summary of complaint background to complaint
|
|
- Gillian McCoy
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 summary of complaint Mr N complains about the Gresham Insurance Company Limited s requirement for his chosen solicitors to enter into a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). Claims for legal expenses are handled on the business behalf by DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company. All references to DAS include the insurer, Gresham Insurance Company Limited. background to complaint The background to this complaint is set out in my provisional decision dated April 2013 (copy attached). Briefly, I found that it was unfair for DAS to impose a requirement for Mr N s chosen solicitors to enter into a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) as opposed to the limit of indemnity of 50,000 he thought he had available. I proposed that DAS indemnify Mr N s solicitors costs from the date that it was in a position to confirm cover, such costs to be assessed if not agreed, reimburse counsel s fees and pay interest at 8% simple per annum on any part of these costs that Mr N has already paid, from the date of payment to the date of reimbursement. responses to provisional decision Both parties have responded. DAS said that at the time the complaint arose the imposition of a CFA was not considered unreasonable by our service: It would be unfair for DAS to be penalised for practices that were accepted and deemed reasonable at the time by the FSA, our industry and FOS. It also says that it is not fettering Mr N s freedom of choice, as it accepted his solicitors in principle and if they continued to refuse to act under a CFA he had the choice of a panel solicitor or another non-panel solicitor that would act under a CFA. DAS says that this is supported by the Court of Appeal decision in Brown-Quinn where the Judge commented that a legal expenses insurer has the right to apply restrictions and controls, in line with regulation and legislation, as long as it does not render the insured's freedom of choice meaningless. In any event we do not believe we are restricting freedom of choice by insisting that non-panel firms agree terms on the same basis as our preferred firms. However, despite that, DAS agreed that there had been delays and poor service and therefore agreed to provide indemnity in line with my provisional decision. Mr N has also responded. He has said that his solicitors provided supporting documentation on his behalf which would have assisted in us dealing with his complaint and therefore asks that those costs be reimbursed. He has also confirmed that his counsel s fees have already been reimbursed. Mr N has also informed us that he successfully appealed the decision to strike out his legal claim and the matter is now progressing. He would therefore like confirmation from DAS that his costs will be covered going forward. K822x
2 my findings As I explained in my provisional decision, my decision does depart from our previous approach to similar complaints. However, our approach to complaints does evolve over time. I am required to determine complaints by reference to what is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to the law and good industry practice. In my opinion, it is not fair or reasonable to require Mr N s chosen solicitor to act under a CFA which would mean none of their costs would be indemnified when the policy purports to cover all [his] reasonable and necessary legal costs up to 50,000. Although I considered that a fair and reasonable interpretation of the policy terms would mean that the complaint should be upheld, I also considered that the imposition of the CFA would fetter Mr N s legally protected freedom to choose his own solicitor. Whilst I am not bound by the law, I do have to have regard to it. I therefore took account of the outcome of the Brown-Quinn case but did not consider that it supported DAS in this instance. Although the Court of Appeal determined that the insurers in that case were obliged to pay no more than the non-panel rates, it did not determine that the amount offered by an insurer would always be acceptable. In addition, that case concerned a dispute about the hourly rate to be paid to the non-panel solicitor rather than the requirement of a CFA. The judge in that case, also said that the amount offered should not be so low as to render the insured s freedom of choice meaningless. DAS has said that Mr N had a choice of panel solicitors and therefore his freedom to choose was not rendered meaningless. However, I am not persuaded by this. It seems to me that a choice of panel solicitors is not sufficient and is effectively rendering his freedom to choose meaningless. In any event, DAS has agreed to indemnify Mr N for the costs already incurred, in line with my provisional decision. It has suggested that it will have those costs assessed by its costs draftsman. For the avoidance of doubt, it is my decision that if the costs in terms of hourly rate and work carried out cannot be agreed then they should be assessed by the court. Mr N has submitted that his solicitor s costs of completing the complaint form and supporting statement should be reimbursed, as it would have assisted our understanding of his complaint. However, he did not require professional representation to bring his complaint to us. We are used to dealing with complex issues and how we deal with complaints does not depend on how well they are presented to us. The outcome to this complaint would not have been any different if Mr N had presented it himself without representation. It therefore remains my decision that it is not appropriate for these costs to be reimbursed. As to the costs of the appeal and of proceeding with the claim, DAS is entitled to consider these as new aspects of the claim and so I cannot make any finding as to whether they should be indemnified in the context of this decision. Mr N can return to us if he is dissatisfied with any decision made by DAS about these matters. 2
