Hello so i filed an IRL claim to peachy which then went to the ombudsman, i cited my gambling addiction at the time but it seems the adjudicator is siding with all the PDL companies saying they did sufficient checks. it says that they checked my credit file and it shows i was struggling to make payments towards loans i had defaulted 4/5 years ago and that Peachy wouldnt of taken this into account??? any advice on this?

After having issues with gambling and payday loans, my credit score was ruined and my partner agreed to help me with a guarantor loan to consolidate some of the debt, a terrible idea as we've found out. At the time I had over £10,000 of HTSTC loans outstanding and said I would consolidate some of these with the loan. UK Credit lent £7,500 to me, with repayments of £281. I paid around £6,000 off the HTSTC loans with the money, the rest I owed to my partner. Straight away I struggled, took out more debt to help with payments and then in April 2017 stopped due to lack of finances. In June I filed a complaint with UK Credit claiming irresponsible lending. Soon after the Ombudsman wrote to myself saying they were looking into the case and asking UK Credit for information, UK Credit wrote to the guarantor with a Letter Before Action notice, stating the remaining £7,543 had to paid in full, otherwise court action would follow. My guarantor is often pestered saying court action is soon approaching if nothing is done. Too get them off my back while the Ombudsman looks into this, last month I offered £200 a month which they rejected and stated that they wanted the full £280 a month repayment upheld. As they didn't agree with our expenditure forms. I currently have £800 a month going out in debt repayments. I would like some advice on how to get them off guarantor's back. How likely is court action? What is the best course of action until the Ombudsman takes further action?

Made a complaint to FOS about paypal. Just got a reply. Seems like the adjudicator's provisional conclusions. He's found paypal had done no wrong. Here's what it says on the bottom of his email: Notice the change in font size, when it says "But If you don't agree with what I’ve said, please let me know why by 6 February 2017. I’ll look at any new information you give me and let you know what I think." I had to really strain my eyes to read this. Surely this is a nudge tactic by the FOS to close-off complaints.

Complaint was about Bank of Ceylon (BOC) United Kingdom (UK) branch. After months of waiting in the assessment queue, my complaint finally ended up on an adjudicator's desk. Adjudicator from what it seems to me went through the file so quickly he missed vital details I'd given on the form and via email. For example, I told the FOS I had further evidence to produce and also to contact me by email, as I was abroad. He ignored both these. He concluded that he had enough to issue a decision. He then attempted to call me on the mobile (even though I said - contact me by email only. I told the FOS a while ago and there was a 'case warning' added to the file about that. He had ignored this warning or misunderstood it). After he failed to contact me by phone, he went on to issue his conclusions in favour of BOC (UK). His conclusions contained language such as "BOC (UK) have said ....". So I had no alternative but to disagree with his conclusions and ask for the evidence he relied upon. I also told him he hadn't contacted me even once to introduce himself before reaching his conclusions and that he failed to ask for the evidence I had specifically mentioned before. He got back saying he will provide me the case file evidence only after I send him "further evidence". I then contacted his manager to complain. She asked him to send me the case-file evidence straightaway. I then lodged a service complaint against the adjudicator, and his manager (removed) found that he had committed no wrong. I escalated it to a senior manager and asked for the complaint to be looked at by a different adjudicator. The senior manager found the Adjudicator (removed) could have done things better. But he said the complaint could not be assigned to a different adjudicator. In effect the conclusions stood even though it was made without considering all the evidence. He offered for the complaint to be passed to an ombudsman, for review. Of course, the review is based on what the adjudicator concluded. Ombudsman wasn't going to start afresh. Truth be told, in nearly 90% of cases ombudsman "rubber-stamps" the adjudicator's decision. In this case even though I sent in new evidence to the Ombudsman she ignored it (or interpreted it in favour of the bank) so that the adjudicator's decision stood. After all, you can't have an ombudsman reverse an adjudicator decision that was the result of serious procedural irregularities. By the way, FOS takes at least a month to below decision FOS.pdf

I have a current packaged bank account complaint and can confirm the FOS's poor practises. Important info in my case was drip fed to the FOS from the bank without my disclosure. The FOS caseworker would ring me sometimes 5 days later than agreed. The caseworker would then ambush me on the phone about information I knew nothing about, hardly good advocacy at any level. The They could not even read a bank statement correctly which led to sleepless nights because the FOS caseworker attributed a 11k withdrawal to the wrong company making me believe fraud had occurred, that is until many weeks later once I got sight of the bank statements I requested from the FSO and realised the FSO caseworker's school boy error. Even when I demanded the case be dealt with by another caseworker due to incompetence this was ignored and a decision railroaded. Now I have a legitimate claim for harassment against the caseworker for refusing to hand the case over and for continuing to ring me trying to harass me with questions about information not prior disclosed to me. I held a senior management post at The Home Office for over 23 years so I am used to dealing with casework and policy matters at all levels. I believe I am well qualified therefore to categorically state what a complete mess and state of denial the FOS is in. Until MP's experience this poor level of service I seriously doubt things will change for the better.

I took out a Unsecured Personal Loan with Halifax online in December 2011. I was NEVER asked questions like, can you afford the payments, are you employed/unemployed, and I certainly was not asked about my income. This have got so bad I am currently on an IVA - Halifax increased the IVA from 5 years to 6 years forcing me to pay for longer. I am now wondering if bankruptcy is the best option. Do I have a claim that Halifax lent to me irresponsibly without going through my finances first?

