FSO oral hearing query.

P

Pizzaman

Registered User
Messages
1
A close friend of mine made a complaint to the FSO about a financial institution. He initially did this through a solicitor as he is very quiet , no confidence and under a lot of stress. He felt that a solicitor would represent him better. Now he has been summoned to an oral hearing between the two parties and his solicitor has said that she can only represent him if she has a barrister present. This will cost him in the region of 12k+ for both. He cannot afford to pay this as (a) no guarantee they will find in his favor and (b) even if they do, the legal fees are still too much for him.
Does anyone know if....
(a) he needs a barrister to be present or would a solicitor alone suffice?
(b) can he go it alone or would the bank in question run rings around him.
(c) any suggestions as to who can represent him
As i said, he is very quiet and stressed, I know he would like a bit of support at this as he feels the bank in question will have a big legal team on their side.
Thanks.
 
There is no reason at all for the solicitor to insist that a barrister be present. The solicitor should be able to represent him.

I don't think that the Ombudsman would allow the bank to run rings around him. Here are the FSO's [broken link removed]

8 The Ombudsman will conduct the oral hearing in private and as informally as is practicable.

15. In summary at a hearing you will be entitled and will be given the chance to:
  • speak
  • to have someone speak on your behalf
  • give evidence and have witnesses give evidence on your behalf
  • cross-examine/question witnesses about what they have said at the hearing
  • cross-examine/question any witness about any Report/ Document they have produced in connection with the case.
Check directly with the FSO's office. Perhaps they will allow a friend, other than the solicitor, to speak on the complainant's behalf.



Brendan
 
That an oral hearing has been called suggests strongly that there is a material difference in the facts as outlined by the parties, and the documentation is insufficient to resolve this difference. Therefore, the oral hearing will provide for sworn evidence for the purpose of resolving these differences to allow the FSO adjudicate on the complaint. In preparing for the hearing it would be important to consider the points which Brendan outlines and to ensure that you are well prepared. In particular, there is a skill to questioning witnesses and where there are material differences in evidence this skill is very important.
 
Hi Pizzaman
Is this case investment related or lending related? I agree with the above commentary but it is simply impossible to state what is right for your friend without knowing the full details, it does appear to me that if your friend's sol is requiring a barrister to be present it may indeed be necessary but with very limited info it is impossible to state. If it relates to lending or terms and conditions relating to lending then i would be more than willing to help in any way i can. I would need to review the full case to establish what is the best approach in terms of representation but i will be able to tell you if your solicitor is correct or just needs the added support of a Barrister for her own reasons. Oral hearings in the main are not commonplace so as Brendan has stated there must be some conflicting evidence in the case that requires the hearing to allow the FSOB establish for themselves what the correct position is before adjudicating on the case. Padraic
 
Pizzaman;
FSO appears to lean heavily on actual documentation.
Be aware of what documentation you hold .
Be aware of what documentation your adversary holds.
Be aware of where the conflict lies.

Stay on the facts of the documentation.

If you hold any independent evidence eg a 3rd party that was present when the complained of act took place ,bring that/him.

At hearing do not get dragged into other issues.
At hearing do not agree with anything the adversary says Unless it is 100% relevant and 100% factual.

I would expect the Fso officer to be fair , but ?

And good luck and keep us posted.
 
Some interesting insights into the practices at oral hearings from Bill Prasifka's evidence to the Oireachtas Finance Committee in March 2014


[Mr. William Prasifka:] we hold more oral hearings now than we ever have because of legal direction. I believe we will continue to do that. The oral hearings have a high degree of formality. What do we do to balance it?It is very simple. There was an oral hearing a few weeks ago at which an individual represented himself against a provider that had a full legal team. In these circumstances the burden falls on me, as ombudsman, to cross-examine the witnesses for the provider. We tried to make it as sympathetic a setting as possible and I was there to hear what the complainant had to say and ensure the questioning by the provider was fair. It was my job to bring out what evidence I thought should come from the complainant, as well as to cross-examine the bank's providers. Obviously, my role is quite different in circumstances where both parties are legally represented.


I am seriously concerned about moving to an ombudsman scheme under which there will be more oral hearings. By comparison, my counterparts in the United Kingdom, for example, do not have oral hearings of the same kind. When one reaches that level of formality, there is an imbalance; therefore, we must become more proactive during the actual hearing and process. For example, we had one case in which the complainants had great difficulty, were in substantial financial distress and inexperienced, but they were also deaf. We brought in sign language interpreters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top