3 my decision For the reasons set out above, it is my decision that I uphold this complaint. I direct DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company to: - indemnify Mr N s solicitors costs (including costs of completing the quality management report and subsequent correspondence) from the date that it was in a position to confirm cover, such costs to be assessed by the court if not agreed; - reimburse counsel s fees, if not already paid; and - pay interest at 8% simple per annum on any part of these costs that Mr N has already paid, from the date of payment to the date of reimbursement. Harriet McCarthy ombudsman 3
4 COPY PROVISIONAL DECISION summary of complaint Mr N complains about the business requirement for his chosen solicitors to enter into a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). Claims for legal expenses are handled on the business behalf by DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company. All references to DAS include the insurer, Gresham. background to complaint Mr N contacted DAS in September 2011 to make a claim for legal expenses in respect of a professional negligence action against his former solicitors. DAS initially declined Mr N s claim, as it said that it was not covered by the policy. However, it subsequently arranged for the matter to be reviewed by its panel solicitors. They advised that although the claim might be covered it would be excluded because proceedings had already been issued and the policy only covered proceedings agreed to or authorised by DAS. Mr N complained again and there followed a debate about whether he had had continuous legal expenses cover for the period in which the legal claim arose. This was resolved and in December 2011 DAS sent a Quality Management Report (QMR) to Mr N s own solicitors for them to complete. The QMR was returned but DAS requested further information. In March 2012 DAS informed Mr N s solicitors that the only element of the claim it would consider was in respect of damages but that it did not consider that there were sufficient prospects of success a pre-requisite of cover under the policy. Mr N s solicitors obtained counsel s opinion his advice was that this was a consumer dispute which was covered by the policy and he assessed the prospects of success as better than 55%. As a result of this, DAS confirmed in April 2012 that it accepted the claim and was prepared to appoint Mr N s solicitors to act. It sent them Terms of Appointment to be signed, so that indemnity under the policy could commence. However, the terms of appointment required Mr N s solicitors (and counsel) to act under a CFA, which they refused to do. Mr N wants his solicitors to be able to act on its standard terms and they have made the following submissions on his behalf: Regulation 6 of the EU Council Directive 2009/138/EC and the decision in Brown-Quinn v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2011] means that DAS cannot impose unreasonable obligations on them that effectively deprive Mr N of his freedom to choose his own lawyer. The terms of appointment conflict with the ordinary meaning of the terms of the policy which provide cover against all reasonable and necessary legal costs charged by the appointed representative. If they act under a CFA, then no costs would be payable by the business The policy does not contain any requirement that the appointed representative had to accept the case on a CFA. This case is not appropriate for a CFA. Mr N wants confirmation that his chosen solicitors will be appointed to act at their usual rates. 4
5 Our adjudicator considered the complaint and concluded that it should succeed. She recommended that the business should appoint Mr N s solicitors on an hourly rate basis akin to the relevant county court rate, and backdate cover to the date when the original terms of appointment were sent. DAS did not agree with the adjudicator s conclusion. Its submissions include the following: Its CFA, unlike an ordinary CFA, would also cover disbursements properly incurred by the appointed representative. The CFA terms are its standard terms, and are non-negotiable and appeared to be technically suitable for the contract dispute. It does not consider it reasonable for it to have to pay other solicitors on its panel to review the case and advise whether they would accept it on a CFA basis as suggested by the adjudicator. It has already provided this from one solicitor and this should be sufficient, it is now for Mr N to provide evidence why the case is not suitable for a CFA. In any event, clause 2(f) of the policy provides that the appointed representative would be appointed on the standard Terms of Appointment, i.e. on the same terms as those for their panel solicitors. Since April 2010 all its panel solicitors have been appointed under a CFA. However, the policy still provided a benefit as far as legal costs were concerned because, having accepted the claim, the insurer would be responsible for paying the opponent s costs if Mr N lost the case and was ordered to pay them. Under a CFA, a greater proportion of the limit of indemnity would be available to meet such a liability. If the solicitors were not willing to agree to the CFA, the claim could be