First and foremost, I forgive those who perhaps thought that the thread title might turn out to be misleading before then clicking on the thread. An analogy would be the sensationalist headline I saw today that 'Messi had gotten jail time'. I knew full well, before clicking on the story, that he wouldn't be serving even one day in prison. However, I assure those of you who are doubtful that after you read on, then you will see that it really is the case that a Paypal account can NEVER be closed, which an FOS adjudicator heartily agrees with. This happens to be one of the very few outstanding issues that my 82 year old father is still dealing with, after putting an awful lot of things properly to bed in recent months. All of the following information and correspondence is being posted with his full permission. The background to this case begins in late 2013, when Paypal asked my father to provide them with additional information, primarily original receipts of purchase, relating to some items he had sold on Ebay. He wasn't able to do so and, after all the negative things he had seen in the media about Paypal over the years, decided he didn't want anything to further to do with them anyway. It was his opinion that when Paypal start becoming irrationally awkward, then they don't often cease to do so. Anyhow, when he was going over all of his affairs, in the second half of 2015, he decided to ask Paypal to formally close his account that they had since restricted. He didn't expect any resistance and was a bit surprised when they refused to do so. He was a bit reluctant to waste more time and energy going to the FOS about something like this, but felt very strongly about what he perceived as Paypal's arrogance and duly did so. He expected that this would be something that the FOS would promptly sort out, even if it only meant them giving Paypal a 6 year deadline to close his account from when they first restricted it, but how wrong he was. His case was assigned to FOS adjudicator Noelle Murphy and copied and pasted below is the all the correspondence accumulated thus far, with the correspondence of the FOS adjudicator being highlighted in red. 22nd April 2016. I’m writing to you as I’m the adjudicator who has been passed your complaint about PayPal. I wanted to let you know that I’m now looking into what’s happened.My role as an adjudicator is to give an independent opinion on your complaint. This means I’ll consider what you and PayPal tell me, weigh up the facts of what’s happened, and then let you know what I think is fair in the situation. next steps I’m currently reviewing all the information that you and PayPal have sent us. I’ll be in touch again once I have done this, to go through my understanding of what’s happened and let you know what the next steps are. I expect to be in contact with you within the next week but I’ll let you know if, for any reason, it may be longer than this.In the meantime, please feel free to get in touch if you have any questions. 26th April 2016. Thank you for waiting while I’ve been looking into your complaint. I’ve now looked at all the information from you and PayPal and I want to go through my thoughts on what I’ve looked at so far. my thoughts so far As you know, we’re an informal service that was set up to resolve individual customer’s complaints. So I cannot comment on the processes PayPal has in place, or recommend it changes its processes as part of your complaint. It’s for PayPal, or PayPal’s regulator - Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) – to decide how it should operate and if it should change how it operates. I understand PayPal placed a limitation on your account on 16 October 2013, and asked you to provide additional information. You decided not to provide the information PayPal had asked for and so the limitation has remained on your account, meaning it cannot be used. When looking at complaints like this we do have to take into consideration the terms and conditions of your account as it forms the basis of the contract between you and PayPal. I have noted that PayPal’s user agreement does contain information about limitations on accounts and I can see PayPal referred to this in its final response to you. Section 7.2 of your user agreement states that “You may not close your Account to evade an investigation”. It has said your account will remain permanently suspended and this is why you cannot close the account. PayPal is entitled to leave the account permanently suspended, and this is a commercial decision it has made. I appreciate you’re not evading its investigation by requesting the account to be closed, rather you don’t feel comfortable with the account being left open. But the account cannot be used as its suspended, and ultimately PayPal is entitled to make the decision it has to keep the account open. I do consider that it has acted in line with the terms and conditions you agreed to. So it would be unfair of me to say it has done anything wrong here when it is entitled to restrict your account and make the decision it has not to close it. next steps I would like to get your comments on what I have said, as I’m mindful that I may not have taken everything into account. If you would like me to consider any other information that could change my mind please let me know.If you’re able to respond to me by 3 May, I would be grateful. However if you need more time please let me know. 9th May 2016 (more time asked for and granted). right, I have now had a chance to clear my head and review everything at my own pace, which I am perfectly content with. First and foremost, I want to emphasise that I was never seeking for Paypal to change it's processes or how it operates. I am very happy for my complaint to be assessed solely on whatever terms and conditions Paypal had in place at the time and have in place now. So, moving on to the substance of my complaint, I would like to draw your attention to something that I don't think you have yet fully appreciated. You said yourself that Paypal limited my account and launched an investigation on 16th October 2013. Well, I first asked for my account to be closed in August 2015, which was nigh on 2 years after Paypal limited my account. As things currently stand, we are fast approaching a time span of 3 years from when Paypal limited my account. Therefore, when Paypal now parrot Section 7.2 of their user agreement, which states that “You may not close your Account to evade an investigation", then it is total nonsense. From memory, they said I had something like 90 days to provide them with the information they requested when they limited my account. So, even giving them a lot of leeway here, if I had asked them to close my account at any time in the 6 months after 16th October 2013, then I might understand their argument. However, I did not and if you were to accept their argument, then you could only be concluding that, in August 2015, I was trying to prevent an investigation Paypal began on 16th October 2013. They must have a good sense of humour, Paypal, to come out with rubbish like that. I do have to hand it to them. Frankly, I don't see how anyone closing their account, even at the time of limitation, could stop an investigation from occurring. By that logic, any wrongdoer would have an easy option available to avoid getting caught, 'Hey, I will just close my account!', and I don't think that's how the world works. However, having Paypal spin that spiel, some 2 years or longer after their investigation, is just so beyond the pale. What is more, from what I can recall, I never 'decided not to provide the information PayPal had asked for'. They asked me for some original receipts of some items that I had listed on Ebay. I don't know why they asked, but I didn't have any original receipts and openly told them so. How many people, who sell stuff on Ebay, have original receipts? I don't see how I could have cooperated any more fully at the time. Anyhow, besides the point, the fact of the matter is that I didn't try to close my account at the time of their investigation, so their defence is groundless. Unless they have a term or condition which states that no one is allowed to close their account without their random blessing? I am not aware that they do and very confident that they do not. So, if they can't provide you with a term or condition which prevents me from closing my account, then I would like my account to be closed please. If you will not order them to do so, then please do kindly confirm whether you are ultimately basing your decision on Section 7.2 of their user agreement, which blatantly holds no water here, or if your are basing it on another Section of their user agreement. I can then promptly decide whether I wish to escalate my case to an Ombudsman or not. I don't see this taking up much moire time between us to be honest, so it should be well clear of your desk by the time you go on annual leave. Just for the record, in case you were wondering, I don't have any confidence or trust in Paypal and would simply feel much happier if my account was closed. They are still holding some of my financial information in my account, which can't be deleted when an account is limited, and I have heard a lot of stories about companies being hacked on the news and the like. As far as I see it, regardless of how probable you or Paypal think that is to occur, it is purely my prerogative to decide whether I want my account closed or not. Unless they have a term or condition that says otherwise of course. I look forward, please don't feel at all rushed, to hearing from you in due course then. Much appreciated and best wishes. 