Why are the Ombudsman still allowing the "legitimate exercise of commercial " judgement objection

Waiting for an internal review by Financial Ombudsman Service Limited of their handling of this request.

scrupulous Landlord

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,

Why are Ombudsman still allowing the "commercial judgement" objection?

DISP 3.3.4(11) states that a complaint could have be dismissed on the basis that "it is a complaint about the legitimate exercise of a respondent's commercial judgement; or"

As the index number implies, this is one of a long list of objections that a respondent (the business) could rely upon. However, DISP 3.3.4 clearly states that this rule, and several other rules, were withdrawn on 9 July 2015. Therefore , ANY determination made by an FOS Ombudsman which relies upon that rule on or after 9 July 2015 will be defective in parts.

I am quoting from a similar request which includes the following text.

" Nonetheless, many (700+) published Ombudsman decisions after 1 January 2017 dismissing the complaint indicate that weight, in many cases very significant weight, is given to a commercial decision/judgment of the respondent. For instance, decisions using wording such as the adjudicator/ombudsman “cannot interfere with the way a financial institution exercises it commercial judgement” or that the adjudicator/ombudsman is “reluctant to interfere with a commercial decision” of the financial institution."

Puting aside the difficulties, or not, of verifying the 700+ figure, one of the reasons I rejected the FOS's Final Decision is it appeared to rely entirely on a defective legal opinion which referred to this out of date rule.

This single defect my not invalidated the Ombudsman's decision but the fact that I this error was not picked up by all of the people who have claimed to have reviewed my compliant is evidence of a systemic failure so rules DISP 1.3.3 and DISP 1.3.6 come into effect.

The FOS' objection to anonymous FOIA requests submitted via WDTK is just another example of a systemic failure in the FOS internal complaints and review processes.

Yours faithfully,

scrupulous Landlord

scrupulous Landlord

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,

This may be considered one of my core reasons for using the WDTK website because I thought my case was very unusual but it appears it is not.

I have no direct evidence if the 700+ figure quoted by another requester is correct or not but it is consistent with the volume of complaints processed by the FOS in the timescale specified.

Yours faithfully,

scrupulous Landlord

scrupulous Landlord

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Financial Ombudsman Service Limited's handling of my FOI request 'Why are the Ombudsman still allowing the "legitimate exercise of commercial " judgement objection'.

Further to the response I received on 6 February 2020 regarding my request below, I am stating that I do not agree that you have demonstrated compliance with Sections 8, 12, 14, 16 or 17 of the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, you cannot refuse to respond to my requests for an internal review of this long overdue request.

The request you replied to was to clarify if Caroline Wayman, the Chief executive Officer and Chief Ombudsman of the FOS, made a mistake when she omitted reference to the complaint I made to the FOS regarding fraud in her letter to my MP.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

The guidelines issued by the Information Commissioners Office are quite clear, a public authority cannot classify a person as vexatious to justify failing to comply with an individual's indefeasible right to make requests for information. Each request must be judged on its individual merits.

The 'serious purpose' of this request is similar to several others and I do not apologise for rephrasing the some question in several ways because it highlights there are systemic failures in the FOS change management processes.

In the short term, at least identify which one of the FOI references you have listed applies to this request?

The references you listed in your response dated 6 February 2020 were 3808, 3810, 3818-3823, 3828-3831 and 3863.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

scrupulous Landlord

scrupulous Landlord

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,

I have noted that some Ombudsman correctly do not allow this objection

Yours faithfully,

scrupulous Landlord

scrupulous Landlord

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,

This issue is one example where the FCA handbook was revised as a result of EU intervention under the UK interpretation of the EU ADR regulations which are based on English common law principles.

There is no need to change the GDPR, what is required is for the FOS and to follow the common law principles and apply common sense.

Yours faithfully,

scrupulous Landlord

scrupulous Landlord

Dear Financial Ombudsman Service Limited,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Financial Ombudsman Service Limited's handling of my FOI request 'Why are the Ombudsman still allowing the "legitimate exercise of commercial "judgment objection'.

I have now been able to come up with a reasonable estimate for the number of times "commercial judgement" was cited in a Final Decision since 9 July 2105 when the rule was withdrawn and it is a significant number. Therefore, it is in the public interest to at least state the number of times this invalid rule was relied upon to dismiss a complaint.

I know you hold the data but you do not publish it so this request could be rephrased as:

Please provide an estimate of the number of times "commercial Judgement" was relied upon to not uphold a complaint since 9 July 2015.

I will follow up on this request using my personal email address.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

scrupulous Landlord