Rules, Principles and Ombudsmen: Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v The Financial Ombudsman Service

Abstract

The judgment in Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v the Financial Ombudsman Service1 provides good evidence of the drawbacks of rule based adjudication, and the need for ombudsmen to be able to rely on principles of fairness. Further, it demonstrates, to those who associate ombudsmen and general standards of fairness with arbitrary and subjective decisions,2 how such determinations are constructed through, and constrained by, the legal context of codes, rights, etc in which the assessment is made. The decision also demonstrates an attempt to create a division of labour when courts and ombudsmen operate alongside each other, with the courts having a monopoly on the interpretation of legal rules, and ombudsmen being left to determine, with only minimal restrictions, a principled basis for the assessment of fairness.