High Court Fees for appeal against an FSO decision

Discussion in 'The Financial Services Ombudsman' started by robert 200, Nov 14, 2017.

  1. robert 200

    robert 200 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    154
    I currently have a complaint lodged with the Ombudsman. I understand if it is not upheld I can
    appeal to the High Court. Has anyone any idea how much this would cost and the length of time
    involved?
     
  2. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    33,372
    Hi Robert

    I have done a key post on the issue of appealing an FSO decision.

    Appealing an Ombudsman's decision to the High Court

    In summary - unless the Ombudsman's decision is bizarre, The High Court is not going to interfere with it.

    I don't know the fees but I would say that you should budget for €50k for yourself and €50k for the FSO's fees if you lose, as you are likely to do.

    Brendan


     
  3. robert 200

    robert 200 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    154
    Thank you Brendan , enough said.
     
  4. robert 200

    robert 200 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    154
    Brendan ,
    what was the outcome of the case you mentioned in your key post regarding the solicitor Walter Odlum and the 4 interest - only loans ?
     
  5. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    33,372
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  6. robert 200

    robert 200 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    154
    Thanks Brendan
     
  7. todo

    todo Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    229

    I agree with everything in this post.

    But its just so wrong.

    The FSO has been proven to be very wrong in the past.

    But the system is that if you go to challenge the FSO and lose, the cost of it will likely bankrupt you.

    This essentially makes the FSO judge and jury.

    My opinion is that,

    The FSO is a state body, a tax payer should be entitled to challenge the FSO's decision without fear of having the FSO's costs awarded against them.
     
  8. robert 200

    robert 200 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    154
    Are you allowed to roughly explain what your experience was ? I dont understand why this process is so secretive , surely we can all learn !!!!!!! and share info
     
  9. todo

    todo Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    229
    There is noting secretive about the process its all explained here,

    https://www.financialombudsman.ie/complaints-process/

    As for my experience, it was a few years ago,
    Went through the process, it took a long time.
    FSO found in favour of the bank.
    I strongly disagree with that finding.
    Not a lot I can do about it as the costs involved in taking it any further, soon put a stop to those thoughts!
    So you just have to live with it.
     
  10. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    33,372
    Hi todo

    You miss the point of the FSO. It's to provide consumers with a fair and free means of redress.

    Before it was set up, your only remedy would have been to go directly to the High Court.

    So you can take a complaint for free and you might well win it.

    Everyone who loses in court or in the FSO "strongly disagrees" with the finding.

    It's tough, but you have to live with it.

    I have seen bad decisions against the consumer and against the banks.

    Brendan
     
  11. todo

    todo Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    229
    Yes correct Brendan and to be fair its a good service,

    One point to mention though is, if you go down the FSO route and try to appeal, its the FSO you bring to the high court not the lender.

    If I understand it all correctly.
     
  12. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    33,372
    That is correct.

    And in a case I was involved with where the complainant won, the broker had to bring the FSO to the High Court. The complainant was at no financial risk at all - other than they might have lost the court case.

    Brendan
     
  13. DirectDevil

    DirectDevil Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    402
    +1 the above.

    Remember that if you appeal an FSOB decision to the High Court (by way of a motion) you will have one respondent - the FSOB - and often you will have the financial institution also involved as a notice party. The institution is entitled to be involved in the proceedings as a notice party because they are a legitimately interested party who may be affected by any ruling.

    This creates a scenario whereby the original complainant who appeals to the High Court may be exposed to liability for three sets of legal costs ; their own costs, the FSOB costs and the notice party's costs.

    In relation to costs the general rule is that decisions on costs follow the event. If you win you may expect to be awarded costs. However, any decision on costs is at the discretion of the trial judge according to what they see as just.

    I got an adverse decision from the FSOB. It was a relatively minor argument quantitatively, with insurers, over a qualitative issue of contractual interpretation. Would I go to the HC by way of appeal - Hell no :mad:. If costs were not an inhibiting factor I would have appealed.