Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'fos'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums


  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




  1. I've just been sending them that template letter that's been floating about along with a letter and 3 payslips from my employer as I'm well below the threshold. I've always deferred so they fortunately haven't got my bank details. I've received a couple of arrears letters including another as one telling me to only sign section 9 of the form. I've just sent them another back which is a mix of the template and saying how can I be in arrears when I'm under the threshold and have proven so. Also I received a phone call today from their call centre on my mobile. I have never given my mobile number to the SLC or them. how did they get my number? I'm not signing their form, I don't earn enough and have proven so. The whole thing stinks and also cheers to the people on these forums and elsewhere who are providing help and info. It's much appreciated in a world that cares more about money than people.
  2. MBNA sold debts that belonged to both me and my husband. Idem bought mine, Moorcroft bought my husbands. I emailed Idem regarding reduced payments that I would make, and eventually they responded agreeing to my reduced amount. However, Moorcroft ignore emails (sent day after day) and they will not reply despite my husband requesting that they not call, but put in writing instead. They call anyway, and to whomever called, I asked them not to call, but to respond to my husband's emails - however, the chap then called my husband's mobile immediately! I got a statement from Idem, and in exactly the same marked envelope (same return address, same statement format) my husband had one from Moorcroft. Does anyone know if this is the same company??? It's really cheesing me off that Moorcroft ignore all the emails. Also, they're sneaky so-and-so's: they are based hundreds of miles away from us, and yet they call the landline using a local number that they must buy to use, to look like they're someone local calling us - idiots! It doesn't take long for me to recognise the number and ignore it. But, they're making me so mad!!! I think I'm wasting my time re-sending the same emails but at least it proves the point that they're ignoring us, dispite contacting them on a daily basis!
  3. Hello all, I have recently been awarded a judgement by the FOS against an FCA regulated company for not providing a service I had paid for. The company in question now wants to pay the award in monthly installments. They initially offered to repay over 3 years. I rejected that outright because it's far too long, and the Ombudsman will not get involved if I agree to a payment scheme and the company fail to pay. Now the company has offered a new repayment plan to repay in 12 months. This is far more attractive as they claim they cannot pay it all in one go but based on past experience with them I have doubts as to their sincerity and honesty. Could someone please advise me if there is some way I can get guarantees that the sum will be paid and what my options would be were they to stop paying before the full amount is repaid? Any advice/suggestions will be most appreciated. Regards Scara
  4. I hope for your help on how I should apply the Central London County Court to Enforce an Financial Ombudsman Final Decision using form N322A? I am a Danish pensioner, living in Denmark, on 28 March 2018 the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) made a Final Decision in my favor regarding my complaint against Abshire-Smith Global Ltd., 26 York Street, London W1Y 6PZ, which I accepted. However, the business has unfortunately not complied, i.e. paid me the required amount (GBP 84.833, incl. 8% interest and a GBP 750 compensation awarded by the FOS) within 28 days of me accepting the FOS Final Decision, as they were ordered to by the FOS, despite many reminders from the FOS and finally the FOS reporting the business to the Regulator (the Financial Conduct Authority), but all in vain. The FOS has therefore advised, that I can apply the County Court, nearest to the business, in order to enforce the ombudsman decision (see the attached FOS Consumer Factsheet "enforcing an ombudsman decision in court"). I therefore informed the business that I would now proceed to the County Court unless they complied with the FOS Final Decision - and thereby also saving the business the considerable court fee. However, as I did not hear from the business I sent my application by email ([email protected]) to the Central London County Court on 25 Oct. 2018, with all required documents duly completed incl. Form N322A, but less court fee (I requested the Court for information on the court fee amount and how to pay it). I received an automated reply, that I would receive a answer within 10 working days. However, 10 working days have now passed and I have not heard from the County Court, despite sending them a reminder last week. In the meantime Adam Neal, the CEO and Founder of Abshire-Smith Global, has sent me an email informing "Please note we have the option of a judicial review, which is what we are requesting". They have said this before to the FOS shortly after the FOS Final Decision, but apparently it was just a threat and I also believe they should have requested for a Judicial Review within 3-4 months of the date of the Final Decision, so it's properly another delaying tactic? I have, therefore, asked my contact person at the FOS, the Adjudicator,for information on what the Judicial Review means and how I can know if the business has actually applied for this, if the Court accepted the application, the processing time and whether I will be informed of the outcome. Apart from informing me she will inform me "shortly" I have not heard from her again in over 2 weeks, despite my reminder by email. I therefore wish to proceed to enforce my FOS Final Decision at the County Court, but how should I proceed, as they do not respond to my emails? I hope you can help me? enforcing-an-ombudsmans-decision.pdf n322a-eng.pdf
