(a) to require FOS to apply legal principles - e.g. regarding the quality
of evidence - consistently. This would require a repeal of Section 228 which
gives FOS carte blanche to do what it likes.
(b) to require the FOS to adhere to its own rules e.g. regarding time
limits for referral of complaints.
(c) to require the FOS to apply the law as it exists.
(d) to require FOS to make available decided complaints in full as with
civil courts.
(e) to create an independent appellate body to whom both complainers and
IFAs could appeal - such body would include personnel from both the IFA and
legal professions who are of proven experience and ability.
(f) to provide for IFAs to recover the case fee from FOS in cases where the
appellate body overturns the adjudication.
(g) to make complainers liable for the IFAs costs in the event that either
the FOS or the appellate body decides the complaint is frivolous or vexatious
(but not for bona fide complaints which are rejected) but to make FOS liable
for expenses in all cases overturned by the appellate body.
(h) a power, if not a duty, on the FOS and the appellate body to report to
the police instances of suspected attempted fraud by the application of false
evidence.