referred to panel solicitors. In addition, it highlights that in earlier decisions, ombudsmen have upheld DAS inclusion of CFAs in the terms of appointment. Since the adjudicator issued her assessment, Mr N has also asked for reimbursement of his legal costs in establishing his solicitor s appointment on normal reasonable terms (which they put at approximately 1,500 plus VAT, although I am not sure if this includes counsel s fees). my provisional findings I have considered all the evidence and arguments from the outset, in order to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. We have previously taken the view that an insurer would not normally be obliged to pay more than its panel solicitors would charge, in order to fulfil its obligations under legal expense insurance policies such as Mr N s; and that it could refuse to indemnify the policyholder s own choice of solicitor, if they do not agree to those terms, including a CFA. However, I intend to depart from our previous approach. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to all the circumstances of this case as well as the recent decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the case of Brown-Quinn & Others v- (1) Equity Syndicate Management LTD & (2) Motorplus LTD [2011]. Mr N was already a co-claimant in court proceedings when the claim was submitted. I therefore consider that DAS acted reasonably when it offered Mr N the freedom to choose the solicitor appointed under the policy. Gresham Insurance s primary obligation under the policy is to provide indemnity for: all reasonable and necessary legal costs charged by the appointed representative and agreed by us. The policy terms which govern choice of solicitor and standard terms of appointment are ancillary to that. I tend to agree with the High Court in the Brown-Quinn case that it would not be fair and 5
6 reasonable to deny indemnity to a policyholder entirely, simply because their solicitor and insurer cannot agree terms. The Court of Appeal determined that the defendant insurers were obliged to pay the appropriate nonpanel rates to their insureds but no more. However, the Court of Appeal did not determine that the amount offered by an insurer would always be acceptable and it was not considering the issue of a CFA. The judge commented that a legal expenses insurer has the right to restrict what it would pay to a non-panel solicitor, except if the remuneration it is prepared to offer is so low as to render the insured s freedom of choice 1 meaningless: any alleged insufficiency of remuneration has to be such as to render the insured's freedom of choice meaningless before any provision as to reimbursement of a solicitor's costs and expenses in the contract can be struck down. The Court of Appeal went on to decide that there was no evidence that other solicitors were not prepared to conduct the cases for the non-panel rates offered and so it felt unable to say in that case that the insurers could not restrict indemnity to the non-panel rate. In the present case which I am considering, DAS says that all its panel solicitors act on a CFA basis, therefore Mr N has the freedom to choose any of those solicitors. I do not find it particularly surprising that more than one panel solicitor would have taken on the case for a CFA, given that the business will have similar arrangements with all firms on its panel whereby they recoup losses they make on some cases with gains they make on others. However, the Court of Appeal did not decide that a choice of panel solicitors would be sufficient not to render an insured s freedom of choice meaningless. I am not satisfied that the choice of panel solicitors is sufficient to not render Mr N s choice meaningless. I am required to determine complaints by reference to what is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to the law and good industry practice. In my opinion, the imposition of such a limit is not fair or reasonable. DAS insistence on a CFA which means that it is not indemnifying any of Mr N own solicitor s costs at all is effectively limiting the cover to paying disbursements and third party costs only (ie any order made by the court that Mr N has to pay his opponent s costs). Although the policy purports to provide, I understand, 50,000 limit of indemnity for each claim, it seems to me that DAS is seeking to impose different terms, which only became apparent when Mr N sought to exercise his right to use his own solicitor. DAS accepted the appointment of Mr N s own solicitor in principle. However, it seems to me that insisting on them entering into a CFA, effectively made him choose between forgoing the cover he thought he had or accepting the panel solicitor. I cannot accept that it was either fair or reasonable for DAS to impose a CFA as opposed to the limit of indemnity of 50,000 Mr N thought he had available, and only when he sought to exercise the right to use his own solicitor. I do not consider that the business should fund Mr N solicitors regardless of cost - it is still for them to demonstrate that their costs are reasonable and necessary, as required by the policy. I also accept that it is not unreasonable to want to have terms of appointment agreed with the solicitor. 1 EU Directive 87/344/EEC, implemented in the UK by the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990 (as amended), which provides a general and obligatory freedom for the insured to choose a lawyer where any legal inquiry or proceedings have been issued. 6
