Jump to content

parity4all

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

parity4all last won the day on November 26 2016

parity4all had the most liked content!

Reputation

53 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Finally (after 9 months) the financial ombudsman service (FOS) has issued it's decision. My complaint has been upheld. Please mark this thread as a success. The ombudsman came to a different decision from the investigator and said the information provided by Wise 'could have been clearer during the process'. Wise was asked to apologise to me. Wise did take their time doing this, but finally came good. Unfortunately, even the apology is tinged with the same old 'as a regulated financial institution....', as if they are still trying to vindicate themselves for the mistake (of not being clear). The ombudsman decision said '..carrying out its due diligence checks, are a business decision it is entitled to make. It’s not something we as a service would look to interfere with. What I must consider are the individual circumstances of this case and whether Wise treated Mr N fairly and reasonably.'. Either the staff member at Wise haven't read the final decision from the ombudsman or still see the need to assert the same old 'as a regulated financial institution' chestnut. I had never contended the need for the checks. Here is the ombudsman's final decision:
  2. I've been using the Wise borderless debit card to withdraw money when abroad. Usually, I deposit money to the Wise borderless GBP account just prior to withdrawing in local currency and this had worked out fine. But on one occasion (on Friday 26 August 2022), the money I transferred from my Halifax Bank current account to Wise borderless GBP account was held back for due diligence checks. This I understand, is perfectly normal. Wise did inform me via the App that they were 'running some checks...'. then on 29 August 2022 I received an email saying 'your transfer will be completed on 29 August 2022' (oddly, the same day as the email was sent!). The transfer (money finally added to my Wise GBP account and available for withdrawal) wasn't completed until 1 September 2022. It was 5 days since I did the transfer using the Halifax Bank App (on Friday 26 August). This again is fair enough as the due diligence is something essential. However, I was concerned about the information that was relayed throughout the process, so I complained to Wise. Wise didn't agree. In their final response they've said '[due diligence] checks usually take 2–10 working days, but occasionally they can take longer.'. The Wise website doesn't mention this time frame anywhere. Nor did they tell me this within the App or the info email about the transfer. Does anyone know the reason(s) Wise wouldn't show this information on their website, App or emails? Is it because normally transfers happen instantly, within 2 hours or the next business day? So, if only a really small percentage (maybe 1% or even 0.01%) of transfers are affected by the due diligence, it's not necessary to provide this time frame information to the customer? I'm aware that banks and financial institutions and/or staff are legally prohibited to tell customers reason(s) for the checks. However, I think this time frame - '..2–10 working days, but occasionally they can take longer.' wouldn't qualify as prohibited. If it was, then Wise wouldn't have told me within the final response email/letter.
  3. When making a Subject Access Request (SAR), also known as Data Subject Access Request (DSAR), do I need to provide the reason or reasons for making the request? Is it a requirement by law and regulation? or is it not necessary to give a reason or reasons under the Data Protection Act (2018) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)?
  4. I emailed the team manager handling my service complaint on Friday 26 August. I immediately received an out of office message saying this: Since it says 'please allow 48 hours for a response', I waited. As Monday was a bank holiday I presumed that 48 hours would carry over to the next working day. So I continued to wait. By Thursday 01 September, I still hadn't heard from her, so emailed her again and said: She replies: I then told her that I'm not pleased with the communications up to now. She responds with this: Today when I email her, immediately received an out of office message. Here it is: Notice how she has now removed the part about 'on leave and return [date of return].' and kept it vague with 'service complaint I'll respond on my return'. So, when she said 'I have noted your comments though' she meant noted to become less transparent to look after her own interest.
  5. I did. After the adjudicator refused to allow me to see Amex case file (that she replied upon) a couple of times, I told her to submit a service complaint, then I contacted the Information Rights team at FOS and requested my personal data (Subject Access Request). The the next day or day after I received the Amex case file data that she relied upon. However, only the first four pages were readable. I told her this. Now she's sent me a readable version. The information rights team has also acknowledged my Subject Access Request (SAR). With the SAR, FOS has severe delays in processing. Some (most?) SAR's taking months to complete. Case in point, the last SAR that I requested on 19 November 2021 was completed towards the end of March 2022. Information Rights team kept sending me an email every month saying it's been delayed. I've also made a SAR to Amex through their website a couple of days ago.
