Dissagree, I had one that was appealed. On the first mention in the Court there was literally dozens of cases in for appeal by Financial Providers. The effected party is normally involved as a Notice Party, so your relation will have to use a Solicitor and a decent Barrister.They are very rarely appealed.
If it is appealed, it will be a matter between the Financial Institution and the Ombudsman. You won't have any part in it.
But if they are not 'directly' involved in the case why would they need to hire a barrister? There are very few people that can afford the fees for the High Court in any case.The effected party is normally involved as a Notice Party, so your relation will have to use a Solicitor and a decent Barrister.
I would guess that the Financial Services providers would only challenge a case if it was for a very large amount of money or if it set a precedent.Incidentally by 31 December 2008, only 0.2% of my findings - 8 by Financial Service providers and 16 by
complainants - have been appealed and out of 14 appeals closed at that date, only 2 judgments were
There will probably be a change in the law but when is the ultimate question. The strangest thing is that the Financial Ombudsman's bureau is funded by subscriptions from the Financial Providers.Cost of doing so effectively prevents appeals? Or is a more sensible avenue of appeal currently being considered?
Hi mercmanThe strangest thing is that the Financial Ombudsman's bureau is funded by subscriptions from the Financial Providers.
Yes agreed. But in the process of the legal system, the interpretation of the law can only be determined by the judiciary. This is why they source test cases which are frequently referred to.To the best of my knowledge, no decision has yet been overturned on the fairness of the decsion. However, most appeals have been about the interpretation of the law, rather than the substance of the decision.