Former adjudicator accuses Fos of ‘labelling’ firms

A former Financial Ombudsman Service adjudicator has accused the body of “labelling” an IFA firm such as to create an “automatic bias”, and has claimed that the practice “absolutely still goes on” with particular firms.

The comments were made by Jane Sanders, who was a Fos adjudicator in 2008 before she left the organisation as part of a redundancy programme, and relate to Twickenham-based IFA Paolo Standerwick, director of MLP Ltd.

Mr Standerwick has written a letter to Fos chief executive Natalie Ceeney based on conversations with Ms Sanders, complaining that the service has pre-judged cases against his firm.

In the letter Mr Standerwick says he has “particular concerns” with the Fos’ “dealings of fairness” with his firm, citing a recording of a telephone call in 2008, which FTAdviser has heard, during which Ms Sanders says his firm has been “labelled” as he can be “aggressive”.

Mr Standerwick told FTAdviser that he has sent the transcripts of conversations with Ms Sanders to his MP, Ms Ceeney and fellow IFAs.

A spokesperson for Fos said that it does not “recognise or agree with” the accusations, adding that IFAs “have a good-track record with us”.

In the letter Mr Standerwick writes: “ In the 2008 recordings, your then Fos adjudicator made it very clear that my firm had been labelled. The case was eventually overturned.

“The re-appointed adjudicator... also refused to answer specific questions which I had put to him. Something I was subsequently told was perfectly valid and reasonable.”

Ms Sanders told FTAdviser that adjudicators will often “mark the case up” with what should be impartial comments, but in Mr Standerwick’s case the comments created an “automatic bias”.

She said: “In this particular case, I distinctly recall there were comments on there about him being aggressive as he was questioning the adjudicator about their qualifications and to not call him for those reasons. In my mind, this creates an automatic bias.”

Ms Sanders claims that this practice still “absolutely goes on”.

She said: “I have seen firms that have had a bunch of claims get grouped together and will go to the same team. This could been seen as a continuation of adjudications or it could be seen as segregating particular firms for different treatments.”

Mr Standerwick goes on to claim in the letter to Ms Ceeney that he has found himself in a similar situation with another recent case, accusing the the adjudicator in question of pre-judging the case before he had made a submission on behalf of his firm.

Mr Standerwick writes: “He [the adjudicator] clearly told me over the telephone that I should never have assisted to transfer a case from a final salary scheme.

“I then wrote to you personally with my comprehensive submission asking you to appoint another adjudicator as I had little confidence in this specific adjudicator and his ability to deal with such as case.