  6. @cjcreggcan I ask what your service complaint was about? By the way I forgot to mention in the OP, after my adjudicator had spoken to the ombudsman, and the ombudsman told her to release the info from Amex she had relied upon to reach her view, she reverted to me with the following: That's how come I said to her it's kinda baffling that she had chosen to follow the instructions from Amex instead of the FOS internal procedures and processes about case file access.
  7. Made a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about Amex because they provided me incorrect advice as to how to access a previous statement. They told me previous statements (older statements) can only be sent via post. However, later I discovered that although (older) previous statements aren't available via the app they can be accessed via online banking (via the Amex website). I contacted Amex via in-app chat and told them I want to make a complaint. Each agent became really defensive and started stonewalling asking the same questions repeatedly. The last agent even said to me 'So the reason to raise a complaint is ONLY** that representative who could not handle your query well regarding Nov 2020 statement but now you have got it sorted'. After explaining to him that they (Amex) would still need to investigate and have systems in place to prevent it in future, he finally agreed to submit a complaint. However, we were still not out of the woods yet. The complaint submission entailed 'confirming' my contact number, mailing address and email address, passing the security question again (I had passed the security question in that session previously - this was the second time I was asked the security question in that session), only then the agent confirmed a complaint was submitted. I just checked the screenshots and the chat session on that day had started at 3:25 pm and ended at 5:14 pm. It would've been quicker to type a letter and post it via recorded delivery! Anyone wanting to complaint to Amex may wish to do that as the barrage of questions and stonewalling on in-app chat is just not worth it. It's no way quicker (efficient) by any means, although the whole point of in-app is to make life easier for us (not so when it comes to complaining). In my complaint I asked Amex to investigate as to how come I wasn't advised about the ability to download past statements via online banking and also asked for £100 in compensation. Amex investigated my complaint and said: Amex then credited my account £50. Not the £100 I had claimed. I felt Amex tried to brush aside the problem blaming it on the system not being up to date (and it not being the agent's fault) and the that they ought to have paid the £100 compensation I had claimed (considering the time and resources I had to dedicate to make the complaint). I also thought they should have accepted my complaint a long while ago (without the repeated questions). That was why I complained to the FOS. The complaint was handled by an adjudicator who gave her view recently. In her view, she said she cannot see anything Amex has done wrong. So, I asked to see the evidence she considered when she came to her view. First I asked for all the evidence I had sent. She sent me some of the evidence I had sent but some were missing (evidence I had sent via royal mail signed for delivery). After repeated emails to her explaining I had sent documents via post she asked the FOS postroom to locate this evidence. I then received an email from her saying that the evidence had been on file all along but she had just 'realised [she] never added all the files' to the email she sent me. However, this doesn't quite add up cause it's clear from her view email that some content I had mentioned in the evidence sent through the post is missing. e.g. With the evidence I sent through the post, I had said I needed to claim printing cost of £9.30 (for printing that evidence). This was not mentioned in her view email- she only mentioned in her view email what I had claimed in my online correspondence. The other problem was when I asked to see the documents Amex had sent her that she considered when reaching her view. She resolutely denied me saying 'the case file from Amex is confidential'. She kept saying this even though I told her she should release it after redacting the relevant information, such as staff personnel names, their phone number/email, and commercially sensitive information etc. I then asked her to submit a service complaint about her refusal and also about my documents (sent via post not being added to the file/not being considered when she reached her view). Even this took a couple of emails. She then reverted saying she had spoken to an ombudsman about my case and had been advised to release the Amex case file. Today I was sent the case file from Amex but only the first 4 pages are readable, the others (about 18 pages) are not properly formatted and the text is superimposed on top of each other, so it's barely readable. I've emailed her asking to send the file again but in a readable format. In the meantime, her manager has contacted me to 'introduce herself' (which is usually the procedure with a service complaint) and asked me what aspects do I 'believe' hasn't been taken into consideration when the adjudicator reached her decision and also if there is any specific evidence from AMEX that I wanted to see or did I want to see what the adjudicator had relied on