Tackling barriers: The Protection Gap

AMI Senior Policy Adviser Stacy Penn discusses the Perception Gap in the protection market, in this article originally published in Moneyfacts…

The FCA in the insurance space – a more assertive regulator?

Following introduction of Consumer Duty, we have seen signs the FCA is shifting towards becoming a more assertive regulator…

The Perception Gap

AMI Senior Policy Adviser Stacy Penn discusses the findings from AMI’s latest Protection Viewpoint – The Perception Gap, in this article written for TMA Club…

Consumer Duty: The next steps – what does 2024 have in store?

On 6th December 2023, the FCA hosted a webinar titled Consumer Duty: The next steps – we draw out the key points of relevance to mortgage intermediary firms…

Your January update from AMI Chief Executive Robert Sinclair

AMI Chief Executive Robert Sinclair gives his January update, reflecting on the challenges and opportunities of the year ahead…

Deadline reminder for approvers of financial promotions for unauthorised persons

An important update from the FCA on the 6th February deadline for approving financial promotions for unauthorised persons…

Edit Content

Log in here for full access to all our great content


Please log in below with your username (which is your email address), using all lower-case letters.


Forgotten your password?
No problem, simply tell us you have forgotten your password to receive instructions instantly via email.

Having problems logging in?
If you are a current member but are unable to login, please first make sure you are using all lower-case letters for your username/email address. If you still have difficulties, please contact us via email at info@a-m-i.org.uk so we can rectify your problem.

Not a member?
Learn more about the benefits of becoming a member or apply online and we will be in touch.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is obliged to publish decisions which have been referred to an Ombudsman.  Firms should be looking at its website and searching for mortgage based decisions to update themselves on issues which might arise from the approach being taken.

We have looked at four recent decisions with three of those decided in favour of the firms and one being lost.  The reference numbers of these decisions are DRN5877521; DRN2702525; DRN9136557; and DRN1551446.  In looking at the narrative, whilst not relying fully on the rules that may have prevailed at the time, there is clear evidence that a full consideration of what was reasonable has been taken.

In the cases supported by FOS, the importance of good record keeping is highlighted, however in one case where this did not exist, what was likely on the balance of the oral evidence prevailed in favour of the broker.  In that these decisions cover interest only, debt consolidation and fund raising for investment purposes, all areas under scrutiny from claims management firms, these decisions are welcome.  The case lost covered tax advice which ended up being incorrect and emphasises the need for advisers to only operate within their sphere of genuine expertise.  Also if passing on other parties views, to ensure that they are clearly sighted as such.

Many advisers are nervous of FOS, but these cases show that a well constructed and argued defence can gain their support.


Forgot Password?

Join Us