Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Why does the FOS take so long to deal?


poppynurse
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5528 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Question in the title!

 

My OH complained about MBNA last January and they are still dealing with it (despite us asking them to consider our financial hardship).

 

How long should it take them to resolve a case and how long do they actually take.....

 

I complained in December about my MBNA account, is it going to take over a year???? Coz I'm paying silly interest whilst tryig to get this sorted :(

Poppynurse :)

 

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine they are snowed under with complaints. Especially since consumers have become aware of problems regarding their agreements, PPI contracts and other issues. Have you had a letter saying that your complaint has been assigned to an adjudicator. If not, give them a ring and explain the hardship situation. I am assuming this is in relation to a penalty fee clami ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's in relation to a ?unenforcable agreement, MBNAs tactics in ramping the interest rate, the minimum payment being less than the interest charged, reduction of credit limit to try and push me over the edge...I've emailed regarding financial hardship on both my OH (last April and many times since)and my case but my OHs case has been ongoing for over a year - they don't seem to care....just say they will be in touch in 8 weeks....

 

My OHs case is in relation to MBNA revoking a 0% balance transfer deal as they failed to set up the DD despite us sending the paperwork in several times, this resulted in late payment (by a few days) so they ramped him to 16.9% then 34.9% interest.....

 

He's about to make another complaint to FOS about the PPI associated with MBNA - refusing to pay out despite him having no income, it's taken since August to get the deadlock letter from St Andrews so here we go again.

 

Do they have no concept of the hardship they cause by these long delays?

Poppynurse :)

 

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, unfortunately, the Financial Ombudsman does not have a remit to ajudicate on the enforceablity or otherwise of an agreement. That is the job of Trading Standards.

 

It kind of makes a nonsense of their timing though if they have had this for over a year and have said they will reply in 8 weeks.

 

You might find they act a bit swifter on the PPI issue though.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

They just keep sending holding letters - we are dealing and will update you in 8 weeks if not resolved by then. It has been with an adjudicator for months....

 

My issue (of which the agreement enforcability is just part) has not yet been allocated as they keep allowing MBNA more time to respond to me, despite me sending them the letter from MBNA saying we won't enter into further correspondance. Trading standards seem to think the agreement is enforcable :( but they have ignored many of the points I raised.

Poppynurse :)

 

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the FOS follow these threads....

my OH got a letter saying that although the FOS don't feel that MBNA should reinstate the 0% interest rate deal as it was OH's responsibility to ensure the DD was set up that MBNA are prepared to settle to avoid a FOS investigation - how would he like the money paid!!!!!

Minor victory I feel, just got to wait for them to sort me out now, and get the PPI complaint in.

Poppynurse :)

 

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents on why the FOS is so busy...

 

The banks complaints processes are dreadful they do not respond to even the simplest question properly. They send the most appripriate standard letter from thier library of templates. If they give the proper dilligence to complaints then issues like bank charges would not become so huge.

 

If they gave a straight answer to a question like how odes it cost £38 to process and UNPAID DIRECT DEBIT? I don't see how it can cost that amount not to do something.

 

Not all customer are aware of the FOS and, despite what the FOS says, it does help to be reasonably articulate as you do have to put your case as strongly as possible. They are supposed to be impartial and I guess that means if a customer has a strong case but does not make the proper comments or cite the exact peice of legislation the FOS won't point it out to them.

 

In essence I think its a percentages thing, a certain % of customer will drop out after one response from the bank, more still as it gets escalated (because it WILL feel like you are getting nowhere), yet more with then final response (which obvisouly SOUNDS very final).

 

They are happy to take the hit for those that do go to the FOS because they know it will take ages and they've avodied x thousand settlements because of the processes I have speculated on above.

 

The reason why this approach hasn't worked with bank charges is the arguments against them are very strong, I would even venture to say if they hadn't ramped the charges up so much the issue wouldn't have attracted as much attention.

 

I could be wrong, I never had anything to do with complaints apart from being on the front line and anyone who has worked in a customer facing role knows there are often limitations on what you can do.

