,

Thank you for recommending the information commissioner as the next step if I am not happy with your FOI response & review. The ICO advise is that PA's must be given a change to deal with everything before it will consider investigating.
You said you will not create new information yet in FOI 551, the FOS created such as you generated and signed a new PGP key pair id 0xF12FE197 on 11/10/2013 which did not previously exist.
The FOS was not obliged to create it so should use this exemption consistently.
Please also have management address the level of service provided as per http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/pu... subject to the provision of conflicting information and treating service users unfairly.

Yours sincerely,

c factory

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,

Please update me with the status of my 13/12/13 request.

Yours faithfully,

c factory

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

Dear Requestor

I am emailing to confirm receipt of your below email. We will be back in touch shortly.

Yours sincerely
Information rights officer
Policy department
SQP2, 183 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9SR
Email: [Financial Ombudsman Service request email]

show quoted sections

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Requestor

Please find our response to your email of 13 December 2013 attached.

Yours sincerely
Information rights officer
Policy department
SQP2, 183 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9SR
Email: [Financial Ombudsman Service request email]

show quoted sections

c factory left an annotation ()

ICO Case Reference Number FS50530607.