An adviser who complained to a senior manager at the Financial Ombudsman Service over the way in which a complaint against him had been handled was "left reeling" to discover that the manager had simply passed it back to the original investigator to deal with.
Julian Pruggmayer, principal of Financial Risk Management, had expressed serious concerns over the way in which a former client had withheld information from both him and the providers involved in a complaint against him.
However, he said the way in which Fos has since communicated with him, after he raised concerns about the basis on which the original complaint had been upheld, felt "dismissive" and that his "genuine concerns over misinformation" had been "ignored".
Last year, a complainant had claimed that Pruggmayer had delayed in getting a basic pension transferred, and the Fos had initially found in their favour and asked Pruggmayer to pay £200 for distress and to reinstate them £1,800 over potential lost income as a result of the delays.
However, while former police officer Pruggmayer said he was prepared to pay the £200, he realised after reading through the Fos decision that "important information had been withheld" from the Fos by the complainant.
I am disappointed not just that this one was upheld, but also by the way in which my complaint has been handled.Julian Pruggmayer, FRMInitially he accepted the decision to just draw a line under the issue, but said the "more he thought about it, the more he was unhappy about the way in which the investigator had handled the complaint", given what he said were "clear discrepancies".
He told FTAdviser he had written to a senior manager at Fos, supplying "hard evidence" to suggest that the complaint had been spurious, and that the complainant had "lied to myself and to the Fos, and withheld material evidence".
According to Pruggmayer, had he been aware of the "untruthful statements and information being withheld it would have altered the outcome of my actions".
He said while he would "accept" the complainant keeping the £200 distress money as a gesture of goodwill, he wanted the complaint stripped from his record, given in all of 30 years that he has been an adviser, he has only had two complaints made against him.
However, the senior manager at Fos passed the complaint back over to the original investigator, rather than acknowledging this as a "service complaint".
In the letter to Pruggmayer, seen by FTAdviser, the original case handler said the senior manager had "looked into the issues you've raised but thinks I'm best placed to respond as they relate to the case itself and not the service provided.
"And our process is to give the investigator the opportunity to put right any misunderstandings before a service complaint is considered.
"[The senior manager] has agreed it’s now too late to re-open the complaint and as I’ve already explained, under the regulator’s DISP rules, you are required to comply promptly as you’ve agreed to the outcome. Therefore, we will not reconsider the complaint."
'Whether the client withheld information wasn't relevant'
The investigator said the reasons for upholding this complaint - about the delays caused when setting up the transfer with the pension provider - still stood.
The investigator added: "Whether or not [the client] withheld information or their recollection of events was inaccurate wasn’t relevant here, as I based my assessment about the delay on the facts."
Pruggmayer said he was "left reeling" that he should have escalated a service complaint to Fos, only for the original investigator to disregard evidence to suggest the client had misled Fos originally.
He said: "I am disappointed not just that this one was upheld, given the hard evidence I supplied to show that important information had been withheld from the Fos by the former client, but also by the way in which my complaint has been handled."
When asked why Pruggmayer's inquiry had been handed back to the original investigator, the spokesperson said: "Normally you would approach the case handler first, then their manager and finally the Independent Assessor – depending on the outcome at the various stages."
Our process is to give the investigator the opportunity to put right any misunderstandings.Fos spokespersonA spokesperson for Fos said: "We make decisions on the facts and evidence available in each case. Written evidence or paperwork from the time is often very helpful, but if it isn’t available, it doesn’t mean we’ll automatically uphold or reject a complaint.
"It is also worth noting that in terms of a lack of information, we would need to consider what is relevant (or not) to the case. If it’s relevant we can explore what information is available elsewhere and draw our own conclusions – based on what is fair and reasonable, and on the balance of probabilities.
"The parties involved in the complaint will have the option to raise an objection following our decision if they disagree with it."
The Fos spokesperson said the process for advisers or companies disputing an outcome was on its website, but said: "In a nutshell, if you’re not happy with our level of service, you should tell us at any point while we’re still handling the case, and within three months of the date on which we give the parties involved our answer to the complaint."
Broadly, the Fos would like to know:
- The aspect of customer service you want to complain about – for example, if you feel that it has caused unnecessary delays, not kept a person updated or communicated with a person inappropriately.
- The details of any communication a person has has with the Fos that relates to their complaint.
- How the individual would like the Fos to put things right.
According to the letter to Pruggmayer, the Fos did said the senior manager was "happy to provide an answer as well," but that the investigator would not be able to reconsider the merits of the case, and "nothing will change in terms of [the senior manager's] responsibility now as you’ve accepted my view".
simoney.kyriakou@ft.com
