Apparently in the recent Millar case, which the FSO appealed to the Court of Appeal and later were joined by Dankse Bank. Counsel for Millar asked about costs. The learned judge seemed to think that because they were to the added to the case, that it would not be in order to award costs to Dankse Bank.
Just so as people know how bad this case in fact is you should note the following:
This useful extraction is from the FSO website - unless they have taken it down:
I note there is nothing on the website to suggest what happens when the FSO appeals a case. Any sane, rational, customer focused Ombudsman would have welcomed the High Court result as both a clarification of his powers and in fact a widening. Instead we got a churlish anti-consumer hissy fit from a Ombudsman who may have lost the focus of the job he had. In fact the FSO as it was created never envisaged it would be taking appeals for itself. It may in fact be ultra vires and has led to an absurd and irrational judgment. How could the consumer champion appeal against a consumer getting the FSO original decision overturned? I think there may be an FOI request necessary to now see what pressure was put on the FSO to take this insane course of action. Its like a hangman being denied his opportunity - and gets the freed man retried and executed.
You then had Kelly J seemingly unaware that Dankse Bank were not to get their costs anyway - and if he had any understanding of the grief Consumers have with Banks and now with the FSO he would have substituted Dankse Bank for the FSO at the very least.
We now have the incredible situation that the learned judge has apparently put costs on the Millars led by the FSO - the greatest Wooden Horse of Troy I have seen in many years.
We have the alleged consumer champion basking in a ridiculous judgment that the FSO should ashamed that they instituted.
The FSO have now created a risk for ANY consumer that if you win with the FSO and they don't like it, you are exposed to costs - even though it was clear all along that the Provider would not get his costs.
This needs to be dealt with.
In fact if people stopped using the FSO immediately it would bring this nonsense to a head. It needs to become a MEEJAH story. Please save us St Charlie of Weston. That is the only way.
Just so as people know how bad this case in fact is you should note the following:
This useful extraction is from the FSO website - unless they have taken it down:
Q. The FSOB Upheld my complaint however the Provider is now appealing it to the High Court. What does this mean in terms of my award and/or Finding and will I incur legal costs?
A. If the Provider appeals the Finding of the FSOB, the Complainant will not incur legal costs incurred by the FSOB or the Provider. However, if the Complainant is named as a notice party to the proceedings and if he / she wishes to attend court any expenses in that regard would not be borne by the FSOB. If the Finding is appealed by either party, the award is not payable by the Provider until the High Court has considered the appeal, the result of which may have an implication for the award itself.
[In this case the FSO decision was appealed to HC and then the FSO appealed to CoA. What I am arguing here how does a consumer protector appeal a case that is clearly in the consumer interest? And where their costs would have to be paid if they won in HC - which they did.]A. If the Provider appeals the Finding of the FSOB, the Complainant will not incur legal costs incurred by the FSOB or the Provider. However, if the Complainant is named as a notice party to the proceedings and if he / she wishes to attend court any expenses in that regard would not be borne by the FSOB. If the Finding is appealed by either party, the award is not payable by the Provider until the High Court has considered the appeal, the result of which may have an implication for the award itself.
I note there is nothing on the website to suggest what happens when the FSO appeals a case. Any sane, rational, customer focused Ombudsman would have welcomed the High Court result as both a clarification of his powers and in fact a widening. Instead we got a churlish anti-consumer hissy fit from a Ombudsman who may have lost the focus of the job he had. In fact the FSO as it was created never envisaged it would be taking appeals for itself. It may in fact be ultra vires and has led to an absurd and irrational judgment. How could the consumer champion appeal against a consumer getting the FSO original decision overturned? I think there may be an FOI request necessary to now see what pressure was put on the FSO to take this insane course of action. Its like a hangman being denied his opportunity - and gets the freed man retried and executed.
You then had Kelly J seemingly unaware that Dankse Bank were not to get their costs anyway - and if he had any understanding of the grief Consumers have with Banks and now with the FSO he would have substituted Dankse Bank for the FSO at the very least.
We now have the incredible situation that the learned judge has apparently put costs on the Millars led by the FSO - the greatest Wooden Horse of Troy I have seen in many years.
We have the alleged consumer champion basking in a ridiculous judgment that the FSO should ashamed that they instituted.
The FSO have now created a risk for ANY consumer that if you win with the FSO and they don't like it, you are exposed to costs - even though it was clear all along that the Provider would not get his costs.
This needs to be dealt with.
In fact if people stopped using the FSO immediately it would bring this nonsense to a head. It needs to become a MEEJAH story. Please save us St Charlie of Weston. That is the only way.
Last edited: