The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has sought to refute claims that it has been guilty of unsound and unreasonable findings and that it has protected responsible entities to the detriment of investors.
The chief ombudsman, Shane Tregillis has written to Money Management seeking to rebut the claims contained in a letter to South Australian Senator, David Fawcett, chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, by Russell James Keeling, chairman of the Victims of FOS Committee.
Tregillis has defended the record of the FOS, saying that contrary to the claims made in Keeling’s letter the Ombudsman Service was accountable for the decisions it made.
He particularly rebutted suggestions that applicants had no right of appeal if they did not accept a FOS determination.
“While FOS decisions are binding on the financial services provider, applicants retain the rights they would otherwise have to pursue their dispute in the courts,” he said.
“Contrary to claims made in the article, FOS is accountable. FOS is approved by ASIC and a condition of ASIC approval is that an independent review of FOS is undertaken periodically,” Tregillis said.
Pointing to the latest review of FOS, he said that while it had highlighted the importance of improving the time taken by FOS to resolve disputes, “the review noted the quality of FOS decision making and robust quality assurance measures that FOS has in place”.
“In response to the review’s findings we are addressing the way we work and considering changes to our Terms of Reference,” the Chief Ombudsman said.
He said that in addition to the recently completed independent review, the role and activities of external dispute resolution schemes had been the subject of a Productivity Commission review into Access to Justice Arrangements, the Senate Economic Reference committee Inquiry into the Performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Financial Systems Inquiry.
