The Financial Planning Association (FPA) is surveying members about their claims experience with the Financial Ombudsman Services (FOS) as part of a submission into the operations of FOS.
It will also suggest that FOS considers forcing claimants who bring vexatious claims to pay their own costs in the event that FOS decides against them and in favour of the planner.
FOS is currently undergoing an independent review by Cameronralph Navigator, which was earmarked three years ago when the service was set up after the amalgamation of a number of external dispute resolution schemes.
The review will assess FOS' operations and procedures against the benchmarks of accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness set by set by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
As part of its review, Cameronralph Navigator has asked for submissions from stakeholders with the FPA, using the survey as the base of its submission.
The online survey includes questions around the provision of information regarding a FOS compliant, the provision of information about the processing of a complaint, the timeliness and length of FOS' response to a complaint, and the consistency of FOS in resolving disputes.
FPA general manager for policy and conduct Dante De Gori said the survey would go out to all FPA members, as the association did not have data as to how many members had dealt with FOS. The survey is open for two weeks until this coming Monday, 7 October.
De Gori said the FPA often heard concerns about FOS from members that centred on transparency and consistency. However it wanted to move from anecdotal feedback to statistical evidence and on to further discussions with the dispute resolution service.
"To the credit of FOS, they have spoken with us about the feedback we have received and their interaction with our members, and they are looking to engage more with industry members," De Gori said.
"The survey is aimed at getting data on the issues of transparency and consistency as well as looking at how the global financial crisis impacted the complaints process and experience, and how the planner sector can learn from that process."
De Gori stressed the FPA was not looking for a way to criticise FOS but wanted to improve the relationship it had with financial planners, and to ensure it was as good as it could be for consumers and financial planners.
He said that FOS had a no-cost basis for consumers. This meant that planners were sometimes being unfairly penalised for claims that should not proceed with, and the FPA would suggest that in the event that a claim was clearly vexatious the claimant instead would pay costs if the case was decided for the planner.
