Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,024
From today's Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...gainst-financial-services-ombudsman-1.2074470
Couple win case against Financial Services Ombudsman over €192,000 lost on investment
They appealed to the High Court and today Ms Justice Marie Baker said the Ombudsman did not err in his procedural approach to the complaint or in his views on the way New Ireland dealt with the couple as potentially vulnerable investors
However, she said, he did fall into serious error in his reasoning process.
He was in error as to the manner in which he tested and analysed the evidence he had heard and noted in his conclusions, she said.
He was incorrect in identifying that the ultimate issues before him were New Ireland's procedures and regulatory requirements, she said.
The judge believed he did not confine himself to these issues but made certain findings including on the substantive issue that the product was not mis-sold.
The Ombudsman placed emphasis on the fact that the Laws had signed declarations stating they had "carefully considered and discussed" their investment requirements with the investment manager, she said.
While a signature is one factor in a person's understanding of a financial product, it is not always determinative of whether it was suitable or fully explained or understood, she said.
She considered the Ombudsman in this case placed "unjustifiable weight" on the signatures. The evidence also did not point to the fact that it was clear various products were discussed and there was therefore no evidence before him (Ombudsman) which could allow him reach that conclusion.
He was also incorrect to ask whether there was objective evidence that the product was mis-sold.
This was not appropriate when the matters before him related to the actual and subjective state of the understanding of the Laws and whether the actual information they got was sufficient for their subjective understanding, she said.
She also said the Ombudsman fell into error in relation to the financial circumstances of the couple.
This is very significant indeed. From the decisions on investments which I have seen, it's clear to me that the Ombudsman's Service has very little understanding of investment issues.
Justice Baker's description of "serious error in his reasoning process" is a perfect description of at least three cases I have seen.
Brendan
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...gainst-financial-services-ombudsman-1.2074470
Couple win case against Financial Services Ombudsman over €192,000 lost on investment
They appealed to the High Court and today Ms Justice Marie Baker said the Ombudsman did not err in his procedural approach to the complaint or in his views on the way New Ireland dealt with the couple as potentially vulnerable investors
However, she said, he did fall into serious error in his reasoning process.
He was in error as to the manner in which he tested and analysed the evidence he had heard and noted in his conclusions, she said.
He was incorrect in identifying that the ultimate issues before him were New Ireland's procedures and regulatory requirements, she said.
The judge believed he did not confine himself to these issues but made certain findings including on the substantive issue that the product was not mis-sold.
The Ombudsman placed emphasis on the fact that the Laws had signed declarations stating they had "carefully considered and discussed" their investment requirements with the investment manager, she said.
While a signature is one factor in a person's understanding of a financial product, it is not always determinative of whether it was suitable or fully explained or understood, she said.
She considered the Ombudsman in this case placed "unjustifiable weight" on the signatures. The evidence also did not point to the fact that it was clear various products were discussed and there was therefore no evidence before him (Ombudsman) which could allow him reach that conclusion.
He was also incorrect to ask whether there was objective evidence that the product was mis-sold.
This was not appropriate when the matters before him related to the actual and subjective state of the understanding of the Laws and whether the actual information they got was sufficient for their subjective understanding, she said.
She also said the Ombudsman fell into error in relation to the financial circumstances of the couple.
This is very significant indeed. From the decisions on investments which I have seen, it's clear to me that the Ombudsman's Service has very little understanding of investment issues.
Justice Baker's description of "serious error in his reasoning process" is a perfect description of at least three cases I have seen.
Brendan
Last edited: