Financial Ombudsman - a recommendation

[livelylad]

E mail sent and a letter to follow.

[mooreda]

i think the Ombudsman is beginning to take serious notice - have a read of the ombudsman monthly newsletter and article in thisismoney.com and issue 57 - October/November 2006

James Coney, Daily Mail
8 November 2006
Reader comments (1)

Complaints about 'rip-off' bank overdraft charges have hit record levels, figures show.
STRESS: Complaining to your bank can be a frustrating experienceThe number of people complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service soared from 60 a week in May to more than 150 a week in October.

In some cases, customers have run up hundreds of pounds in charges after going just a few pence overdrawn.
With complaints expected to hit 10,000 this year, the chief ombudsman has warned banks to start acting fairly when handling claims for compensation.
He accuses banks of giving customers the run-around by paying back the charges only to those who are prepared to go to court or make a complaint to the ombudsman. And he threatened to make a legal ruling that will force banks to pay back all charges.
Instead, he wants banks to accept that their charges are unfair and refund them when customers complain, rather than resorting to delaying tactics and bargaining over how much they should refund.
Banks will charge customers as much as £39 for going beyond their overdraft without permission, and slap on a further charge of around £25 for every direct debit or transaction that is then bounced or allowed to go through.
On top of this, the banks will charge an interest rate of close to 30pc on unauthorised overdrafts. The charges can often send the customer overdrawn again, plunging them into a spiral of debt.
These charges are feeding record profits of a combined £34bn at the big five banks - Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds TSB, RBS-NatWest and HBOS.
Many, including the Office of Fair Trading which has launched an investigation, believe that these charges are illegal because they amount to an unfair penalty rather than being a true reflection of the cost to a bank when a customer overspends.
The OFT is expected to make an initial decision early next year. In October it demanded that banks impose a £12 cap on charges for customers who go over their credit card limit or make a late payment.
In the past six months, thousands of customers have demanded that the banks reimburse charges - banks initially reject such claims. But if the customer complains again, many banks will offer to pay back a proportion of the charges.
Only if the customer then goes to court or registers a complaint with the ombudsman will the charges be reimbursed in full. But the banks always back down before a court or ombudsman ruling can be made, to prevent any sort of precedent being set.
Chief ombudsman Walter Merricks believes that if banks reimburse those customers who are prepared to complain several times, then they should have to pay back money to everyone who makes a claim.
He says: 'This sort of horseplay is bad. It seems inequitable that you will pay back money to some consumers just because they are prepared to be persistent.'

Merricks warns that if banks failed to pay back consumers, or if the OFT investigation was lengthy, then he would be forced to weigh in with a ruling that could force banks to reimburse customers.
Money Mail and This is Money's Fair Play On Charges campaign has helped thousands of readers claw back charges since May. The campaign has revealed other dirty tricks that banks use, including closing the accounts of customers who win back charges, and putting black marks on their credit records.
Marc Gander, a campaigner from the Consumer Action Group which gives advice to bank customers wanting to reclaim their charges, says: 'These charges are a rip-off. Banks have perfected the art of giving their customers the run-around.
'Complaining about your bank can be a very stressful and daunting process, so they weed out the faint-hearted. This means that many people drop out before they claim back all their money and results in the bank saving money.' A spokesman for the British Bankers' Association says: 'We are involved in a dialogue with the OFT at the moment, and we take on board the concerns with the ombudsman and will be discussing these with him. Our members believe that their charges are transparent, fair and legal.'

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	The Direct Debit Guarantee • The Guarantee is offered by all Banks and Building Societies that take part in the Direct Debit Scheme. The efficiency and security of the Scheme is monitored and protected by your own Bank or Building Society. • If the amounts to be paid or the payment dates change, we will notify you three working days in advance of your account being debited or as otherwise agreed. • If an error is made by us or by your Bank or Building Society, you are guaranteed a full and immediate refund from your branch of the amount paid. • You can cancel a Direct Debit at any time by writing your Bank or Building Society. Please also send a copy of your letter to us. This is a term of your banking contract and you can sue on it.

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[Battleaxe]

Mooreda,

The first article just goes to show how mr merrick does not want to take this issue up. he wants a quiet life and let us slug it out with the banks to keep his workload light.

Notice how he refers to the FSA and OFT....think it says all there is about the Finanacial Ombudsman and the concern he has for the unwashed plebs of the world.

it will be us, the unwashed who lead this revolution in the finanacial industry.

It wont be the mealy mouthed politcians, or the heads of Quangos, or whatever Office..it will be the likes of Martin Lewis, BankFodder and Dave, who helped the rest of us get back what is rightfully ours and if the regulations are changed, it will be these three people we owe out thanks and our sanity.

Mr Merrick should hang his head in shame. No wonder the finanacial institutions cock a snoot at his office, they know he will only rapped them over the wrist with a wet bus ticket.

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[bill-k]

Thanks, Mooreda, and hear, hear, Battleaxe.

Battle on.

[phatram]

Does anyone know why you can't complain to the FO if you are taking court action against a bank?

[bill-k]

Originally Posted by phatram

Does anyone know why you can't complain to the FO if you are taking court action against a bank?

Not too sure, Phatram, but I believe one has to choose whether to complain to the FO first (ie before going to court), then resorting to court action if the FO can't help - OR - just going straight to court (which is what the majority seem to be doing, here, as the FO seems to be able to do SFA !!)

Doing both simultaneously would be like trying to get your car fixed at two different garages at once.

HTH

[Battleaxe]

Yikes, me car is getting fixed at two garages. Actually my complaints to the FO are more of a reminder why I find his office not effectual.. He wants us all to go to court so his office has a lighter works load...but I figure if I keep him informed he just might take notice just how weak we think he is and we are are able to get more justice doing it our way

[bill-k]

Hah !!! Is that right, Battleaxe. I've sent a stiff e-mail, but declined the invitation to complain officially. I suppose if your complaint is a general one, as opposed to a specific ongoing claim, then there's no harm. Or ARE you really getting the job done by both ?? !!

If that is so, then I apologise for the misinformation, Phatram !!!

[Battleaxe]

I have let the FO know just for information as I told his office I thought they were useless and I am now waiting to see how he responds.

I haven't started down the court route yet with MBNA CC.

Rachael Claridge Assistant Vice president reckons their charges are fair and just according to the OFT. I am just playing devil's advocate before Ms Claridge gets hit between the eyes with a sledgehammer. I told her the delaying tactics have been reported to Information Commissioner, FO, FAS and OFT. i want to give her something to think about while she plans her next delaying tactic.

I know I am not playing fair, but then neither are they. i just want give a bit of agro back.

[moneymonster]

For the past year i having been dealing with a Financial ombudsman, because I was wrongly informed by an IFA in a mortgage and was later charged by the vendor for rent of the property my fiancee was also evacuated from the house with my two little chgildren let alone my fiancee also expecting our third we incurred extra chrarges because the mortgage wasnt completed in time although I exchanged contracts and deposit 5 monmths previous , i now have a mortgage that i cant really afford and wanted to claim off the IFA, but they havent responded to the Financial ombudsman? I could have lost everything someone should pay!

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[bill-k]

Battleaxe - Like you, I sent the FO my stiff e-mail, and got a reply inviting me to make a formal complaint if I wished (by sending in all the evidence , etc.) - I replied, declining to, AT THAT TIME. If you haven't received such an e-reply within a day or 2 of you sending your original stiffie, then I reckon they're getting swamped already !! They might even be GETTING THE MESSAGE at last !!!

You say you're not playing fair, but you're playing by their rules, aren't you ? Who's to say that's not fair then, eh ? That's reciprocity and mutuality in the raw , innit ?

Fell Outta My Tree Laughing at this one...Do you mean to say that YOU have actually been honoured with a communication from MBNA's Assistant Vice President ? Whoa - RESPECT !!! Makes you think you're being taken notice of, for once, doesn't it !!