 

I think in many ways the FOS has a thankless task, it would be much better if they had a facility to refer matters they have had a lot of complaints about the someone like the OFT.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing which gets my goat about the responses I have had from the FOS - they took months to even look at my complaint, yet once they have looked at it and written to me with their opinions, they say I have to get back to them within two weeks or they will close the case! They seem to forget that most of us are doing this in our own time whereas they get paid for it! :Cry:

I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I put a thing through the FOS regarding NatWest cards. It's like a viscious circle. NatWest entered a default on the CRA in May 2003 but in fact send me the default letter (which no one can find) in 2001! My contention was simple - By that criteria a bank or whoever issues you a default and waits 10 years before they notch it onto CRA's - quite shameful.

So the FOS sent my complaint to NatWest. NatWest replied to me and told be if I was unhappy with it then it's for 'me' to go back to the FOS. I thought this quite pointless so let 'em wait till the end of May for their last 56 quid from me, once I see it drop off the edge.

I think more often that not the FOS will side with whatever a financial institution decides. Quite biased as I see it.

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all customer are aware of the FOS and, despite what the FOS says, it does help to be reasonably articulate as you do have to put your case as strongly as possible. They are supposed to be impartial and I guess that means if a customer has a strong case but does not make the proper comments or cite the exact peice of legislation the FOS won't point it out to them.

 

Exacly as they are impartial and independent, they can't build upon a complaint or give you a push in the right direction as that would be biased

 

I think in many ways the FOS has a thankless task, it would be much better if they had a facility to refer matters they have had a lot of complaints about the someone like the OFT.

 

They have and do

 

wider implications website

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I don't quite see with regards to impartial....

 

My experience has been that I made a complaint (againt NatWest cards). The FOS merely forwarded my complaint to NWC and then the card company replied to me only. This would mean that if I were not satisfied then I would again have to follow it up as the card company had no intentions of contacting the FOS.

In fact it made no difference that I either complained directly or through the FOS. As far as I can see all financial institutions have no fear of the FOS so they merely treat you as they would have done anyway. Please someone tell me otherwise. I must express that this is how I've personally found things to be.

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I don't quite see with regards to impartial....

 

My experience has been that I made a complaint (againt NatWest cards). The FOS merely forwarded my complaint to NWC and then the card company replied to me only. This would mean that if I were not satisfied then I would again have to follow it up as the card company had no intentions of contacting the FOS.

In fact it made no difference that I either complained directly or through the FOS. As far as I can see all financial institutions have no fear of the FOS so they merely treat you as they would have done anyway. Please someone tell me otherwise. I must express that this is how I've personally found things to be.

Michael

 

I am guessing that the FOS forwarded your complaint onto NWC has it had not yet sent you its "final response".

 

Once you have received the "final response" and it does not resolve your complaint, you are supposed to go back to the FOS

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the FOS sent my complaint to NatWest. NatWest replied to me and told be if I was unhappy with it then it's for 'me' to go back to the FOS. I thought this quite pointless so let 'em wait till the end of May for their last 56 quid from me, once I see it drop off the edge.

I think more often that not the FOS will side with whatever a financial institution decides. Quite biased as I see it.

Michael

 

Afraid to say that it would appear that is the correct process

our complaints procedure and how to complain

 

 

"This is why the business you think is responsible for a problem should have the chance to look into any complaint – before the ombudsman steps in and decides who is right or wrong."

 

You can't really accuse the FOS of being biased, if it did not investigate your complaint. It is only following the process as laid down by the industry regulator the FSA. There is an excellent guide on here about making complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service, it might be worth a read.

Edited by Suetonius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay basically the story goes that I've had an ongoing problem (for almost 2 years) with NatWest cards in respect of the default notice entered on CRA's. NWC simply poopooed it and just said it was correct. When I made my complaint through the FOS I stated the history and actually included some of the NWC correspondence.

As NWC then sent me a letter telling me they'd received my complaint through the FOS they'd look into it. There was no final responce till I pressured them for it. Amazingly they forgot to mention the FOS telling me (and including) how to complain if I wanted to. Yes, seriously they overlooked that the FOS had sent my complaint to them.

On getting the ambiguous so called 'final responce' I called NWC who said if I had problems just (matter of factly) to contact the FOS. At this point of time I thought that to be honest the whole thing was ludicrous knowing that the FOS on me yet again complaining would contact NWC with my responce. In other words merely going around in circles for something that should have been cleared up by NWC in the first place.