  5. I cannot believe how useless FOS is: Investigator ruled against me because I must have accepted an online question that I wanted PPI: he sent me screenshots of questions re PPI but not my screenshots since i never seen them before. my gdpr did not contain them, my cca regulated agreement contained nothing about ppi… he says fos is not interested in cca agreement or what is in gdpr … cca is a matter for fca.. not fos disgraceful appalling service... i feel a need to complain about this investigator i have sent an email complaining about the fos guy essentially he has assumed that i saw an online form and replied i did want ppi… but he has not offered any evidence that i was offered or even accepted or declined
  6. An ajudicator made a decision to uphold my case 4 years ago, however the business appealed the decision. After constantly chasing the FOS over a period of 3 years and numerous missed deadlines, six months ago an ombudsman made a provisional decision again in my favour, however I was stripped of costs which the adjudicator had awarded. To date, no final decision has been made, and the pattern of broken promises for deadlines, and constant chasing them for a final decision is still ongoing. What can I do to get them to make a final decision after 4 years of the stress of this case and struggling to survive financially?
  7. Santander have rejected my PPI claim (store card) from 17 years ago on the grounds they believe it was sold in a proper manner (over the phone - which it wasnt - as I signed-up in-store with an agreement the assistant ticked for PPI) and was offered as optional and appropriate for me etc etc - which I absolutely disagree with. I have issued a SAR - but already do have copies of Agreement and statements etc. Unsure of whats best as next move - do I escalate issue with FOS (that I'm not hearing good reports about!) or small claims action? The amount of money involved is probably fairly small (circa £200 in PPI premiums?) Any thoughts appreciated!
  8. hi all, I used halifax website to submit my ppi complaint. they correctly discovered my old loan and credit card 2004/6 and sent me a 7 page questionaire to complete and gave me six weeks to do so... I just had a text msg to say three weeks later they are still waiting questions: can they really give me timescales to complete their form? do i really need to complete their form... can i send them a completed fos form which requires much less information? shouldnt i send them one sar for full statement for each acciunt? any help would be gratefully received zubo
  9. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/144/144.html 144/3 – Mr A complains that his home insurance is too expensive Mr A, in his eighties, had been living with dementia for a few years. He didn’t use a computer, and his wife, who’d always taken care of the home expenses, had died about seven years before. So after this he’d asked the insurer to send things to him by post. Mr A’s nephew got in touch with us when helping his uncle out with his household finances. He’d noticed the home insurance for his uncle’s two-bedroom terraced home was £1,400. He’d found similar policies online for as little as £150. Indeed his existing insurer was quoting £300 for more comprehensive cover. He’d been with the same insurer for 15 years, originally taking out the policy for £200. The policy had automatically renewed every year and Mr A had never made a claim. Mr A’s nephew complained on his uncle’s behalf that the price of the policy wasn’t fair. He told us his uncle was very upset to think his insurer had taken advantage of his loyalty. In response to Mr A’s complaint, the insurer said the price was correct and that the quotes on their website were lower because of “online discounts”. Mr A’s nephew asked for our help to sort things out. how we helped When considering whether Mr A was treated fairly, we looked at whether he’d been given clear information when his insurance was due to be renewed. He needed to have been able to make an informed decision about accepting the price and cover offered. Mr A’s renewal documents were sent to him by post. And for the first four years the price had increased very little. In the fifth year, it went up by 15% and by similar amounts after that. The insurer’s renewal letters told Mr A that as a valued customer he’d received a number of discounts for making no claims and staying with them. But we thought the difference in price between Mr A’s policy and the online policies couldn’t be explained by the online discounts alone. The renewal letters also referred to other policies being available, but said that unless his circumstances had changed, Mr A didn’t need to do anything. Overall, we thought that the information he’d had at renewal could have been misleading. From what Mr A’s nephew told us about his personal circumstances and his lack of direct engagement, we thought it should have been clear to the insurer that Mr A might need additional help in making an informed choice about whether to renew his policy. We didn’t think the insurer had done enough to let him know there were other, potentially cheaper, options available. Increasing his price each year without taking into account Mr A’s needs had left him potentially susceptible to detriment. We thought that his vulnerability should have been apparent from the fifth policy year onwards. That was also when the price of his policy had begun to increase significantly, the original new customer discount having been recouped by then too. We told the insurer to refund the difference in premiums, with interest, for each year between the price paid after five years and the subsequent renewal offers. The insurer also accepted our recommendation to pay £150 for the upset they caused Mr A.
