Last edited: Mar 8, 2016 I attended a High Court case last Tuesday - Eddie Howe vs. The Financial Services Ombudsman with the EBS as a notice party. It's a complicated case, but here are the bones of it. If anyone else has an FSO case affected by this issue, contact me and I will provide more detail on the case. I will not give advice on your case by private message, but I will provide more information on Stowe if you have a case about the non-admissibility of evidence. In September 2006 Howe drew down a mortgage from the EBS Fixed for 5 years to roll over onto a variable rate at the end of that period. He claims that in Sept 2006, a named official of the EBS told him that variable rates rise and fall in line with the ECB rate. In April 2010, the EBS wrote to him telling him that due to the higher costs of funds, they were increasing mortgage rates, although the ECB rates were falling. In July 2013, he lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman said that the alleged conversation in September 2006, took place more than 6 years ago, so could not be admitted as evidence. Based on the other issues, the FSO rejected the complaint. This appeal to the High Court was solely on the admissibility of oral evidence over 6 years old. The relevant section of the Act setting up the FSO is 57 BX (2) which says "(3) A consumer is not entitled to make a complaint if the conduct complained of— (b) occurred more than 6 years before the complaint is made," I have long made the point to Joe Meade and Bill Prasifka that their interpretation of this section to exclude evidence over 6 years was wrong. Aidan Redmond SC for Stowe argued the case brilliantly. (I had not heard of him before, but would strongly recommend him for any similar cases challenging the behaviour of banks.) 1) The legislation is very clear - it is the behaviour complained of. 2) My client has no complaint about the behaviour in 2006. 3) His complaint is about the behaviour in 2010 where they changed their policy. 4) The FSO is eliding evidence of an agreement with breach of that agreement 5) The FSO is quoting from the contract which is over 6 years old but excluding oral evidence 6) There is nothing in the Act which justifies this. Paul Anthony McDermott SC appeared for the FSO.I might be biased, but he did not seem to address the core issue at all. He focussed on merits of the decision, rather than on the issue at trial - the exclusion of evidence. The Judge asked him a few times to repeat his arguments. And at the end of his presentation, the judge asked him to specifically address the issue of how the FSO admits contractual evidence over 6 years old, but excludes oral evidence. Judgement was reserved.