11th May 2016. Thank you for your response. I have noted your comments and the points you’ve raised.I appreciate the point you’ve raised about the timescales involved but I can’t say I agree with you. Just because it was two years ago that PayPal requested this information doesn’t mean an investigation isn’t still ongoing. As you didn’t provide the information PayPal asked for it wouldn’t be able to conclude its investigation and – I think it’s reasonable to say here – it would take some action to prevent any further use of the account. Even though PayPal asked you to respond within a certain timeframe I don’t think this indicates how long it would take to carry out its investigation. I would imagine, like this service, timescales are put in place to make sure that cases are being dealt with in a reasonable timeframe. But as the information was never provided, closing the account could still be considered as evading PayPal’s investigation regardless of the time that’s passed. In addition to section 7.2, I do think section 10.2 is also relevant to what’s happened here. This section does set out that PayPal is entitled to restrict or block an account entirely or for any reason. So I do think it is entitled to keep the account restricted as long as it thinks is reasonable. I think it was in your complaint form that you said you decided not to provide the information it had asked for. If you’d like a copy of this please let me know.Even though I appreciate you may have not felt it was necessary information, I don’t think what it asked for was unreasonable. But ultimately, PayPal is entitled to reasonably request information from its users to help it look into an investigation.I appreciate why you want to close your account, and you are concerned about the information it is holding about you. If you have a concern about the way PayPal is handling your information – and by this I mean keeping it longer than is necessary – then the Information Commissioner’s Office may be able to look into this. Their details are: Information Commissioner's Office etc. what happens next If you don’t want to take your complaint further, you don’t need to reply. But if you don’t agree with what I’ve said, please let me know why by 23 May 2016.I’ll look at any new information you give me and let you know what I think.If we don’t hear from you by 23 May 2016, we might not be able to look at your complaint again. So if you want to reply but you think you’ll need longer, please tell me as soon as possible. In every case, both the business and their customer can ask an ombudsman to make a final decision. But I think it’s unlikely the outcome would be different – unless there’s any important information that you haven’t already given us. If you have any questions, please get in touch. 13th May 2016. first and foremost, I am not sure 'exactly what words' I used only my complaint form, in relation to not providing Paypal with the information they requested, but I can tell you with certainty that I cooperated with Paypal as fully as was humanly possible when the limitation was placed on my account. They asked me for the original receipts, pertaining to some items I had sold on Ebay, and I openly told them that I didn't have any original receipts available. What more could I have done than that? Anyhow, I wasn't happy with Paypal at the time, so my initial displeasure might have resulted in me coming across ambiguously when I eventually decided to complain. Please feel free to verify all of this with Paypal. As for the time scale involved, it is actually now well over 2 years ago that Paypal requested information from me. In fact, it is now virtually 2 years and 7 months ago. If this case does end up getting referred to an Ombudsman, then, given the waiting time involved, it will be nigh on 3 years ago. I am not sure exactly what it is that Paypal are supposed to be 'investigating', nor how many years would have to pass for you to be satisfied. However, given that the crux of this matter simply relates to them asking for original receipts pertaining to a few items I sold on Ebay, then it is clearly nonsense to suggest that an 'investigation might still be ongoing'. At the end of the day, there have been numerous investigations into Paypal themselves by many newspapers and TV stations, including BBC 'Watchdog', which have shown Paypal to be quite 'lacking' in many areas as it goes. When you said 'Even though PayPal asked you to respond within a certain timeframe I don’t think this indicates how long it would take to carry out its investigation. I would imagine, like this service, timescales are put in place to make sure that cases are being dealt with in a reasonable timeframe' I can see the basic principle there. However, when 60 days, or whatever it was initially, then becomes 2 years and 7 months that argument just doesn't hold water any more. It is tantamount to eternity. Unless you are saying that Paypal should have 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 10 years or any other number of fixed years available to them? Please do confirm if that is how you see it and what you think is reasonable. One other thing, in you previous email you stated that 'But as the information was never provided, closing the account could still be considered as evading PayPal’s investigation regardless of the time that’s passed'. However, in your email of 26th April 2016 you stated 'I appreciate you’re not evading its investigation by requesting the account to be closed, rather you don’t feel comfortable with the account being left open', which I find completely contradictory to be brutally honest. Paypal asked for original receipts and I told them I didn't have any. It was hardly a complex case. Moreover, as I already told you, closing my account doesn't stop Paypal 'investigating' my case at all. They can 'investigate' my case for the next 100 years with my full blessing. Likewise, purely as an analogy, I don't think that any of those involved with the Mossack Fonseca scandal would avoid any 'invetsigation' by now rushing to close their accounts. Again, as I already to you, the world doesn't work like that. What is more, I haven't been accused of any wrongdoing and I don't owe Paypal a penny, which they themselves can't deny. If you do feel that closing my account does prevent Paypal from 'investigating' further in relation to my case, after 2 years and 7 months have passed, then please kindly explain to me how so. Moving on to the limitation aspect of my account, this is something that I have never complained about and you seem to have proactively entwined it into the case. Furthermore, closing my account wouldn't lessen any restrictions that Paypal have in place in the slightest. In fact, conceptually, if anything, it could obviously only strengthen them. The limited use I currently have would be downgraded to no use. Therefore, Section 10.2 has absolutely nothing to do with my complaint, which is solely based on me wanting my account closed; not to do with wanting any restrictions removed from my account. If you feel that it does, then please kindly explain to me how so. It is very good to get all of this in writing, regardless of the final outcome, so I do at least fully appreciate all of your assistance. If you have anything else to add, or not, then please do let me know either way. I can then decide whether I wish to escalate my case to an Ombudsman or not. Much appreciated and best wishes. 13th May 2016. I have noted your comments but my thoughts on your complaint remain the same.Ultimately, I do consider that PayPal is entitled to restrict your account and make the decision it has not to close it. I understand you don’t agree with this and you don’t think its terms allow PayPal to make this decision – but having considered what’s happened I do. I’m sorry if you think I was contradictory I was merely making the point that closing the account could be considered as evading an investigation. As I said in my previous email to you, I don’t consider that you’re trying to evade an investigation by asking for the account to be closed. However, this doesn’t mean that PayPal should close the account or it should have the same opinion on this point as me.It made a reasonable request for information and you were unable to provide what it had asked for. PayPal made a business decision to restrict the account and it hasn’t done anything wrong by doing this. I’m not in the office next week so I would be grateful if you could let me know by 23 May whether or not you’d like an ombudsman to consider what’s happened.If I don’t hear from you by 23 May we might not be able to look into your complaint again. 18th May 2016. yes, I do think I am beginning to get a good understanding of your position in relation to Section 7.2. However, there is at least one thing that I did want to be crystal clear on, before deciding whether to escalate my case to an Ombudsman or not. You do now acknowledge that I never complained about my Paypal account being limited and that I never asked for any restrictions to be removed from my Paypal account, don't you? My complaint was solely about being unable to close my account, you said you still had a copy of my complaint form handy so please peruse it again if necessary, and I fully accept that Paypal have every right to limit the use of any account as they see fit. In the final analysis, I am 82 years old and doing my best here, I just didn't want to get needlessly sidetracked or confused by anything else. Much appreciated and best wishes. 23rd May 2016. Thank you for your response and patience while I have been out of the office.Yes, I do understand your complaint was about PayPal’s decision not to close the account. I know you didn’t ask for this service to look at the restrictions placed on the account or why that was.However, I did think that the restriction on the account was directly related to PayPal’s reasoning here and that’s why I mentioned it. I had to look at the whole circumstances to come to a fair opinion on what’s happened. I would be grateful if you could let me know how to proceed with your complaint by 27 May 2016. If we don’t hear from you by this time we might not be able to look at what’s happened again. So if you need more time please let me know as soon as possible. 