  10. This is my experience so far. I was a victim of identity theft on an account opened at a three year old address where i hadnt lived I only discovered this due to my credit file. I called the bank....the bank themselves told me to go into branch and hand identification. Confirmed. went to the bank got a statement out and changed address, all information A cheque had been paid in by the person who comitted the crime. I asked for details, said i would need to pay to get the copy of the cheque, couldnt at that precise minute. Contacted the banks head office just to get the situation confirmed and more over to find out what this cheque was ( As reality says if they had to open an account in my name,the cheque would of also been in my name) So flip to the executive office. Reponse email we will look into it Following day i call..they say i..myself failed security lol..lets be factual here,there was not a question wrong, even from a background point of view,that and being my details were updated in branch! Recieve an email saying another team is looking into it and possibly i may be able to tell you tomorrow what the cheque was. Tomorrow comes around, i cant apparently due to data protection...data protection of what miss its my name that got used!!..now while this has been going on, a new bank card has arrived and internet banking credentials to my updated address. So the only other route is to get internet banking active as it would show the cheque identifier,like what bank etc, my guess is that was a ppi refund or the like So ok,start to create, i have an issue at the password login,id already created, so i call there tech department. The tech department informs me...AT THAT STAGE..at that stage after going in branch and talking to there senior folk at head office..that i cant just take ownership of an account,then cancels everything. I recieve a cosy letter saying they have removed the account and marker from my credit file and listed me on cifas. and that maybe i could contact barclays to get information of the cheque. So i did a ppi refund was issued to that very old address. Only because i have had to initiate that with barclays and discuss with their head office. right to the fos...late september the complaint was made, we are now on the 16/02/2018 after a few calls and emails from myself and told i would have a response, the advisor is now piecing things up to an endgame. Its not a great outlook for myself and the fos Honestly i think the system is biased, My question is ...sorry thought id explain the story. if i disagree with the fos..which i will..ive a strong feeling they will side with the bank, who in my opinion is seriously flawed between departments, from branch to top senior level. I have never known such a lapse in clear and concise methods. Who do i go to after fos, can i ask for someone else to look for it? If for one second the fos entertain the bank operated within procedure they must be reading something else
  11. Hi, Can anyone offer me any advice on an issue I have with the FOS. I took out life and critical illness cover through a tied broker in 2012. In 2016 I claimed and my claim was turned down by the insurer as they did not know about surgery I'd had prior to applying for insurance. Trouble is both me and the wife know we told the brokers agent all about the surgery on the night he came to get our signatures after checking the application. I made my initial call on the 14/4/12, their agent visited my home on 17/4/12. The FOS got involved after my complaint to the company was turned down. The original sales phone call in which I tell the salesman about my surgery is 'missing'. The FOS adjudicator requested the application and signed declaration from the brokers. What she received (and accepted!) was amazing. Pages 1 to 5 were missing and the last 4 pages (the declaration) were scanned in such a way as to obscure the date in the top left hand corner. There were no other dates on any of the remaining pages. It took me 4 subject access requests to finally receive the complete form including dates. Their excuse for their inability to supply what I'd asked for previously was that their scanner could not scan complete pages the right way up!? On each of the replies to my requests the broker states the completion date of the form as 16/4/12 The FOS is not upholding my complaint. I've always maintained that I (and my wife who took out cover at the same time) told the broker and agent all about the surgery and that therefore, knowing that it was unlikely the insurer would offer me cover, the broker and/or agent altered the application without our knowledge. I even had a photo dated 2 days prior of the 4" scar on my part shaven head clearly visible on the night of 17/4/12! Turns out the date on the missing 5 pages was the 19/4/12 - a whole 2 days after my signature was obtained on the declaration. The date on the declaration was 16/4/12. This appears to be the date the declaration pages were sent to the agent and therefore the declaration was produced on or before 16/4/12. This is where I'd really appreciate some advice - the FOS Adjudicator and Ombudsman actually used the application/declaration in their decision. Can they do this?, should they do this? and where do I go from here? Thanks
