Rebutting the Ombudsman Investigator's Preliminary View: The Mechanics of an Effective Escalation

The view is not the outcome

An investigator’s preliminary view is the point at which a weak file becomes an adverse finding, and a sound file can still be rescued. The stress is familiar: the assessment treats a market fall as proof the advice was wrong, or it is written by someone without the pension detail the product requires.

DISP 3.6 is the determination standard. DISP 3.6.4R requires the Ombudsman to take account of law, regulators’ rules and good industry practice at the relevant time. “The relevant time” is the date of the act, not the date of the letter.

Where preliminary views usually fail

Hindsight

The portfolio is judged by what happened next. A fall in value is written up as if it were foreseeable in amount and timing. The reply puts the recommendation back in the information the adviser had, including the capacity-for-loss record and the alternatives that were considered.

A rule that was not in force

Consumer Duty language, or a later thematic expectation, is applied to advice given under an earlier COBS rulebook. The reply cites the rule that governed the transaction and asks for the view to be rebuilt on that text.

A product read wrongly

Drawdown mechanics, a platform delay, a tax code or a safeguarded benefit is described inaccurately, and the inaccuracy does the work of the finding. The reply corrects the mechanism with the contemporaneous illustration, the scheme rules, or the dealing log.

Summary

A preliminary view is an invitation to correct the analysis before it hardens into a decision. The reply that works is a deconstruction: the sentence that is wrong, the rule it missed, and the document that answers it.