3rd June 2016 (more time asked for and granted). ok, I think I understand what you were saying now. You were trying to get a full understanding of everything that happened and a good sense of the chain of events that occurred. This is why you mentioned Section 10.2, which Paypal first used to restrict my account nigh on a year before I ever contacted them about my account status. However, when it comes to you giving a final opinion on my complaint, which involves Paypal not closing my account and doesn't relate to any of the restrictions I was perfectly happy with, then it is only Section 7.2 that can be specifically held against me right? I hope that's correct, it seems crystal clear to me, as otherwise you will have left me totally bamboozled. I won't seek to debate the point any further though. One oither thing that crossed my mind, I hope you don't mind, and it involves the length of Paypal's investigation. In a previous email I referred to some comments you made on this matter. They were as follows: 'Even though PayPal asked you to respond within a certain timeframe I don’t think this indicates how long it would take to carry out its investigation. I would imagine, like this service, timescales are put in place to make sure that cases are being dealt with in a reasonable timeframe' I told you that I could understand the basic principle there, but found it very hard to comprehend how it could be stretched out for 2 years and 7 months. Anyhow, let's assume for the moment that the 'Paypal investigation might still be ongoing' as you put it. Are you actually going to make a recommendation on how long Paypal should have to complete their investigation? What do you think is fair and reasonable here? As far as I am aware, even the Statute Barred law in England, which can cover quite serious cases, says that 6 years is certainly long enough for proceedings to be concluded. So, do you think that Paypal should have a period of 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, or even 6 years to conclude their investigation, which would then be fully in line with Statute Barred law, or perhaps something longer? You can't possibly be conflating 'Even though PayPal asked you to respond within a certain timeframe I don’t think this indicates how long it would take to carry out its investigation' with an 'eternal investigation'? I would like to know what you think about all of this please, as if your final opinion didn't find in my favour now, then it must surely address such substance. Well, I would be shocked if it didn't. Much appreciated and best wishes. 3rd June 2016. just another thought I had. Perhaps it might be an idea to actually ask Paypal how many years they need? No harm done by mentioning the notion to you. I clicked 'Send', after composing the previous email I sent you a few minutes ago, and the idea suddenly popped into my head one second later. I do apologise for not including it in my previous email. Much appreciated and best wishes. 3rd June 2016. Thank you for your emails. I appreciate your point but there appears to have been some confusion here. I didn’t mean to imply its investigation was still ongoing, my point was that just because some time has passed doesn’t mean PayPal concluded the investigation. I went on to explain that because it couldn’t conclude its investigation it was reasonable for PayPal to take action to prevent further use of the account. I have explained that PayPal has made the decision to keep the account permanently suspended. I have considered if PayPal has acted unreasonably in deciding to permanently suspend the account, but I have found that it was entitled to make this decision. So I’m not going to ask PayPal to do anything else, as I don’t consider that it has done anything wrong. As my thoughts on your complaint haven’t changed you can ask for a final decision to be issued by an ombudsman. If you would like this please let me know by 8 June 2016. If we don’t hear from you by this date we’ll assume you no longer wish to pursue your complaint with this service. 8th June 2016. no problem and I am very glad that confusion has now been cleared up. I am just trying to fully understand your perception of the key components of my case, which I am sure you must fully appreciate is very important to the whole process. What your final opinion turns out to be is another matter entirely. Anyhow, I just have one last question I want to ask you and will email you later this evening, so you might not pick it up until tomorrow. I will then promptly make my final decision on whether I wish to escalate my case to an Ombusman or not. Much appreciated and best wishes. 9th June 2016. right, as I said in my previous email I am very glad we managed to clear up that confusion. I just hope that you can appreciate why I took 'Just because it was two years ago that PayPal requested this information doesn’t mean an investigation isn’t still ongoing', from your email of 11th May 2016, to indicate that an investigation was still ongoing. Nevertheless, I now think I have a very good handle on how you currently view my case. However, please do correct me if I am at all wrong on anything though. First and foremost, regardless of how far you perceive they did or didn't get, a cast iron fact of this matter is that Paypal did indeed open an investigation. However, neither of us can actually know what progress Paypal made in their investigation, as we don't know exactly what they were investigating or how much relevant information they had at their fingertips during the said investigation. Just because they asked me to contribute to their investigation, which it wasn't humanly possible for me to do, it doesn't by any means indicate that they weren't able to investigate anything. Otherwise, they couldn't have possibly had any notion to open an investigation in the first place. Something must have triggered it or I never would have heard from them. So, moving on, for Paypal to eventually make the decision to leave my account restricted, then they must have finished their investigation. Again, this is regardless of how far you perceive they did or didn't get in their investigation, which we can't actually know. Unfortunately, despite this, Paypal are still maintaining that I am trying to evade an investigation, which is something you don't see fit to challenge them on. As you said, in your email of 13th May 2016, 'I don’t consider that you’re trying to evade an investigation by asking for the account to be closed. However, this doesn’t mean that PayPal should close the account or it should have the same opinion on this point as me'. For the record, I thought it was the opinion of an FOS adjudicator that mattered in such cases, rather than the opinion of the company they were scrutinising, but this was admittedly only a preconception I had when I first decided to approach the FOS about this matter. Perhaps Paypal mean I am now trying to evade a fresh investigation? It could certainly be food for thought. Still, I would like to reinforce the point that, whether open or closed when looked at, nothing can actually stop Paypal from investigating an account. In the final analysis, you have concluded that my Paypal account should remain open, yet restricted, for as long as Paypal decree I am continuing to evade an investigation. If I have not misunderstood anything, then I can't deny that some bits of this narrative do kind of make some sort of sense, but it still all feels a little odd to me. However, as I said, this is if I haven't misunderstood anything. Am I now at a point where I haven't misunderstood anything then? Or is there yet more confusion that needs to be ironed out? Just for the moment, I will vaguely assume I have got there and assess whether I feel uneasy enough to request that this case be escalated to an Ombudsman for scrutiny. Regardless of the outcome, I think we have communicated reasonably well, despite the occasional bout of confusion, which can happen to the best of us. I will await your reply then. Much appreciated and best wishes. 9th June 2016. Thank you for your email.I can’t say I have anything to add to what I have already explained. I have looked at what PayPal’s decision – to keep the account open – and I considered why it did this. I also considered if its decision was reasonable, and if PayPal was entitled to make this decision.I found that all the actions PayPal took were set out in its user agreement, which you agreed to. I also considered its rationale for making this decision and I didn’t think it was an unreasonable one. So ultimately, I don’t think PayPal has done anything wrong and that’s why I haven’t asked it to close the account. That’s a decision for PayPal to make. I understand you’re thinking about asking an ombudsman to look at what’s happened, and if you do want this please let me know by 13 May 2016. – so I can move your complaint forward.Again, if we don’t hear from you by then we’ll assume you no longer wish to pursue your complaint with this service. 10th June 2016. right, so I have now understood everything I mentioned correctly then. I do feel much better when everything is as clear as possible to me. I really do appreciate your confirmation on that, as I would have begun to feel a little bit beleaguered if I had encountered any more confusion. One very last thing I want to ask you, I hope you don't mind, and it involves time scale. It just occurred to me you see. Now, in my email of 3rd June 2016 I asked you how long Paypal should have to conclude their investigation. You then told me that the Paypal investigation wasn't actually still ongoing, despite previously telling me that it was, but not really meaning that it was. It was just a bit of confusion that needed to be ironed out. I happily accepted your explanation and we successfully put all of that behind us. Ok then, so even though a Paypal investigation is not still ongoing, then how for how long is it feasible for Paypal to claim that I am seeking to avoid an investigation by asking for my account to be closed? Do you think that Paypal should have a period of 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, or even 6 years in which they can continue to make this argument, which would then be fully in line with Statute Barred law, or perhaps something longer? You can't possibly be viewing Section 7.2's 'You may not close your Account to evade an investigation' as an 'eternal perspective'? The question of time scale does still remain, whichever way you look at the matter, so I would like to know your opinion on this. This is something you can add to what you have already explained, as future time scale has not previously been addressed, and it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to do so. It is important to me that I know this. I will then respond with my final decision on whether I wish to escalate my case to an Ombusman or not. Much appreciated and best wishes. 10th June 2016. It’s not for me to comment on, or decide how long an investigation should take.But to clarify, there is no longer a PayPal investigation. As I explained in my previous emails, PayPal has made the decision to keep the account permanently suspended. This is not because of an ongoing investigation but rather because it decided to take action to prevent further use of the account.I hope this answers your question. 13th June 2016. I was told that my Paypal account couldn't be closed due to me 'trying to avoid an investigation' by doing so, which was in line with Section 7.2. Since then, it has emerged that this was regardless of whether a Paypal investigation was 'currently ongoing' or not. As I already told you, Paypal must have been referring to the prospect of a 'fresh investigation'. Now, saying it isn't for you to comment on or decide how long an 'actual investigation' should take is fair enough. However, this would have absolutely nothing to do with giving an opinion on how long Paypal can get away with saying I can't close my account 'to avoid an investigation'. This is precisely your job and you have already somehow decided that 2 years and 7 months is acceptable.. So, if you deem that Paypal can get away with saying that for anything between 3 years and 6 years, then I would accept whatever your specific decision was. However, if you deem that Paypal can get away with saying that for 10 years, 15 years or even longer, then I wouldn't accept your decision. If you thought something in between 6 years and 10 years was reasonable, then I would have to consider your decision for a little while. This is something very relevant that I really do need to know, so please get back to me with an answer. Furthermore, I really shouldn't have to be stating the obvious here, but closing my account would do a pretty good job of preventing further use of my account. Much appreciated and best wishes. 14th June 2016. I apologise but I don’t quite understand your email to me or the point you’re making.I have tried to explain why I don’t think PayPal have done anything wrong. If you would like to clarify your comments then I will try my best to respond to them.At this point, I think it might be best if an ombudsman makes a final decision on your complaint. As I think we are going back and forth about PayPal’s decision and I’m not likely to change my position. Please let me know by 17 June 2016 if you have any other information you would like the ombudsman to consider. Just so you know a decision is likely to be made within two months of when I pass your complaint to an ombudsman. If I don’t hear from you by 17 June I’ll assume you have nothing further to add and I’ll arrange for the file to be placed into the queue for an ombudsman.If you have any questions please let me know. 17th June 2016. I was told that my Paypal account couldn't be closed due to me 'trying to avoid an investigation' by doing so, which was in line with Section 7.2. This was all based on this moment in time. So, very simply, I am asking for how long can Paypal get away with saying that? For example, do you think it would still be reasonable for Paypal to be saying that after 4 years? What about in 6 years, 8 years or 10 years time? What about in 15 years or 20 years time? Or perhaps you think it is reasonable for Paypal to say this for all eternity? For me, it is very obvious that Paypal can't get away with saying that forever, However, that is only my opinion of course. It really is a very simple and straightforward question I am asking you, I do apolgise if I wasn't clear enough in my previous email, and I am glad to be able to clarify if further you. So, if you were to say that Paypal had anything up to 10 years, whereby they could continue using Section 7.2 as a barrier to closing my account, then I might accept your opinion after some consideration. Paypal could then be given notice that they have 'x' amount of time in which to close my account. However, if you were to say that you considered it reasonable for Paypal to continue using that excuse for 10 years, or even longer, then I wouldn't accept your opinion. So, for how long do you think Paypal can get away with saying that my account can't be closed, due to me 'trying to avoid an investigation' by doing so, in line with Section 7.2? This is something that I really want to know. No need for any going back and forth and I look forward to getting an answer then. Much appreciated and best wishes. 20th June 2016. It’s not for me to say how long PayPal should keep the account restricted for. As I explained in my email of 11 May, section 10.2 of the user agreement allows PayPal to suspend your account. And it does not set out that it can only do this for a certain period of time.PayPal made the business decision to keep the account suspended to prevent further use of it and so it is entitled to keep the account restricted as long as it thinks is reasonable. This decision might be indefinitely but that’s for PayPal to decide.Ultimately, it is entitled to decide if it will provide its services to you again in the future and that’s not something I would comment on.I will now arrange for your complaint to be passed to an ombudsman. 21st June 2016. I am afraid that you have totally missed something very important. So, in the interest of fairness and impartiality, hold your horses a moment please. If you care to peruse Section 10.2 of Paypal's user agreement, then you will see that it also does not set out that a suspended account can't ever be closed. Where you got the idea that it did I really don't know. For the record, I am perfectly happy for Paypal to keep all of the restrictions on my account when they close it. I am certainly not asking that they lift any restrictions prior to closing it or after closing it. Moreover, I am also happy to verify that I wouldn't accept any services from Paypal ever again in the future, even if they were to offer me copious amounts of money as an incentive. Therefore, the notion that I might consent to Paypal reopening my account one day has no substance whatsoever. So, I take it these recent, fresh developments might well shed new light on the matter in your eyes now then? I mean not appreciating the fact that Section 10.2 of Paypal's user agreement does not set out that a suspended account can't ever be closed is relevant isn't it? We all miss things I am sure, but it is relevant right? Anyhow, please confirm, as I would like to avoid any further confusion.Like I said, I am 82 years old and doing my very best to keep up here. Furthermore, if the case ultimately ends up going to an ombudsman, regardless of these new revelations, then it's still definitely no harm done covering this. It should even help the said ombudsman when weighing things up. Much appreciated and best wishes. P.S. From what I can gather, you are now not really basing your opinion on Section 7.2 then? Please confirm, as I do want to be totally clear on that as well please. 22nd June 2016. I don’t have anything further to add, as I have already addressed my thoughts on PayPal’s terms and conditions previously. However, your comments will be available for an ombudsman to review. If the ombudsman disagrees with what I have said they will explain why this is. 6th July 2016. my apologies for the somewhat tardy response, but I have been very busy dealing with another very serious matter of late. Right, moving on, there is something that I need to be crystal clear on. In your first email of 22nd June 2016 you stated the following: 'I don’t have anything further to add, as I have already addressed my thoughts on PayPal’s terms and conditions previously.' Well, you had never previously addressed the fact that Section 10.2 of Paypal's user agreementdid not set out that a suspended account couldn't ever be closed.The very obvious reason for that is I had only first raised it with you in my email of 21st June 2016. So, what I want to know, before I submit a final comment to the ombudsman for review, is are you saying you actually took on board what I put to you before dismissing it as irrelevant? Or is it the case that you didn't even bother to assess what I put to you before dismissing it as irrelevant? It is important to me to know this, it is a very simple and straightforward question as well, so I look forward to getting your prompt clarification on that point before I submit a final comment to the ombudsman for review. Much appreciated and best wishes. Well, my father and I both feel quite strongly about this. We don't see how Paypal can be authorised, by the FOS no less, to keep his account open forever. At the very least, we believe that they should have 6 years from when they first restricted his account to close it. This has all dragged on for a while now, he goes at his own pace despite my best efforts to help, and he wants to get final closure on it as soon as is practically possible. So, he wants to know if anyone can recommend anything to include in the final comment he is going to make before an ombudsman reviews the case? He wants to know if anyone has any general advice they can offer on this matter? For example, if an ombudsman sides with adjudicator, then could he potentially get some success via county court action against Paypal? All advice greatly appreciated. We feel that the FOS adjudicator has been very unreasonable here. She didn't try to run off, I will give her that, but it seemed that no matter what she was presented with it would always be wholeheartedly twisted to 'Paypal is right!'. Perhaps my father and I have lost touch with reality somewhere down the line? On the boards it says something like 30 users are currently browsing this thread. It is 1a.m. and, although some of these users are no doubt genuine forum users, that is a serious amount of bots. It isn't my field, so I haven't really got much of a clue about what, exactly, they are doing here though. Just a night howler reading interesting stuff.

Hi All, I have around 6 complaints with the FOS. 2 of which have already been looked at by an Adjudicator who rejected them both. When she did she told me that an Ombudsman will probably side with her? Is this right? I have complained to her Manager as I really felt that she was biased from the start. I have asked for an Ombudsman to look at them but now after what she said I am wandering if its worth it. Luckily my other 4 complaints are now being investigated by another adjudicator as I requested. Any help would be appreciated.

I am in the process of a complaint regarding my late Father's estate. His medical insurer have withheld information relating to who provided his healthcare since 2009. Medical records are available to me under the Access to Health Record Act and I have requested this from a number of institutions which formed part of a litigation process surrounding invalid/ potentially fraudulent Wills. The health insurer stated that it would be a breach of the DPA to provide this information and invited me to gain appropriate legal status. At great expense, I did. They still refused to provide me with the private healthcare provider list and invited me to contact every healthcare professional in the country to see if they treated my late Father. Absurd! Having consulted the ICO, the DPA is not applicable here as the providers are acting in their professional capacity, so they are hiding behind inappropriate legislation. The adjudicator had never even heard of a 'grant of probate', which is shocking. So how did they make a decision upon my rights as executor? Yep, you got it, they couldn't be bothered to find out and made up their own version of the Administration of Estates Act! HMCTS have confirmed that a grant of probate is sufficient and the insurer's request to get a court order is unnecessary and possibly will be seen as a waste of court time. I referred the case to the FOS. It took over 4 months to be allocated to an adjudicator. The adjudicator was extremely inexperienced. I was invited to provide a breakdown of the legal costs for which WPA forced me to incur by leading me down a garden path. I stated this would take a week or so to compile from the legal bill narrative. Two days later, I received a letter (the adjudicator took less than a week in total to conclude their findings on a complex matter) stated that the firm believed the DPA to be in effect. Despite my extensive documentation and the adjudicator's own admission that it was a 'lengthy' complaint, it seems the adjudicator couldn't be bothered to deal with it properly and simply wanted to get it off the desk as quickly as possible. Upon speaking to the manager I was refused to be notified how long the adjudicator took to review the full file (hundreds of pages of documents) and had to source this from the helpline. Tellingly, the manager told me that the time that the adjudicator spends looking at the file before concluding is 'irrelevant' and the adjudicator had ignored most of my complaints as only the 'key issues' as defined by the adjudicator, not me. I was also told by the manager that this particular adjudicator's workload is extremely large and the individual was not feeling well and had to be stationed in one of their 'quiet rooms' for the day. Hmm... The whole process is bizarre. They quite clearly have no idea what they are doing and when I explained this to the helpdesk staff, they clearly admitted that they don't really help consumers. I don't see the point in their existence and have absolutely no confidence in the FOS now as it seems like a big game for firms to play with. It's a no brainer to send all complaints to the FOS if I were a firm as it's a safe risk due to the incompetence of the FOS. No wonder they are busy and it's in excess of 6 months for a case that has been referred to a full Ombudsman to be re-reviewed. Any similar experiences with the FOS?

