Who Regulates the Regulators? The Financial Ombudsman Service

Institute of Economic Affairs Submitter
{"title":"Who Regulates the Regulators? The Financial Ombudsman Service","authors":"Institute of Economic Affairs Submitter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3850606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While not formally a regulator in the strict sense, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) exercises de facto regulatory powers in retail financial services, as its rules and determinations direct the behaviours of firms. While intended to be independent, the FOS has a close relationship with the Financial Conduct Authority. Ombudsmen, however, have considerable discretion to make determinations of complaints brought to them based on what they consider fair and reasonable in the circumstances and are not bound to follow law, regulation, and good industry practice. This has been described as a disapplication of the rule of law. The FOS has expanded its role from resolving complaints to \"preventing detriment\", which seems to overstep its statutory function. The formal expansion of its jurisdiction into small- and medium-sized business complaints and the increase in the limit of the amount of compensation it can award seem likely to further increase the complexity of its cases, calling into question the fairness of decisions and highlighting the need for greater transparency on internal decision-making policies. Increasing complexity and the higher amounts of financial compensation that may be awarded in some cases also suggest that there should be a review of the charging structure for FOS cases. While some form of alternative dispute resolution is necessary for consumers in dispute with financial service providers, there are signs that the way the FOS operates has introduced unfairness and uncertainty for firms. There is evidence of anti-competitive effects in lending and advice markets, and limited evidence of improvements in consumer outcomes in financial services generally. The FCA should undertake an investigation into the effect on competition of the FOS and its decisions. A more formal channel for dispute resolution in financial cases involving small and medium sized businesses (previously recommended by the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons) should be considered.","PeriodicalId":20999,"journal":{"name":"Regulation of Financial Institutions eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation of Financial Institutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While not formally a regulator in the strict sense, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) exercises de facto regulatory powers in retail financial services, as its rules and determinations direct the behaviours of firms. While intended to be independent, the FOS has a close relationship with the Financial Conduct Authority. Ombudsmen, however, have considerable discretion to make determinations of complaints brought to them based on what they consider fair and reasonable in the circumstances and are not bound to follow law, regulation, and good industry practice. This has been described as a disapplication of the rule of law. The FOS has expanded its role from resolving complaints to "preventing detriment", which seems to overstep its statutory function. The formal expansion of its jurisdiction into small- and medium-sized business complaints and the increase in the limit of the amount of compensation it can award seem likely to further increase the complexity of its cases, calling into question the fairness of decisions and highlighting the need for greater transparency on internal decision-making policies. Increasing complexity and the higher amounts of financial compensation that may be awarded in some cases also suggest that there should be a review of the charging structure for FOS cases. While some form of alternative dispute resolution is necessary for consumers in dispute with financial service providers, there are signs that the way the FOS operates has introduced unfairness and uncertainty for firms. There is evidence of anti-competitive effects in lending and advice markets, and limited evidence of improvements in consumer outcomes in financial services generally. The FCA should undertake an investigation into the effect on competition of the FOS and its decisions. A more formal channel for dispute resolution in financial cases involving small and medium sized businesses (previously recommended by the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons) should be considered.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁监管监管者?金融申诉专员服务
虽然不是严格意义上的正式监管机构,但金融申诉专员服务(FOS)在零售金融服务中行使事实上的监管权力,因为其规则和决定指导了公司的行为。虽然FOS意在保持独立,但它与英国金融市场行为监管局(Financial Conduct Authority)关系密切。然而,申诉专员有相当大的自由裁量权,可根据他们认为在有关情况下公平和合理的做法,对向他们提出的投诉作出决定,而无须遵守法律、规例和良好的行业惯例。这被描述为对法治的不适用。FOS已将其职责从解决投诉扩展到“防止损害”,这似乎超出了其法定职能。将其管辖权正式扩大到中小型企业的投诉,并提高其可给予的赔偿数额的限制,似乎可能进一步增加其案件的复杂性,使人怀疑决定的公正性,并突出表明需要提高内部决策政策的透明度。日益复杂的情况和在某些情况下可能给予较高数额的经济赔偿也表明,应该审查FOS案件的收费结构。虽然对于与金融服务提供商发生纠纷的消费者来说,某种形式的替代性纠纷解决是必要的,但有迹象表明,FOS的运作方式给公司带来了不公平和不确定性。有证据表明,贷款和咨询市场存在反竞争效应,而总体而言,金融服务领域的消费者结果得到改善的证据有限。FCA应该对FOS及其决定对竞争的影响进行调查。在涉及中小企业的金融案件中,应考虑建立一个更正式的纠纷解决渠道(此前由下议院财政委员会建议)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Did FinTech Lenders Facilitate PPP Fraud? Financial Reform and Public Good Provision: Municipal Bankruptcy Law and the Financing of Hospitals How Do Acquisitions Affect the Mental Health of Employees? Anti-Discrimination Insurance Pricing: Regulations, Fairness Criteria, and Models The Unintended Benefits of Increased Disclosure Frequency: Evidence from the Brokerage House Industry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1