The Financial Ombudsman Service takes too long to settle matters, needs to offer financial service providers a right of review, should pay more attention to legal principles in its considerations, and needs more staff with a strong understanding of the industries it covers.These are the key points in submissions made to consultant Cameron Ralph Navigator, which is reviewing FOS's performance - a requirement under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's regulatory guide for external dispute resolution schemes.Delay in the resolution of disputes is the big issue. Several submissions, including that of the Australian Bankers' Association, called for performance targets and service agreements.The ABA submissions said that FOS's efficiency, measured as time taken to resolve disputes, was below an acceptable standard. "This has an impact on fairness and effectiveness," it said.The ABA has called for the introduction of service-level agreements, with delayed responses resulting in a reduced fee being charged to a member bank.FOS concedes that it has a problem in this area. Its 2013/14 business plan said: "The challenge over the next two years is to see these efforts translate into the delivery of a clear reduction in the time taken to resolve disputes."It is not just industry groups that are unhappy with the delays. A joint consumer submission, drafted by the Consumer Credit Legal Centre and Consumer Action Law Centre, said: "Delay can have significant consumer detriment because interest continues to accrue on debts that are the subject of a dispute. "Delays in insurance disputes may mean the consumer is without a car or has an uninhabitable house. Long delays can also extend periods of financial hardship."The joint consumer submission said the large number of steps in FOS's dispute process was one reason for delay. It recommended that FOS look at whether so many steps were necessary.Other submissions also included criticisms of FOS's process. The Financial Services Council said there should be an amendment to FOS's terms of reference to create incentives for early resolution. It said: "It is not uncommon for a reasonable settlement offer to be made by the financial service provider to the applicant. At the moment there is no mechanism to allow FOS to have matters resolved more quickly in cases where the complainant has unreasonable expectations." The Insurance Council of Australia said: "Case management is a problem. Applicants are allowed to make multiple submissions, often months after initial contact. "The financial service provider is required to review the case again. FOS case managers need to keep a tighter rein on cases."Several submissions called for FOS to employ more highly qualified case managers. The Insurance Council of Australia said more depth of knowledge about the insurance industry was needed to ensure more consistency of outcomes.A submission from an individual, Jason Brightson-Stangstins, complained that, while his dispute was with a stockbroker over derivative investments, FOS appointed a financial planning industry representative to handle the dispute.There were also calls for FOS to provide rights of review and to pay closer attention to due process.The Financial Services Council