I'm sure I would persue this further if it were not that on 30th May 2009 the CRA entry falls off the edge and eventually I'll pay the o/s £56.00. I would add that yet again NWC put this to a DCA who themselves (surprising to me) gave up on it themselves. I really do not see why the procedure should be so long winded. One complains about something to the FOS and they pass it on leaving it open forever till you contact them again. Surely the financial institution you are complaining about should be sending a copy of their reply to the FOS too?

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay basically the story goes that I've had an ongoing problem (for almost 2 years) with NatWest cards in respect of the default notice entered on CRA's. NWC simply poopooed it and just said it was correct. When I made my complaint through the FOS I stated the history and actually included some of the NWC correspondence.

As NWC then sent me a letter telling me they'd received my complaint through the FOS they'd look into it. There was no final responce till I pressured them for it. Amazingly they forgot to mention the FOS telling me (and including) how to complain if I wanted to. Yes, seriously they overlooked that the FOS had sent my complaint to them.

On getting the ambiguous so called 'final responce' I called NWC who said if I had problems just (matter of factly) to contact the FOS. At this point of time I thought that to be honest the whole thing was ludicrous knowing that the FOS on me yet again complaining would contact NWC with my responce. (a)In other words merely going around in circles for something that should have been cleared up by NWC in the first place.

I'm sure I would persue this further if it were not that on 30th May 2009 the CRA entry falls off the edge and eventually I'll pay the o/s £56.00. I would add that yet again NWC put this to a DCA who themselves (surprising to me) gave up on it themselves. I really do not see why the procedure should be so long winded. (b)One complains about something to the FOS and they pass it on leaving it open forever till you contact them again. Surely the financial institution you are complaining about should be sending a copy of their reply to the FOS too?

Michael

 

(a) Isn't this something that is wrong with NWC rather than the FOS ?

 

(b) Even if the financial institution sends the FOS a copy of the final response, how are the FOS supposed to know if you are satisfied with the complaint or want to progress it further it you don't tell them ?

 

Sorry I am not being argumentative, just trying to establish that a lot of people appear to be complaining about the FOS with little or no real justification. I think the FOS is a luck less organistation that due to the high level of misunderstanding of its purpose and more importantly its powers, it is unable to meet expectations and continually disappoints. Whereas if people understood the role and the acutal purpose (i.e dispute resolution) less people would be so disatisfied

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is simply that my complaint was that of a never ending circle of NatWest giving that responce. I think that NatWest should by default issue a copy of responces to the FOS too. It took me 4 attempts to even get what might/might not be called a final responce and it was the same as the original responce which was the reasons of my complaint.

I appreciate that the FOS might get negatively commented on. However I also feel that the FOS should state exactly what is going to happen instead of give out the impression that should a complaint not be settled then they will look into it. This does not mean 'apss it on' the the people involved so they then ignore the existance of the FOS.

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that the FOS might get negatively commented on. However I also feel that the FOS should state exactly what is going to happen instead of give out the impression that should a complaint not be settled then they will look into it. This does not mean 'apss it on' the the people involved so they then ignore the existance of the FOS.

Michael

 

You mean like this ?

 

your complaint and the ombudsman - our consumer leaflet

 

When can we look at your complaint?

 

We can do this if:

  • the business has sent you a letter with its final answer to your complaint, but you're still unhappy
    or
  • the business has had eight weeks since you complained but it has not sent you its final answer.

If you have had the final answer and you are still not happy, tell us as soon as you can. Don't wait any longer than six months after you get the final answer or we won't be able to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, actually this (which never happened) and NW said they just reply direct (to me):

what happens next?

 

If your complaint is one we can deal with, we'll usually start by seeing if we can help you and the business sort things out informally.

We will:

 

  • look at your side of the story
  • contact the business to get their side of the story
  • weigh up the facts and
  • tell you and the business what we think.

We might decide the business has treated you fairly and that you've not lost out as a result of its actions. If so, we'll tell you why we think this.

Sometimes we find there's no clear-cut right or wrong. If so, we might suggest a compromise to help you and the business settle the matter.

But if you've clearly lost out because of what the business has (or hasn't) done, we'll tell the business what to do to put things right.

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, actually this (which never happened) and NW said they just reply direct (to me):

what happens next?

