| introduction |
|
1.1
|
This
plan & budget reports on the performance of the Financial
Ombudsman Service during 2002/03. It also consults on
|
| |
- costs
and funding for the year to March 2004;
- the
changes to the special case fee in Chapter 5 of the Complaints
sourcebook in the FSA Handbook; and
- the
voluntary jurisdiction tariff.
|
| effect
of the budget proposals on consumers |
| 1.2
|
Consumers
will benefit from our new timeliness targets, summarised in chapter
five. We aim to close cases faster than last year. And we will introduce
additional performance indicators at three and nine months to assess
our timeliness in closing cases. Our determination to reduce the
level of work-in-progress will also help us improve our service
to consumers.
|
| effect
of the budget proposals on the industry |
| 1.3
|
The
industry will benefit from a lower unit cost, and from a reduction
in the annual levy. This levy will, on average, be 24% lower than
in 2002/03. Firms whose unresolved complaints are referred to us
will pay a greater proportion of our total costs than those firms
that are able to resolve any complaints satisfactorily without the
need for our direct involvement. The standard case fee will remain
at £360 for 2003/04.
|
| managing
the workload |
| 1.4
|
Events
during 2002 have already demonstrated the importance of our being
sufficiently flexible to cope with unpredictable variations in workload.
The need to match our resources to varying levels of demand will
be a permanent feature of the ombudsman service.
Within
months of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) approving our budget
in March 2002, it became clear that the forecasts on which we had
based the budget had underestimated complaint volumes. We needed
to act quickly in the short term and to establish a plan of action
for the longer term, to ensure that the unexpected surge in complaints
did not result in substantial and unacceptable backlogs of cases.
Our success in achieving this owes much to the investment made over
the last two years in our management, premises and technology. Because
of this investment, we managed to prevent backlogs and maintain
our service levels.
Because
of our earlier investment in our infrastructure, the additional
expenditure we incurred reflects, in the main, only the direct costs
of employing and equipping the new staff. We were able to act quickly
to recruit these staff because our financial control framework,
agreed with the FSA, is based on our unit cost rather than on a
cash limit.
The
overall result will be a substantially lower unit cost this year
and in 2003/04. The unit cost will have fallen from £753 in
2000/01 to £684 last year, and is expected to be under £560
this year and in 2003/04.
|
| re-structuring |
| 1.5
|
On
1 October 2002 we undertook a structural reorganisation, replacing
the three divisions based on the three product areas insurance,
banking and investment with four general business units.
Each of these units deals with all areas of our business. This allows
the three principal ombudsmen, previously responsible for managing
their respective divisions as well as for policy, to concentrate
solely on policy issues. Our operations director is responsible
for the resources and service standards in the four business units.
The reorganisation will increase our flexibility and enable us to
respond speedily and effectively to peaks and troughs of work related
to different product areas.
|
|
key
points of the current year 2002/03
|
| 1.6 |
The key points of the current year 2002/03 are as follows:
|
| |
- new
complaints. By
the end of December 2002, we had received 43,000 new complaints.
We expect that total to have risen by April 2003 to 55,000. This
is 47% above the 2002/03 budget and is largely due to complaints
about dual variable mortgage rates and mortgage endowment policies.
- case
closures.
During the year, as the inflow of new complaints exceeded our
projections, we recruited significantly more case-handlers than
originally planned. At the end of December 2002 we had closed
in excess of 40,000 cases. In total, we expect to close 54,500
cases this year, compared with the budget assumption of 40,000.
- unit
cost. Our budget was to achieve a unit cost of £688.
After allowing for the costs of the additional staff recruited
to handle the extra volume of work, we expect to achieve a figure
of £544 in 2002/03. This will be the result of an increase
in productivity and the fact that our fixed costs are spread over
a larger number of cases.
|
| key
points for the budget year 2003/04 |
| 1.7 |
Key
points for the budget year 2003/04 are as follows:
|
| |
- new
complaints. It
is always very difficult to predict the level of new complaints.
We have assumed that there will be no significant change from
the revised forecast for this year and that we will handle 55,000
new complaints. However, we have also tested two alternate scenarios:
a 10% increase and a 10% fall in new cases.
- productivity.
We aim to increase our productivity further. Our target of 4.4
cases closed per case-handler per week is 40% higher than that
achieved in 1999/2000.
- case
closures. In
view of the level of new complaints and our need to achieve our
productivity and timeliness targets, we have decided to increase
the average number of case-handling staff by 30. With case-handling
staff at this level, we expect to close 59,000 cases in 2003/04.
- timeliness.
We will include two further indicators that will monitor the timeliness
of our case closures at three months and nine months. We will
also increase from 75% to 80% our target for the percentage of
cases closed within six months.
- unit
cost. The
effect of these assumptions will be a total expenditure of £33.1m.
This is an increase on the 2002/03 budget of 17%. However, it
is equivalent to a unit cost of £551 compared with the £688
in the budget for 2002/03.
|
| conclusion
|
| 1.8
|
We
welcome comments on any aspect of this plan & budget or
on the level of case fees and the tariff for the voluntary jurisdiction.
Please direct any comments on the general levy tariff for the compulsory
jurisdiction to the Financial Services Authority, as this forms part
of a separate consultation on funding the ombudsman service (CP161). |