Staff Training for the role of Ombudsman

The request was partially successful.

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,
I want to know precise training requirements for the role of Ombudsman. Can you help please?
Yours faithfully,

D. Speers

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

Dear D Speers

Thank you for your email and request for information. We'll respond to you by 31 May 2016.

Yours sincerely

Information Rights Officer

Financial Ombudsman Service
PO Box 73208|London|E14 1QQ
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Information Rights Officer,
Thank you for your acknowledgement and I shall lodge a separate FOI request shortly

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

2 Attachments

Dear D Speers

Please find enclosed our response to your request.

Yours sincerely

Information Rights Officer
Financial Ombudsman Service
PO Box 73208 | London | E14 1QQ
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Information Rights Officer,

Thank you for the info , I appreciate your time!
Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Dear Information Rights Officer,
Thank you again for your prompt response.
May I seek further clarification please, I was looking for technical Expertise training aka 'The Role of The Ombudsman.
Happy to wait for an Independent Review as per FOI Guidance if necessary!
Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Anyone can follow this FOI request ......just click in right near top and email updates can be sent!

Information Rights Officer, Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

2 Attachments

Dear D Speers

Please find enclosed our response to your request.

Yours sincerely

Information Rights Officer
Financial Ombudsman Service
PO Box 73208 | London | E14 1QQ
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Clicking 'Partially successful ' but may make another FOI request!

navartne left an annotation ()

Slide 7 of 15 of the training document : "Impartiality - avoiding bias (or appearance of bias) or pre-judging the outcome." - I've experienced both of these with the FOS.

The document also says the ombudsman CAN be challenged on rules of natural justice. Perhaps adjudicators cannot be challenged?. Surely, the same rules apply both to adjudicators AND ombudsman?

For more on this rather cosy relationship (I don't mean just between ombudsman and adjudicator), see:

http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/08/19/regu...

See the comment and reaction:

"You will never get justice until you have a separation of powers. In the case of FOS this would mean a right of appeal to the courts. At a stroke FOS will be dragged into the rules of natural justice, precedent - both binding i.e. from a higher court or persuasive from a lower court. Rules of evidence would need to apply and hearsay would not be accepted. FOS would then need to have an eye to the rejection by the courts of their decisions on appeal. This is of course the reason why FOS would fight to retain their lack of appeal procedure for the adviser but are happy to keep it for the client. The system is wrong, unjust and bias towards the consumer. If one is ever asked to justify fees - ask what fee one needs to command in order to compensate for the exclusion of advisers rights to natural justice?"

D. Speers left an annotation ()

VERY Interesting thank you Navertne !

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Sorry Navartne not Navertne (typo alert)

Sylvia Rushbrooke left an annotation ()

responsible for their own decisions

In my experience they also do not ensure compliance of the MCA 2005 when that is part of the complaint

They also tell me they are not obliged to share any evidence that they have used to come to s decision therefore one has no idea if indeed any evidence that is substantive and not or just a statement by the authority complained of - so we hsve no idea how the decision has been made and even when evidencing breaches of Acts these are ignored - It is paramount that we all know what evidence is relied on that the LGO make their decisions on and all are supposed to have regard to the MCA 2005 where a person lacks capacity etc if it has been proven that the MCA 2005 and others have been ignored in dealings with service users then the LGO should find accordingly - they do not ...and in not doing so give authorities carte Blanche to ignore rights and do the same repeatedly to all - I also do not find them impartial or objective if they were they would have regard for such abuse of such acts that cause harm and misery that has often dragged on for years - this s evident if the history of cases where persons who lacked capacity or were ill died before deliberations or remedy - the LGO also do not act on authorities who could have remedied at the time and did not forcing people tp go to the LGO when no need if compliance was the norm

D. Speers left an annotation ()

I have a feeling all regulators etc are there to deny, defend and delay (Then not investigate as your cop;aint is deemed ' Historic' )Your MP is only one with Power to change anything and I suggest you make them accountable If it helps this clearly has never been fixed http://www.parliament.uk/business/commit... so given Parliaments findings how are we meant to ever achieve justice? Is there any point going to LGO as I believe Her service is dire too?

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org