when reaching her opinion. Has anyone on these forums (Consumer Action Group) ever actually had a service complaint decided in their favour? The past two service complaints I've made this year have all been turned down saying they were due to 'unavoidable' factors (outcome of service complaints at FOS are based on a 'avoidable' or 'unavoidable' criteria). So, if you complain about delays. The outcome would state the delay was avoidable therefore 'I [the manager] uphold the complaint' or 'delay was unavoidable therefore the complaint is not upheld'. I spent so much time and resources on those service complaints only to be told the FOS mistakes were unavoidable and that my complaint is not upheld. So, I'm thinking maybe this service complaint will also be an 'unavoidable' failure on the part of the FOS and be brushed under the carpet. We can complain to the 'independent' assessor but for that I need to wait for the Amex complaint to be finalised at the FOS (unless of course it's to do with something serious, like bias). Which brings me to the next point. Does anyone think the mistake by the adjudicator was a simple case of lack of (or improper) training or is there something more to it? e.g. bias I told her in an email that I'm kinda baffled that she is acting on the instructions of Amex (re. confidentiality) instead of following the internal procedures and processes at FOS. I didn't receive an answer to this. ** - my emphasis
  8. My personal data. Sorry about hitting 'quote' but I need to clearly state this is indeed what I'm replying to. The SAR is not solely to do with the redirection issue. I had used the Royal Mail website's 'report a crime' feature. Kept the screenshot where it say 'Thank you. Your submission has been received' . I also requested my personal data about this submission within the SAR. Royal Mail didn't have a record, so, attached to the complaint, I sent them the screenshot, which has the website URL. Date and time are on the screenshot as well. Royal Mail response was that they conducted a search using my name, address and email address, but no records were identified. Odd since I had provided them my personal details within the report. I contacted the ICO again earlier this week, they (the case officer at ICO) emailed me yesterday and said [it is]'common practice for an organisation to seek clarification on what information a data subject requires as part of their request when deemed necessary.'" "...once you have received a final response from the organisation, you still remain unsatisfied, you could forward the correspondence to us so that we could consider the matter." The Royal Mail letter does not state it's a final response, so I think I'd need to liaise with them until they make that clear or there is a lack of response (again).
  9. The FOS as in the Financial Ombudsman Service? Don't they deal with financial institutions like banks, building societies, Fintech's etc. Pretty sure they won't handle Data protection matters even if it's to do with consumer rights.
  10. I lodged a Subject Access Request with Royal Mail on 06 September 2021. They responded to it on 30 September 2021. However, they didn't provide all the information that I requested. I lodged a compliant (as per the guidance on the ICO website). They (Royal Mail) replied on the same day: I didn't hear back., I complained to the ICO. ICO didn't reply within 3 months, I lodged an appeal at the First-tier Tribunal. Then ICO contacted Royal Mail by letter. Still no reply to the complaint. again ICO contacted Royal Mail. Only then I received a reply just a few days ago. On the reply Royal Mail have said they need the reference number in order to try and locate the two emails I requested. they've told me they've not been able to locate a letter. They've apologised and said 'whilst there is no statutory set time scale for responding to complaints, we endeavour to respond to all complaints as soon as possible within one calendar month of receipt.'. Suffice to say, it has taken well over 9 months, nevermind one calendar month. Is there really no statutory (legal) timeframe?. I remember there used to be. Perhaps changed with GDPR?
  11. the chances of them 'sending' debt collectors are slim to none. Even if they do, debt collector's can't actually take anything from your home, like a bailiff can. Debt collector's can only ask, not force. See: https://www.stepchange.org/debt-info/debt-collection/bailiffs-and-debt-collectors-differences.aspx
  12. I need to lodge a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Natwest and ask for information they hold about any previous accounts. Remember having an account with them around 2006-2007 but it was closed a few years (two or three years) later. There is no longer any record of the account in any of my credit agency files. Chances are that Natwest won't have either. Anyhow, it seems Natwest have automated the SAR process and are using HooYu for the identity verification (the same ID verification system they use for account opening, I believe): https://personal.natwest.com/personal/gdpr-triage-page.html#continue Has anyone lodged a SAR to Natwest using this system? Is it straightforward? The reviews on Trustpilot about HooYu isn't great. 87% of 1 star reviews from a total of 39 reviews. None of the reviews have been responded to by HooYu. They have a facebook fanpage, however, no review section and comments by customers are not responded to.
