header-logo header-logo

Common sense prevails

04 April 2014 / Adam Edwards
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail
web_edwards

FOS awards cannot be used as a springboard for litigation, says Adam Edwards

The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s decision that the doctrine of merger does not apply to final decisions of the Final Ombudsman Service (FOS). This means that once claimants accept a FOS final determination, it is final and binding such that they cannot pursue civil proceedings for losses over and above the current £150,000 redress limit of FOS jurisdiction.

Complaint

Mr and Mrs Clark (the Clarks) originally raised a complaint through FOS against In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd (In Focus). It was alleged that In Focus had provided poor investment advice, which had caused the Clarks to suffer losses of over £500,000.

FOS upheld the Clarks’s complaint in January 2010. FOS awarded the maximum redress amount within its jurisdiction (£100,000 at that time, now increased to £150,000). In accordance with the statutory regime governing the FOS process, the decision was given as “final and binding” on the parties and FOS also made a recommendation that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll