A woman who owns a small business has a disagreement with her bank. In fact, she logs over 50 issues over 12 months, that her bank has done including unauthorised debits from her account,losing contracts, non returned phone calls, "refused" emails, upto 4 copies of same documentation being handed into her branch ...the list goes on, all backed up by documentary evidence, photographic evidence, bank staff testimonies, and even telephone recordings. She further points out that the bank has clearly contravened * 5 different sections of the FSA's handbook of Guidelines for financial firms * 6 different sections of the FSA's handbook of Guidelines for Individuals (staff of a bank etc) * 8 different sections of The Business Banking code of Conduct (all documented, remember) and wait for it, even contravened... * The statement of principles of the British Banker's Association. One of her 50+ points was incorrectly completed documentation, signed by the bank 3 months after she signed, and SENT OUT by the bank more than 4 months later again....despite nearly 20 requests for the documentation. ( Overdraft agreement signed by her in January, despite repeated requests for a copy of the document with her signature on it did not arrive until August that year, but wait - the signature by the bank was dated APRIL ! ) (so much for the 14 day cooling off period) All in all, 12 months of repeated failings of the bank causing personal inconvenience, stress, increased cost and mental anguish. She points the failings out to the bank, who several months later admit the points, and that the bank admits "maladministration" a key phrase often referred to in the ombudsman's and the various code of conduct's "small print" The offer of compensation? ..............................................................£1000. For not 1 mistake, not 3, not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30, not 40, ....over 50 over a period of 12 months - all documented. WAIT TILL YOU READ THE NEXT BIT..... Appalled at the offer of the bank, she then goes to Trading standards who tell her - 1. As she is neither a sole pop or partnership, she falls outside of the protection of consumer credit regulations that would normally protect her as an individual. And because she is a company, BUT her turnover is less than £1m, her organisation would not be "recognised" by the FSA. 2. She then wrote a personally recorded delivery letter and parcel containing 2 inches of supporting evidence, to the Bank's chairman (as adviced by her local trading standards office) asking for his help and intervention, which she received a reply from the "Corporate Response Team" that they would investigate the complaint, and if they was to be a delay they would write back and inform her and keep her advised - they never did. In fact, the letter and package was merely passed to the head of customer service, who merely referred her to the financial ombudsman. Yup, that was it. The buck was passed again... Next, off to the financial ombudsman 3.Dilligent and tenacious, she perseveres, and jumps through all the hoops and beaurcracy documenting everything and presents her case to the Ombudsman. 4. 8 months later again, the ombudsman "partly" upholds her complaint, and subsequently the bank makes an increased offer of, wait for it................................. £250. HOORAY WE THINK - A VICTORY, BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.... 5. The Ombudsman then pointed out that - "the Ombudsman is not a regulatory body, and thus cannot consider, address or deal with the majority of issues outlined in your case, as the Ombudsman cannot fine, or penalise a bank" (In fact, it would appear that the Ombudsman "could" only deal with 5 of the 50+ issues) and as the lady filed her complaint in her company's name, the Ombudsman "cannot consider complaints by a company's shareholders or directors personally", thus they were unable to "consider" her claim for compensation of personal inconvenience and distress. and Although she had suffered personal incovenience, and distress,The Ombdusman pointed out she had not suffered any actual financial loss. 6. Unrelented, she called the FSA - the Regulatory body in the UK and pointed out (on a recorded phone conversation) that - The Ombudsman can't and won't consider the aspects of the evidence where the bank has contravened FSA regulations, as the Ombudsman is not "a Regulator", so her interpretation of that, is the majority of the points she had spent months documenting and raised in which the bank has clearlycontravened FSA (regulatory) guidelines for both "firms" and "individuals" had NOT been taken into account in the final decision, as the Ombudsman felt it was outside of its remit. The facts remain that, even though it was outside of the remit of the ombudsman, the documentary evidence still illustrated just how bad the true failings of the bank in its client relationship with the lady were - remember it was 50 points, not just 4 or 5. But would appear, had clearly not been taken into account in the Ombudsman's decision. 7. The FSA response - "We are a regulatory body and do not deal with individual cases, please contact the financial ombudsman that is why they were set up." The women pointed out the facts of the case, to ensure that the FSA understood her complaint. The FSA responded, "Whilst we are sympathetic to your case, we cannot get involved with individual cases, Please contact the Financial Ombudsman directly, by the way while you are on the line would you like to be added to our list of those participating in our customer service survey we are conducting at the end of the month." What do you make of that? Comments or other experiences, please....