I am encountering a similar situation with CMS Telford / Brum but I am unsure of full account number details but do have a different eight digit reference from CMS letter). Can I still make a CCA Request for this other account that I did not agree to ? And by sending this will this mean I accepting liability of debt ?

I've had my adjudicator response to 3 historic loans dating back to 95,96 and 98. they haven't found in my favour. In the absence of any paperwork, they're reached their decisions based on other similar cases from the same bank. what would generally be the grounds for an appeal, where there's no paperwork whatsoever?

Just had a completely ridiculous experience with the FOS. Rather than rewrite it all here it is part of my thread in the Debt Subforum http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?376861-1st-and-second-mortgage-negative-equity-on-property-what-happens-next (The FOS comes into it towards the end, if you don't want to read the entire story )

http://www.popla.org.uk/ParkingEyeLimited-v-Beavis.htm ParkingEye wanted and got, cases stayed at POPLA until the Beavis case was heard at the Court of Appeal. They 'won' the at the Court of Appeal. An appeal has now been filed at the Supreme Court. I believe that PE have ' bitten themselves on the b*m'.... Could every appeal to POPLA potentially be stayed?

Complaint regarding Barclays after i lost my job and had to make reduced payments. Barclays defaulted one of my credit card accounts after 7 months of arrears. They defaulted the other after 10 months. I complained that the second default date was completely inaccurate and asked for it to be changed to one similar to my other account. The adjudicator upheld my complaint but Barclays would not accept his decision and complained. The adjudicator then changed his mind saying he had not taken into account Barclays internal procedures which resulted in the delay. I showed that the delay in the default date is in breach of the ICO guidelines on defaults which state a maximum of 6 months. I also showed that the ICO guidelines specifically state that internal procedures should not be the determining factor when a default is registered. Ombudsman: "The ICO guidance does state that defaults should be registered within 3-6 months, but our service would not insist that this is followed in all cases." Regarding the delay between the first and second account default date. Ombudsman: "I'm persuaded the bank thought the applicants financial situation could improve." "It was required to treat customers positively and sympathetically" I find it disappointing that it was fair and reasonable for Barclays to delay a default to one of my credit cards but also find it fair and reasonable that they decided it was not necessary to do so on another. Ombudsman: Referring to the bank. "It says it has no record of the account the applicant refers to. It appears the applicant cant provide information about that account either." I provided my credit file which has the account details and adverse information which is reported and updated monthly by Barclays. Is the ombudsman awake? Ombudsman: "The bank says it generally issues formal demands to customers after an account has been in arrears for 7 months, and that it then given the customer a further 28 days notice before registering a default. It appears the bank did this in this case." This was almost word for word what the adjudicator said. Truly amazing since i had already explained to the adjudicator the maths; "I still do not understand how the default date 29th July is 28 days after the formal demand 1st June? I make this 59 days." What else can i say. A terrible and very poor service.

