This section answers a number of frequently-asked questions (FAQs) about:
how can I be sure you take both sides of the story into account when reaching decisions?
what can I do if I don't agree with your initial findings?
why don't you have a hearing in every case? I thought this was necessary to comply with human rights law.
how can I be sure the person who decides my case knows and understands financial services as well as I do?
how often do you find in favour of the business rather than the consumer?
how can you judge a complaint made today about advice given in the past?
why does the ombudsman use "fair and reasonable" as the basis for deciding cases, rather than the strict legal approach?
how does the ombudsman ensure consistency between decisions?
can I rely on your initial assessment as representing the official ombudsman approach?
will the FSA's move towards rules that are more principles-based and outcome-focused change the impact of ombudsman decisions?