The board and management of the Financial Ombudsman Service are contemplating a major restructure, after a review of the organisation agreed with its critics that its dispute handling process was inefficient and resulted in too many delays. But they can take heart from the review's rejection of the critics' other major charge - that its determinations are too subjective and do not pay enough attention to legal principles.In a review handed down last week, consultant Cameronralph Navigator said that FOS met its benchmark for fairness. It found: "FOS's operational guidelines provide appropriate clarity as to how the decision-making criteria will be applied. Our review satisfied us that FOS decisions are consistent with the guidelines and that fairness to both parties is considered. "Our file review and stakeholder feedback were supportive of the quality of the investigative process and of FOS recommendations and determinations."A submission to Cameronralph Navigator by the Association of Financial Advisers said: "FOS is not bound by rules of evidence. This has taken FOS cases into a space where the industry questions the level of equity and procedural fairness. The industry questions whether, in the context of large claims, a principle of minimum formality and technicality is still appropriate." Allianz Australia said in its submission: "We would like to see more regard paid to legal principles, including the laws relating to contracts, when considering a dispute. We regularly see a 'fair and reasonable' test taking precedence over the rules a court would apply."Cameronralph Navigator said: "We consider that FOS's operational guidelines provide appropriate clarity as to FOS's approach to assessing information and we were satisfied that FOS does carefully consider whether the available information lends support to the assertions made by the parties."Our file review and stakeholder feedback were generally supportive of the quality of the investigative process and of FOS recommendations and determinations."A number of submissions argued that FOS's discretion to exclude disputes that are frivolous or vexatious should be expanded to include disputes where the remedy sought by the applicant cannot be awarded by FOS. Others complained that FOS takes too long to recognise unmeritorious disputes.Cameronralph Navigator said the controls in place were adequate and well implemented. There were submissions that financial services providers (FSPs) were sometimes not given the opportunity to review the information provided to FOS by the complainants. There were also concerns that FOS could, in special circumstances, use confidential information to make an adverse finding against an FSP.Cameronralph Navigator said: "We did not see any situations where FOS refused to provide correspondence or documents to FSPs. Nor did we see situations where FOS relied on confidential information to make findings that were adverse to the party not provided with the information."There were a couple of situations where there was inadvertent failure to provide a party with documents."The consultant did agree with some criticisms. It said the number of re-opened disputes was too high and acknowledged that this caused frustration and inefficiency. A couple of submissions raised concerns that FOS appeared to expect