Is it possible that a former officer of the old Log Book Loans organisation is now an adjudicator at the financial ombudsman services? I have mentioned him in my application to the FOS in relation to my stolen car. What should this mean for me or anyone else that is seeking justice from this company which has now gone into administration? Fortunately the FOS are accepting applications from before a certain date.

I was making a delivery on a single yellow line. i received the pcn. I wrote back to redbridge council explaining this and they refused saying i have to appeal to the adjudicator. I did this sending them my contract of employment and letter from my employers saying i was making a delivery that day. I did not attend and the adjudicator rejected my case, saying the letter from my employer does not state i was actually making a delivery to the road concerned and the company office and where the pcn took place is a long way away. To me it seems like clutching at straws, so i got my boss to write a letter confirming i was delivering on that road at the time, and i sent it to the adjudicator for a review. I got a letter back today saying, edited: 'the general principles of review are that fact and law are generally final. One adjudicator will not overturn the findings of fact or law of another unless there are compelling reasons for doing so, such as where the findings are not compatible with the evidence before the original adjudicator unless the original adjudicator can be shown to to have taken into account some immaterial matter or to have overlooked or missapprehended some matterial matter that undermines his or her decision.. his/her decision is final and can not be reviewed You contest the findings of fact made by the adjudicator. The adjudicator made findings that the exemption for a delivery was not proved in your case. The adjudicator was entitled to come to this conclusion on the evidence for the reasons given. The new information that you now produce is not new evidence 'the existence of which could not reasonably have been known or foreseen' within the meaning of para 12 of the schedule of to the civil enforcement of parking contraventions (england) representations and appeals regs 2007. It should have been put before the original adjudicator. It will not therefore be taken into account now. your other representations are essentially no more than a dissagreement with the original adjudicators findings and a repitition of the submissions made before. there is no reason to conclude that the original adjudicator did not consider all the matters you raised in your original representations. Your application for review is there rejected. Surely this is rediculous? If i can prove i was making a delivery where the original ajducator was sceptical that is grounds to show he missaprehended or mis interpreted my evidence? How can they say i should have shown that evidence to the original ajdudicator? I was not going to know he would be so nit picky with a letter from my employers? Could i go to a solictor to contest this? I do have legal cover on my home insurance and car insurance. Do you think i have a case?

Apologies if this has been posted already but I noticed this statement and linked adjudication on POPLA http://www.popla.org.uk/statement_28-01-14.htm It seems that the adjudicator has been slightly annoyed by the decision of the PPC involved (redacted but almost certainly Parking Eye) and the BPA to use the transcript in a private section of the BPA website to (according to some suggestions) provide instruction to other PPCs in order to combat the 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' argument. The Adjudicator is concerned that in doing so the impartiality of POPLA may be compromised so has published the redacted transcript of the adjudication - the transcript also refers to this point. The transcript gives not only a useful insight into how POPLA will view applications on the basis of No GPEOL, and the hurdles to be overcome on either side of an appeal on that basis, but it also makes a mockery of the carp souted on the PE website about the majority of POPLA decisions on GPEOL being awarded in favour of PE. Whilst the adjudication may indeed give PPCs some ideas as to how to make charges fall in line with a GPEOL, there is also a degree of clarity over what cannot be included in the mind of POPLA - management and running costs of the car park cannot be for example, however staffing time (which could be shown to be expensive) and administration in chasing charge notices might well be accepted as a 'loss'. I would therefore see that point as stressing the importance of early communication and appeal to the PPC being important so that they cannot claim to have incurred the losses which might go along with an uncommunicative victim. Of course this is all notwithstanding the fact that this is just a POPLA adjudication rather than a binding legal precedent, and ignores the various and many other reasons why a charge on private land might be unlawful, but I found it interesting nevertheless! UPDATE - It appears that this case has already been featured on the Parking Prankster site but the above is for those who may not have already seen this

Hi all first time poster.. My credit card account dates back to 2002 I have been paying a monthly PPI premium any time this credit card was in debt. After reading a lot of success stories of people reclaiming their PPI I phoned Halifax and started a complaint 30 days ago. They told me to fill out the FOS questionnaire which I sent back leading to my claim being declined. In the FOS questionnaire I wrote I felt pressured into taking the policy and they didn't explain the terms and conditions clearly to me. The official letter response said I applied for PPI over the phone the terms and conditions were explained clearly to me and that i wasn't pressured since it was a phone conversation. For one i can't remember the phone conversation as it was 10 years ago now if it even took place. The letter also states that if i don't raise any more concerns they will consider my case as closed in 28days. Is there any way for me to hit them with a SAR request (template?) to get access to the original PPI policy details, the amount I have paid into this policy, access to the phone call log if it exists and any other details I might need? The only documents i have is the credit card application and terms and conditions. I intend to follow this up by using the financial ombudsman service and would like to have all the paperwork regarding my case to send to them.

i have submitted 2 claims for ppi sold AT THE SAME TIME by Clydesdale bank one for a loan and one for a credit card. the loan ppi was repaid because they agreed I wasnt given the correct advice and i didnt need the insurance because i am adequatley covered by employment ( i am in the nhs). The other has been rejected because I was given adequate advice and it was sutable for my needs!!!!! I have put a complaint into the fos but I am being fobbed off by the adjudicator with confliciting advice, sibjective comments and pure naff replies. She even quotes " she would find it difficult to believe that the six month`s full pay i would be entitled to from my empolyer in the event of sickness would adequatley cover all me expenses such as morgage etc"..... un bloody believable considering it has to cover me now. Is there any advice any body can suggest to help me when this finally goes to the organ grinder rather than the monkey!!!!