I, too, felt just as important when I got a letter PERSONALLY signed by their Assistant Vice President. You've just burst my balloon, though. The AVP who signed MY letter was a Susan Pemberton.

They're ALL Assistant Vice Presidents, then !! There's a whole open-plan typing-pool full of 'em.

To me, that sums up their bl**dy attitude.

Yours (ever so slightly) sincerely

Bill-k
Chief Assistant Vice Under-Manager to the Chair.

[bill-k]

Hi Moneymonster - and welcome. That's one hell of a sad tale for you and your family. I've been 100% concerned with reclaiming bank charges, here, so I can't give you much advice myself. But I'm sure there is info on this site for your situation (if you haven't found it already). It might give you a better alternative to trying to get the FO to do anything.

You might want to start your own thread, too, as that might help you get the right advice from forum members.

Hope that helps,

Bill.

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[notlam]

According to the published annual accounts for the Financial Ombudsman Service, to 31st March 2006, (available to anyone instantly online for £1.00 from Companies House) the Chairman of the FOS, Sir Christopher Kelly KCB,

- attended 11 meetings out of 11.
- was paid £65,000.

Not sure what else he did for that but who wouldn't get out of bed once a month for that sort of spondoolie?

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[danielking]

Also done, I hope that this action will make the FO realise that this is part of their remit!

[un1boy]

Originally Posted by danielking

Also done, I hope that this action will make the FO realise that this is part of their remit!

I dunno, especially when you get replies like this:
____

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am not sure why this has been forwarded to our service as you state that you have no confidence of the Financial Ombudsman Service. I am presuming that this has been forwarded in error.

If you do wish to use our service I enclose an e-mail which maybe of use to you.
____

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[Alison82]

Done!!

[bill-k]

Originally Posted by un1boy

I dunno, especially when you get replies like this:
____

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am not sure why this has been forwarded to our service as you state that you have no confidence of the Financial Ombudsman Service. I am presuming that this has been forwarded in error.

If you do wish to use our service I enclose an e-mail which maybe of use to you.

____

You didn't send to the OFT FSA by mistake, did you, un1boy ? I nearly did !!

[bill-k]

FWIW, this iz wot I rote, if itz any use (and they replied) :-

"
Hello,

I have recently been requesting repayment of unlawfully made bank penalty charges. I am constantly being told that I must wait in line for the bank to deal with my complaint, and then eventually being effectively told that the Ombudsman is the only avenue left to me if I am not happy with their response.

Having asked the Ombudsman previously for help, I know I am not alone in expressing my lack of confidence in the Ombudsman’s powers, or willingness to exercise those powers. I therefore am well aware that there are other, more effective, ways of dealing with the banks – and in particular through the Courts.

In my meagre experience, the Ombudsman seems to serve little other purpose than to reinforce the banks’ arrogance and sense of impunity.

I would respectfully suggest that, at the very least, the Ombudsman directs banks to suggest the Small Claims Courts as an alternative to the Ombudsman in many cases of complaint. Until such time that the Ombudsman can demonstrate both some muscle and also a full set of teeth, then that might at least be of some help.

Yours regretfully,

Bill-K.
"

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[un1boy]

Originally Posted by bill-k

You didn't send to the OFT FSA by mistake, did you, un1boy ? I nearly did !!

Nope, defo the FOS!!!

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[mooreda]

i personally believe that we should all start bombarding the FOS with our complaints - this is what caused the uproar with Endowment Misselling. The FOS are already beginning to get inundated with cases and quite clearly the more we bombard them with the more they will have to stand up for us consumers!

I have raised one case with the FOS against Lloyds TSB and the bank backed down and reimbursed the ALL charges before the FOS began their Investigation.

I am about to start again with a relatives case and will do the same with this one as well - instead of using the Court, escalate to the FOS.

Please note, if a case goes to the FOS - it does indeed cost the bank!

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.