7 So, although I have decided that Mr N s indemnity under the policy should not be limited in the way proposed by Gresham Insurance, I am unable to decide whether his solicitor s fees are reasonable. This is not an area which is appropriate for this Service to determine. Our adjudicator recommended that the costs should be based on the appropriate court guideline rate. However, I cannot endorse that either, although it would seem to me to be a reasonable reference point. In my opinion, the best evidence of the reasonable and necessary legal costs incurred would be by way of court assessment.such an assessment would determine reasonable and proportionate costs, in terms of hourly rates for the relevant fee earners and time spent. I agree with the adjudicator, however that indemnity should be backdated to the date that the claim should have been accepted which I understand was in November as all that followed seems to me to have been secondary to establishing that Mr N had a valid claim under the policy. As to the costs of establishing their appointment I agree that the counsel s fee should be reimbursed, and that Mr N s solicitor s costs of completing the QMR and subsequent correspondence should also be reimbursed, with interest on any part of those costs that have already been paid. However, Mr N did not require professional representation to bring his complaint to us and so I do not consider that any costs incurred in his solicitors dealing with the complaint should be reimbursed. I understand that since the adjudicator issued her assessment. Mr N legal claim has been struck out and he is currently considering whether to appeal. For the avoidance of doubt this decision does not determine any liability on the part of the business to indemnify in respect of the appeal, which will have to be assessed for prospects separately. my provisional decision For the reasons set out above, I am minded to uphold this complaint and (subject to the remaining terms and conditions of the policy) require Gresham Insurance to: - indemnify Mr N s solicitors costs from the date that it was in a position to confirm cover, such costs to be assessed if not agreed; -reimburse counsel s fees; and - pay interest at 8% simple per annum on any part of these costs that Mr N has already paid, from the date of payment to the date of reimbursement. Harriet McCarthy ombudsman 7
Mr S complains about Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited s decision to withdraw funding for his claim.
complaint Mr S complains about Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited s decision to withdraw funding for his claim. background I issued a provisional decision on this complaint in December 2015. An extract
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr S Namulas SIPP (formerly the Self Invested Personal Harvester Pension Scheme) (the SIPP) Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Ltd (LV=) Outcome 1.
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr N Netwindfall Executive Pension Plan (the Plan) Clerical Medical Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr N s complaint and no further action is required
More informationMr A agreed with my provisional conclusions and had nothing further to add.
complaint Mr A had a Self Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) portfolio managed by Tilney Investment Management. Mr A has complained about the holding of the British Real Estate Fund (BREF) in his SIPP portfolio.
More informationA creditor s guide to administrators fees (in accordance with Statement of Insolvency Practice No.9)
The following information about the administrators fees is from Statement of Insolvency Practice No.9 ( SIP 9 ) produced by the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, Appendix C: A Creditors Guide
More informationTerms & Conditions (May 2018)
Terms & Conditions (May 2018) 1 Interpretation 1.1 These are the Terms and Conditions which apply to professional services supplied by Armstrong Family Law of Unit 9, North Colchester Business Centre,
More informationPart II: Handling Conflicts of Interest between Insured and Insurer: The Lawyer s Dilemma
Handling Professional Indemnity Coverage Issues in Cases of Suspected Fraud Part II: Handling Conflicts of Interest between Insured and Insurer: The Lawyer s Dilemma Alison Padfield Devereux A. Introduction
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr D British Steel Pension Scheme (the Scheme) - Prudential Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVCs) B.S. Pension Fund Trustee Limited (the Trustee)
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
PO-149 Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mrs Christine Harris NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme) NHS Pensions Subject Mrs Harris complains that: She was not informed that she should have
More informationCategory Scottish Further and Higher Education: Higher Education/Plagiarism and Intellectual Property
Scottish Parliament Region: Mid Scotland and Fife Case 201002095: University of Stirling Summary of Investigation Category Scottish Further and Higher Education: Higher Education/Plagiarism and Intellectual
More informationHackett & Dabbs LLP OUR STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Hackett & Dabbs LLP OUR STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1 Interpretation 1.1 These are the Terms and Conditions which apply to legal professional services supplied by Hackett & Dabbs LLP of 7 Stratfield
More informationA CREDITORS GUIDE TO LIQUIDATORS REMUNERATION SCOTLAND
A CREDITORS GUIDE TO LIQUIDATORS REMUNERATION SCOTLAND 1. Introduction 1.1 When a company goes into liquidation the costs of the proceedings are paid out of its assets in priority to creditors claims.