  13. Turns out she's put: Customer Service Centre Customer Service Advisor FREEPOST P O Box 740 Stoke on Trent ST1 5XZ Pretty sure it's not conventional to put the person/job title of the person it's addressed to after the team/department, but I can't see it causing too much confusion. The FREEPOST soon afterwards makes sense. From what I've seen on the RoyalMail twitter account that's the usual practice. See tweet attached: royal mail tweet with customer service centre address previously based in Plymouth The tweet is from 2012 with the same P.O.Box number but Customer Service Centre was then in Plymouth then, not Stoke on Trent. Can't see the convention changing though. I think the Freepost at the top comes only if it's accompanied by a code or a name. As mentioned in this website. See (5) below (note that the webpage is not from the royal mail website): I wouldn't use that address these days though, for the simple reason mentioned before. i.e. customer Service centre seems to be now based in Stoke on Trent. BTW, just discovered from the Royal Mail Website, it seems businesses/charities can buy a licence for a Freepost name. we (customer/donor) only need to put 'Freepost [NAME OF BUSINESS/Charity] when writing to business/charity. Wonder how come Royal Mail don't have a similar Freepost name for Customer Service Centre. Something like...'Freepost Royal Mail Customer Service Centre'. Just one line. Could it be to prevent customers complaining about trivial matters, such as postie not closing the gate after delivering mail or postie walking across the grass lawn. At the moment, only select few customers are aware of the Customer Service Centre freepost address, and we have to write a few lines for the address, not a single line. Seems there is a Royal Mail Customer Services in Plymouth, as opposed to Customer Service Centre (in Stoke on trent). Address is listed as: Royal Mail Customer Services FREEPOST Plymouth PL9 7YB Also here: https://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/Mail_made_easy.pdf..unpublished as: Royal Mail Customer Services, FREEPOST, PO Box 740, PLYMOUTH, PL9 7YB But that is talking about making a claim for loss, damage, delay. it seems depending on the query/issue we may have to contact one or the other address. i.e. Plymouth or stoke. Not sure if they are other customer services related addresses depending on the area of expertise. i.e. loss/damage/delay, redirection of mail etc. Apparently, royal mail does have one line freepost addresses. i.e. 'Freepost Royal Mail International': https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_address_for_freepost_royal_m However, according to that customer, they (one line addresses') such as those are frowned upon by royal mail staff.
  14. I made a complaint about my redirection to Royal Mail via phone. Royal mail send me a letter saying if I had any more issues I can contact them via the address on the top of the letter. That address was/is: Customer Service Centre, P O Box 740, Stoke on Trent, ST1 5XZ Within the letter the staff member said the address is a freepost address. I found the need to contact the customer service centre again. I wrote a letter to the Customer Service Centre. As I'm unable to post the letter myself, I asked a colleague to post it to the address above. I also told her that it was a freepost address. As 'freepost' was missing from the address she had decided to write the address on the envelope as: FREEPOST P O Box 740 Stoke on Trent ST1 5XZ Any ideas if the letter will make to to the recipient? I think she may have felt that as the address did not have 'freepost', sorting office may delay or not deliver the item as they may not be aware the address is freepost Is it common knowledge (among postal staff) that the address is freepost and do we not need to specify this on the address? I'm attaching the letter from Royal Mail that said the address is freepost: letter from Royal Mail with Customer Service address that says it's freepost
  15. Any idea why the U.S. suddenly withdrew?. How come no gradual approach? or am I missing somethings and it has been a gradual approach. If there was a deadline set and a more gradual approach then maybe planes wouldn't have to leave half empty?
×
×
  • Create New...