"Whilst all the correct boxes may have been ticked when a case was being processed, it doesn’t necessarily mean that a correct case decision was then made."
FOS agreed to review cases made during the early stages of its reorganisation in 2016 as part of a review carried out earlier this year in the wake of a Dispatches programme.
The documentary raised concerns that some of its staff were not behaving appropriately, particularly around the way in which complicated casework is being done and how the FOS organises its people.
Consumer rights champion, Richard Lloyd - who led the review - noted "legitimate frustrations" about the speed with which the FOS resolves disputes and concerns about the quality of some casework.
Lloyd added there "remain critical risks to the quality of the service’s work, including people, leadership, technology and costs", and noted that a "number of experienced staff are disengaged".
Following this review, the first stage of the ombudsman's plans will comprise a sample review exercise to check against the relevant controls and standards, which will be undertaken by Deloitte.
The second stage will comprise a further review of any case found not to have been handled in accordance with the FOS’ controls and standards to examine the outcome, which will be undertaken by Carol Brady MBE.
However Nicky Morgan has written to Caroline Wayman, chief executive of the FOS, to express the Committee’s concerns about the review.
She said: “Many people have contacted the Committee with concerns that the FOS has failed to act with due diligence in their cases. To ensure that the public can have full confidence in the FOS’ review, and the FOS itself, it must properly asses case outcomes, as well as process.
“In its current form, the review places too much emphasis on process. Whilst all the correct boxes may have been ticked when a case was being processed, it doesn’t necessarily mean that a correct case decision was then made.
“It’s also concerning that cases will be tested against the ‘Wednesbury reasonable test’, that is, the ombudsman’s decision would have to be considered irrational as well as unreasonable. This is an extremely high bar as decisions can be poor without necessarily being Wednesbury unreasonable.
“In its current form, the review will do little to help restore public confidence in the FOS.”