More informationA CREDITORS GUIDE TO LIQUIDATORS FEES ENGLAND AND WALES
A CREDITORS GUIDE TO LIQUIDATORS FEES ENGLAND AND WALES 1. Introduction 1.1. When a company goes into liquidation the costs of the proceedings are paid out of its assets. The creditors, who hope to recover
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr O ICL Group Pension Plan (the Plan) The Trustees of the ICL Group Pension Plan (the Trustee) Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr O s complaint and no
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr N Police Pension Scheme (PPS) Government Actuary's Department (GAD) Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr N s complaint and no further action is required
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr L NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme) NHS Pensions (as a service provided by NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA) Complaint Summary Mr L has complained
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mrs Y Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) MyCSP Outcome 1. Mrs Y s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Cabinet Office should pay
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr N AJ Bell Platinum SIPP (the SIPP) A J Bell Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr N s complaint and no further action is required by A J Bell. 2. My reasons
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mrs Y Berkeley Burke SIPP (the SIPP) Berkeley Burke Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mrs Y s complaint and no further action is required by Berkeley Burke
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr R Police Pension Scheme (PPS) Government Actuary's Department (GAD) Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr R s complaint and no further action is required
More information26 th February Final report by the Complaints Commissioner Complaint number FCA00376
Final report by the Complaints Commissioner Complaint number FCA00376 26 th February 2018 The complaint 1. On 23 rd July 2017 you asked me to investigate a complaint about the FCA. I carefully reviewed
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Ms T Lloyds Group Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Lloyds Bank Pension Trust (No.2) Limited (the Trustee) Equiniti Outcome 1. I do not uphold Ms T s complaint
More informationThe Panel found Dr Brew s fitness to practise was impaired and determined to erase his name from the Register.
Appeals Circular A 04 /15 08 May 2015 To: Fitness to Practise Panel Panellists Legal Assessors Copy: Interim Orders Panel Panellists Panel Secretaries Medical Defence Organisations Employer Liaison Advisers
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006984 BETWEEN AND STELLAR PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant NICK GJAJA PLUMBING LIIMITED Respondent Hearing: 10 April 2006 Appearances: Mr J C
More informationMJY and VYW DECISION. The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 250/2016 LCRO 251/2016 CONCERNING applications for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination by [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN
More informationMr and Mrs F accepted the adjudicator s assessment but Aviva did not agree with this assessment and asked for an ombudsman s decision.
complaint This complaint is about two single premium payment protection insurance ( PPI ) policies sold in conjunction with two loans, taken out in 2001 and 2002. Mr and Mrs F say that Aviva Insurance
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent(s) Mr X Police Injury Benefit Scheme (Northern Ireland) Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) Complaint summary Mr X has complained that the NIPB
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr T CMG UK Pension Scheme (the Scheme) CMG Pension Trustees Limited (the Trustees) JLT Benefits Solutions Limited (JLT) Outcome 1. Mr T s complaint
More informationFocus Underwriting. Policy Summary Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance A PARTNER YOU CAN TRUST
Focus Underwriting Policy Summary Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance A PARTNER YOU CAN TRUST The purpose of this Policy Summary is to help You understand the insurance by setting out the significant features,
More informationI issued a provisional decision in September 2013 concluding that Mr A s complaint should be upheld.