 

If your complaint is one we can deal with, we'll usually start by seeing if we can help you and the business sort things out informally.

We will:

 

 

  • look at your side of the story
  • contact the business to get their side of the story
  • weigh up the facts and
  • tell you and the business what we think.

We might decide the business has treated you fairly and that you've not lost out as a result of its actions. If so, we'll tell you why we think this.

Sometimes we find there's no clear-cut right or wrong. If so, we might suggest a compromise to help you and the business settle the matter.

But if you've clearly lost out because of what the business has (or hasn't) done, we'll tell the business what to do to put things right.

 

You have to do one step at a time and the first step is NWC providing you with a final response and then you telling the FOS that you do not accept it.

 

You can't skip the steps..:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOS side with the creditor at every given opportunity. They may be for dispute resolution and it may not be within their remit to punish creditors but when it comes to being impartial and unbiased i, along with many, have found that not to be the case.

 

"It doesn't matter that the Prescribed Terms are not on the agreement. You made payments towards the card and that's enough to show a contract"

 

"OFT Debt Collection Guidance and Banking Code infringements (whilst waiting 9 months for an agreement after a CCA) don't really matter. You owe the money therefore you have to expect them to pursue you for it."

 

"You have a valid agreement and i am going to tell the creditor that." (account later written off after the Creditor caved in before it reached Court).

 

FOS 'opinions', and i call them opinions and not decisions (as a decision implies an authoritative statement) can have unforeseen effects at a later date also:

 

Reason cap1 did not want to Mediate before a Court hearing:

"The Previous FOS opinion backs up our stance"

 

Reasoning HFC Bank refused to comply with a Civil Procedure Rule request for documents:

"The previous FOS opinion was 'unfavourable' to you".

 

In point of fact. That was the only adjudicator that was actually half impartial and said it wasn't up to him to decide upon enforceability of an agreement but that it was up to a Court to decide. Hasn't stopped the Creditor using it to their advantage though.

Other adjudicators felt that stance was wrong by the previous Adjudicator and they would inform the Creditor i had no grounds for complaint.

 

They based their view on the balance of probabilities. (In other words they decide which piece of evidence to take the most notice of.)

Which, in itself, i wouldn't have minded so much. But that balance was constantly weighted in favour of the Creditor in that they 'probably did comply at the time' and they 'most likely would have sent you the documents when you asked for them', for of course, according to the FOS, creditors would hardly act falsely or without honest intent whereas most consumers are (on balance of their probability scale) generally perceived as deceitful, debt dodging liars.

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/FOSHalifax.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/FOSHalifax_0001.jpg

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Cap1FOS1.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Cap1FOS2.jpg

 

Response to CPR request 31.16 Pre Action Protocols (nothing to do with Section 78 by the way.)

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/HFC.jpg

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes basically I did from their final responce of many and told (and included) this to the FOS. Then the whole viscious circle of months and the same final response.

Michael

Edited by InformedSearcher
poor spelling!

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have minded if they had said 'look, it's not the kind of complaint we look at, so take it somewhere else'.

 

But they didn't. They took sides and were not impartial. Many of the documents supplied (agreements) were, and still are, Irredeemably Unenforceable in Law and the FOS decision to back them up in my view makes them complicit in fraud.

 

(If i was going to take another creditor to Court i would cite the FOS as co-correspondent.)

 

Their complete disregard of the Consumer Credit Act, ignorance of OFT Debt Collection Guidance and the Banking Code and utter naivety in believing anything they are told by very large financial institutions makes a mockery and shame of Consumer Protection Laws and Guidelines.

 

If they want to be seen as impartial then let them act that way.

 

Even when you get a complaint upheld, the end result has very little effect overall and the fight still goes on to be treated with respect and courtesy:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/102011-blair-oliver-scott-bank.html

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm sorry but I've looked at many instances of the FSA and FOS and still contend that the people within these organisations are quite biased. In the end they are within the same industry. I might sound cynical however when I was told that the FSA is funded by financial institutions the what is one to make of it all.

When things are quite 'cheap and easy to solve and mundane' then you let the person have it. When it's more complicated and can cost a lot then one sides with the friends or people who potentially might offer you better employment or a future. Unbiased and aloof from daily pressures is for the chosen few in reality.