complaint Mr A s complaint, in summary, is that Lighthouse Advisory Services Limited advised him to invest in a carbon trading partnership scheme (CTP) that was unsuitable for him. background I issued
More informationCatastrophic Injury Accreditation. Initial application guidance notes
- Catastrophic Injury Accreditation Contents Overall guidance... 3 Glossary of terms... 4 About the accreditation... 5 Definition of catastrophic injury...5 Eligibility to apply...5 Expected standards
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr T FP1 Retirement Plan (the Plan) Fast Pensions Limited (FP), FP Scheme Trustees Limited (the Trustee) Outcome 1. Mr T s complaint is upheld, and
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr N North Star SIPP (the SIPP) Mattioli Woods plc (Mattioli Woods) Outcome 1. Mr N s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Mattioli Woods
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr E AJ Bell Investcentre SIPP (the SIPP) AJ Bell Investcentre (AJ Bell) Outcome 1. Mr E s complaint is upheld and to put matters right AJ Bell shall
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mrs T Pirelli Tyres Ltd 1988 P&LAF (the Scheme) Pirelli Tyres Limited (the Company), Trustees of the Pirelli Tyre Ltd 1988 P&LAF (the Trustees) Outcome
More informationFINAL NOTICE. 1. For the reasons given in this notice, and pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the FSA has decided to:
FINAL NOTICE To: Mr Colin Jackson To: Baronworth (Investment Services) Limited (in liquidation) FSA FRN: 115284 Reference Number: CPJ00002 Date: 19 December 2012 ACTION 1. For the reasons given in this
More informationCONCERNING CONCERNING BETWEEN. The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION
LCRO 132/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN WK Applicant
More informationThe names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 142/2014 & 160/2014 CONCERNING applications for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of Standards Committee BETWEEN VL Applicant (and
More informationDuring a telephone conversation with Mrs W on 13 September 2012, Portal noted that Mrs W:
complaint Mrs W has complained that she understood from Portal Financial Services LLP (Portal) that she would be able to take the tax-free cash lump sums from her pensions without having to transfer. She
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND [2012] NZERA Auckland
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND [2012] NZERA Auckland 404 5376244 BETWEEN A N D HONG (ALEX) ZHOU Applicant HARBIT INTERNATIONAL LTD First Respondent BEN WONG Second Respondent YING HUI (TONY)
More informationTouchstone Underwriting Policy Summary Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance
Touchstone Underwriting Policy Summary Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance The purpose of this Policy Summary is to help you understand the insurance by setting out the significant features, benefits,
More informationPENSION SCHEMES ACT 1993, PART X DETERMINATION BY THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
PENSION SCHEMES ACT 1993, PART X DETERMINATION BY THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN Applicant Schemes Respondent(s) Mr D Jones Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Lambert Smith Hampton Group Pension Scheme (LSH
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr N THUS Group plc Pension Scheme (the Scheme) AON Hewitt (Aon) Trustees of THUS Group plc Pension Scheme (the Trustees) Outcome 1. I do not uphold
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 March 2018 On 27 April 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationVICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D202/2004. Noreen Cosgriff.
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D202/2004 APPLICANT: FIRST RESPONDENT: SECOND RESPONDENT: WHERE HELD: BEFORE: HEARING TYPE: Noreen Cosgriff
More informationFINAL NOTICE. i. imposes on Peter Thomas Carron ( Mr Carron ) a financial penalty of 300,000; and
FINAL NOTICE To: Peter Thomas Carron Date of 15 September 1968 Birth: IRN: PTC00001 (inactive) Date: 16 September 2014 ACTION 1. For the reasons given in this Notice, the Authority hereby: i. imposes on
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr E British American Tobacco UK Pension Fund (the Fund) British American Tobacco UK Pension Fund Trustee Limited (the Trustee), Capita Employee Benefits
More informationCosts Information 1 Bringing or defending claims for unfair or wrongful dismissal in the Employment Tribunal
Costs Information 1 Bringing or defending claims for unfair or wrongful dismissal in the Employment Tribunal We wish to be as clear as reasonably possible regarding the range in potential costs that you
More informationTariq. The effect of S. 12 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Ch. 48:51 The Act is agreed. That term is void as against third
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HCA No. CV 2011-00701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN GULF INSURANCE LIMITED AND Claimant NASEEM ALI AND TARIQ ALI Defendants Before The Hon. Madam Justice C. Gobin
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mrs N Hargreaves Lansdown Vantage SIPP (the SIPP) Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited (Hargreaves Lansdown) Outcome 1. Mrs N s complaint is
More informationCategory Local government: Financial assessment of eligibility for Council funding of care home costs; Complaint handling
Scottish Parliament Region: South of Scotland Case 200603087: East Lothian Council Summary of Investigation Category Local government: Financial assessment of eligibility for Council funding of care home
More information- and - TRATHENS TRAVEL SERVICES LIMITED
Case No: 9PF00857 IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT Leeds Combined Court The Courthouse 1 Oxford Row Leeds LS1 3BG Date: 9 th July 2010 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL Between : LEROY MAKUWATSINE - and
More informationMatrix Underwriting Management POLICY SUMMARY Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance
Matrix Underwriting Management POLICY SUMMARY Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance The purpose of this Policy Summary is to help you understand the insurance by setting out the significant features, benefits,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACT Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr E Scottish Equitable Stakeholder Pension (the Plan) Aegon Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr E s complaint and no further action is required by Aegon.