IMHO regarding my own problems I've detected a methodoly of feeling I'm being given the run around and basically laughed at. I imagine people chuckling and thinking 'let's make him suffer a bit longer and frustrate him' which they've all managed to do!

When I think of my dealings with HSBC (as another example) and the people who I've spoken to but been to me 'spoken at' I feel despair. I hear some silly Banking Association telling the world that banks are helping people and think quite the opposite in my case. Imagine you 'beat them' by calling and saying you are having problems both with a current account and a loan. 10 days later without telling you they 'cancel every standing order and direct debit' but word it to the effect 'you yourself cancelled them' to the people you pay. So you now get penalised by the creditors (too) and get ready for this, I went to the ATM machine and my card was retained! HSBC's (eventual) feeble excuse was (days after the events) 'We are helping you manage your finances' and this is suposed to be constructive help? This was simply underhand without ever telling me beforehand!

My apologies I'm ranting (with good cause I think).

Michael

Edited by InformedSearcher

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOS side with the creditor at every given opportunity. They may be for dispute resolution and it may not be within their remit to punish creditors but when it comes to being impartial and unbiased i, along with many, have found that not to be the case.

 

"It doesn't matter that the Prescribed Terms are not on the agreement. You made payments towards the card and that's enough to show a contract"

 

"OFT Debt Collection Guidance and Banking Code infringements (whilst waiting 9 months for an agreement after a CCA) don't really matter. You owe the money therefore you have to expect them to pursue you for it."

 

"You have a valid agreement and i am going to tell the creditor that." (account later written off after the Creditor caved in before it reached Court).

 

FOS 'opinions', and i call them opinions and not decisions (as a decision implies an authoritative statement) can have unforeseen effects at a later date also:

 

Reason cap1 did not want to Mediate before a Court hearing:

"The Previous FOS opinion backs up our stance"

 

Reasoning HFC Bank refused to comply with a Civil Procedure Rule request for documents:

"The previous FOS opinion was 'unfavourable' to you".

 

In point of fact. That was the only adjudicator that was actually half impartial and said it wasn't up to him to decide upon enforceability of an agreement but that it was up to a Court to decide. Hasn't stopped the Creditor using it to their advantage though.

Other adjudicators felt that stance was wrong by the previous Adjudicator and they would inform the Creditor i had no grounds for complaint.

 

They based their view on the balance of probabilities. (In other words they decide which piece of evidence to take the most notice of.)

Which, in itself, i wouldn't have minded so much. But that balance was constantly weighted in favour of the Creditor in that they 'probably did comply at the time' and they 'most likely would have sent you the documents when you asked for them', for of course, according to the FOS, creditors would hardly act falsely or without honest intent whereas most consumers are (on balance of their probability scale) generally perceived as deceitful, debt dodging liars.

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/FOSHalifax.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/FOSHalifax_0001.jpg

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Cap1FOS1.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Cap1FOS2.jpg

 

Response to CPR request 31.16 Pre Action Protocols (nothing to do with Section 78 by the way.)

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/HFC.jpg

 

 

Now this begs the question, what was the actual complaint you made to the FOS ?

 

As I have posted elsewhere, it is a complete waste of your time making a complaint to the FOS about the enforceablity of a credit agreement.

 

1) Relevant Law

CCA 1974 (the law in relation to the enforcability of credit agreements)

Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 (the law that created the FOS and defines it's jurisdiction)

2) Regulators Rules Guidance & Standards

FSA Handbook (the rules by which the FOS must perform it's role as a dispute resolution service)

3) Relevant Codes of Practice

Banking Code (2008 edition)

In response to your post, a straight forward question, and to help I have included the links..

 

Does the law, regulators rules, guidance, standards or relevant codes of practice state that the FOS can make a determination in relation to the enforcability of credit agreements ?

 

and

 

You may also find this an interesting read

 

Part 8 Enterprise Act 2002

 

Part 8

 

Enforcement of certain consumer legislation

 

 

213 Enforcers

 

(1) Each of the following is a general enforcer—

(a) the OFT;

(b) every local weights and measures authority in Great Britain;

© the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland.

 

Another piece of legislation (LAW) to confirm that the FOS is not an Enforcer.

 

They are unable to state that an agreement is unenforceable. That is for a Court (a judicial body) and not the FOS (a dispute resolution service) to decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...