More informationATE Legal Expenses Insurance
ATE Legal Expenses Insurance Commercial Litigation April 2013 onwards Temple s Desktop Guide to ATE Insurance for Insolvency, Defamation and Privacy Legal expenses insurance experts Contents An introduction
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Mr A Scheme The New Firefighters Pension Scheme (England) (the 2006 Scheme) Respondent Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Authority (the Authority) Complaint summary 1. Mr
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr John Brian Richardson The Carey Pension Scheme SIPP (the SIPP) Carey Pensions UK LLP (Carey Pensions) Carey Pensions Trustees Limited Complaint
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr G Local Government Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Greater Manchester Pension Fund (the Fund) Liverpool Hope University (the Employer) Outcome 1. I
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr L DHL Group Retirement Plan (the Plan) Williams Lea Limited (Williams Lea) Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr L s complaint and no further action is
More informationA SHAREHOLDERS GUIDE TO LIQUIDATORS FEES - ENGLAND AND WALES
A SHAREHOLDERS GUIDE TO LIQUIDATORS FEES - ENGLAND AND WALES 1. Introduction 1.1 When a company goes into liquidation the costs of the proceedings are paid out of its assets. The members (shareholders),
More informationLEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
Decision Ref: 2018-0105 Sector: Product / Service: Conduct(s) complained of: Outcome: Banking Variable Mortgage Delayed or inadequate communication Dissatisfaction with customer service Failure to process
More informationTouchstone Underwriting POLICY SUMMARY Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance
Touchstone Underwriting POLICY SUMMARY Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance The purpose of this Policy Summary is to help you understand the insurance by setting out the significant features, benefits,
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr N Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (the Scheme) Dundee City Council (the Council) and Scottish Public Pensions Agency (the Agency) Outcome
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Dr S W & J Leigh Staff Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Kerr Henderson (the Actuaries) W & J Leigh Staff Pension Scheme Trustee (the Trustee) Outcome 1.
More informationBEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY
[2018] NZSSAA 001 Reference No. SSA 075AA/11 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of XXXX against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE THE SOCIAL
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr M The Fire Brigades Union Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (the FBU Scheme) The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) Outcome 1. Mr M s complaint is upheld
More informationExcess Layer Professional Liability. Policy wording
Excess Layer Professional Liability Policy wording EpicXS 2011v1.1 Contents Important note Preamble Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Scope of Cover Dealing with Claims General Conditions
More informationDecision 066/2009 Thomas Crooks and the Board of Management of Stevenson College Edinburgh
Thomas Crooks and the Board of Management of Stevenson College Edinburgh Employment-related questions Reference No: 200801460, 200900268 Decision Date: 15 June 2009 Kevin Dunion Scottish Information Commissioner
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Ms G Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Humber Bridge Board (the Board) Outcome 1. I do not uphold Ms G s complaint and no further action is required
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr K Medical Research Council Pension Trust (the Scheme) MNPA Limited (MNPA), MRC Pension Trust Limited (the Trustee) Outcome 1. Mr K s complaint
More informationPROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN
Appeal number: TC/13/06946 PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER JUMBOGATE LIMITED Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS
More informationThe County Insurance SME POLICY SUMMARY Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance
The County Insurance SME POLICY SUMMARY Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance The purpose of this Policy Summary is to help you understand the insurance by setting out the significant features, benefits,
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14 challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority of an application
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE MORGAN Between : - and - THE ROYAL LONDON MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 319 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: CH/2015/0377 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A1NLL Before : MR JUSTICE
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr E Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) MyCSP Outcome 1. I do not uphold Mr E s complaint and no further action is required by MyCSP. 2.
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mrs T Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) The London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) Capita Outcome 1. I uphold Mrs T s complaint and direct that LBH
More informationBEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. FRANK VOSPER AND VOSPER REALTY LIMITED Appellants
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 60 READT 081/15 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND an appeal under s111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 FRANK VOSPER AND VOSPER REALTY
More informationIndexed as: Rano v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Between: Teresa Rano, applicant, and Commercial Union Assurance Company, insurer
Page 1 Indexed as: Rano v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Between: Teresa Rano, applicant, and Commercial Union Assurance Company, insurer [1999] O.F.S.C.I.D. No. 134 File No. FSCO A97-001056 Ontario Financial
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Barry John Sexton Heard on: 18 and 19 March 2015 Location: Committee: Legal adviser:
More informationResponse from [the Complainants] Compensation for distress and inconvenience
Ombudsman response to comments on provisional determination CIFO Reference Number: 16-000198 Complainants: [Complainant 1] and [Complainant 2] Respondent: [Financial Services Provider] Following the issuance
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr S Railways Pension Scheme (RPS) Railways Pension Trustee Company Limited (the Trustee) Arriva Trains Wales Section Pensions Committee (the Committee)
More informationCTSI Requirements and Guidance on seeking approval as a Consumer ADR Body operating in non regulated sectors.
CTSI Requirements and Guidance on seeking approval as a Consumer ADR Body operating in non regulated sectors. For the purpose of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities
More informationA CREDITORS GUIDE TO FEES CHARGED BY TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY ENGLAND AND WALES
Guidance Note A CREDITORS GUIDE TO FEES CHARGED BY TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY 1 Introduction ENGLAND AND WALES 1.1 When an individual becomes bankrupt the costs of the bankruptcy proceedings are paid out of
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ELMARS LANKA, Deceased ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) )
CITATION: Johnston v. Lanka, 2010 ONSC 4124 DATE: 20100728 DOCKET: 09-0643 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ELMARS LANKA, Deceased BETWEEN: WENDY JOHNSTON and Applicant
More informationThis dispute is about the advice given to Mr W by the IFA to invest in the Keydata Secure Income Bond Issue 3 ( the Keydata bond ) in 2005.
final decision complaint by: Mr W complaint about: an IFA complaint reference: date of decision: November 2012 This final decision is issued by me, Tony Boorman, an ombudsman with the Financial Ombudsman
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent(s) Mr John Reynolds RAC (2003) Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Aviva Staff Pension Trustee Limited (the Trustees) Complaint Summary Mr Reynolds has complained
More informationScott Williams BT Construction and Landscapes Pty Ltd AH Building Supplies Pty Ltd Abram Hazan Melbourne Senior Member M.
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D807/2007 CATCHWORDS Domestic Building, breach of terms of settlement, applications to adjourn, interpretation
More informationAhmed Muhsen Ikbarieh. Osama (Sam) Hammadieh
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2014] NZIACDT 49 Reference No: IACDT 0048/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr H Firefighters' Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Hereford & Worcester Fire Authority (the Authority) Worcestershire County Council (the Council) Outcome
More informationFINANCIAL SERVICES GUIDE
FINANCIAL SERVICES GUIDE Australian Private Wealth Group Pty Ltd (APWG) ABN 27 600 417 614 AR 1247650 102/237 Scottsdale Drive Robina, Qld 4226 Australia Telephone 1300 098 765 Email info@australianpwg.com.au
More informationLakshmi Bhargavi Koppula. Na (Fiona) Zhou
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 85 Reference No: IACDT 023/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr T Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (CSPS) / Widow's Pension Scheme (WPS) Cabinet Office (CO), My Civil Service Pensions (MyCSP), HM Revenue
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mrs S Indesit Company UK Ltd Pension Scheme (the Scheme) JLT Benefit Solutions Limited (JLT) The Scheme Trustees (the Trustees) Outcome Complaint
More informationDISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST
DISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST Member: Jurisdiction: John Slawko Petryshyn Winnipeg, Manitoba Case 17-07 Called to the Bar: June 29, 1971 Particulars of Charges: Professional Misconduct (28 Charges): Breach of
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Ms N NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme) NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA) Outcome 1. Ms N s complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, NHS
More informationPENSION SCHEMES ACT 1993, PART X DETERMINATION BY THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
PENSION SCHEMES ACT 1993, PART X DETERMINATION BY THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN Applicant Scheme Respondent Mrs Rosemary Green Unipart Group Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Unipart Pension Trustees Limited (Unipart)
More informationGuidance on Costs Budgeting : Methodology and other issues Tim Yeo MP v Times Newspapers Limited [2015] EWHC 209 (QB)
Guidance on Costs Budgeting : Methodology and other issues Tim Yeo MP v Times Newspapers Limited [2015] EWHC 209 (QB) Author: John Brown The recent case of Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd provides some much
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G
More information