  12. Hi I just wondered if anyone else has a PPI claim with the FOS and if they've had any updates? In May 2013 they settled half my claim but not the rest so I transferred It to the FOS. Haven't contacted them yet. Interested to know if any have been settled. Cheers Karl
  13. Hi guys, I actually had a very quick reply from the FOS. Less than a month after I made a complaint I had the answer - not the one I wanted but the service was quick, professional and the guy was extremely easy to deal with. My complaint was re MBNA. I took out a credit card in 2006 - fell into arrears in 2009 - finally came to an agreement with them in 2010. I maintained the arrangement to pay and then they sold the debt to IDEM in 2012. Due to serious illness, I couldn't keep payments up with IDEM and now pay them 15 per month. Arrears are 9144 on 10310 balance. I wrote to MBNA to tell them I believed that they should have put a default on my file - they said no they didn't have to as our "relationship didn't break down." I disagree but the FOS agree with them. He quotes the ICO guidelines saying the customer relationship is paramount. He said MBNA treated me fairly, agreed on a reduced repayment plan (200 pm ) and therefore no need for default. I explained I believed IDEM cannot put default on the file as they are not an original creditor - is that correct as he was under the impression they could if I broke the terms. My credit file is a mess, it shows more than six months in arrears with AR even though I have kept to the AR I made with them. So can I do anything now? I don't have ten grand. I could increase payments but how long with the AR remain on my file? Also, could I ask them to accept payments of 200 pm now and capitalize the arrears - like a new loan? Do you think I could argue anything with the FOS. Obviously, if I had stopped payment in 2010 instead of trying to do the right thing, the debt would have fallen off my file.
  14. I previously sent a CCA request as I could not locate the original that was taken out in 2001. I received the attached edited copy but is I am not sure if this is correct ? I then sent off an SAR and again received the same amongst details submitted. Am I missing anything does anyone know ? I've checked the forum for BH credit agreement examples but all seem to look different to mine. Just one other question, should BH be sending me annual statements of some sort ? Thank-you for looking.
  15. I had a loan with Blemain about five years ago. The loan was secured against my property. After two years I remortgaged and repaid the loan. I have checked the paperwork recently and noticed that I was charged £4,681 for collection costs. I have now written twice to Blemain asking for a detailed breakdown of these costs. The reply I had today said, the costs were "as a result of administrative costs applied to the account". I know that! They don't seem to want to give the details of the charges. I don't know what to do now. Shall I write again or what? Please can anyone help me.
  16. Long story short. After years arguing with RBS I took my complaint to the Ombudsman. This was initially thrown out but I knew I was right so appealed and won. It's worth knowing that the Ombudsmans caseload is filtered by minions who know nothing about Financial Services and are clearly there just to deter people. the RBS had to refund charges, pay compensation etc the main issue led to other financial problems which led to court action which led to my credit rating being stuffed. The FOS say they have no jurisdiction over the Courts so I need to take independent legal action. Does anyone know of a solicitors who will pursue the banks? Thanks
  17. WHi All Background: I was purchasing a property on mortgage (Clydesdale Bank) and it was a sub sale. Because of some delays at bank's side we missed the completion date and I lost about £60K. Losses fall into following categories, 1. About £20k - Penalty issued by the seller for late completion (this was already confirmed) 2. About £40k - Money lost in arranging the finances to complete on cash FOS decision is in my favor. However, they are awarding me only about £20K (The actual penalty issued by the seller which I had to pay). They are not considering my other losses even after submitting all the evidences. So don't know what to do? Already suffered a lot and still suffering. Have 3 options, 1. Take about £20K and forget 2. Approach County court 3. Approach High court - Judicial review Any guidance and help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
  18. Hi there, I was really hoping for some help and advise on whether there is any way forward with this complaint. I complained to Canada Square about an egg credit card taken out in March 2001. I know that I did not opt in to take PPI - that the box was pre ticked, as I was also advised on the phone that the box had to be pre ticked to complete the application when I questioned it. They rejected my complaint as my personal circumstances meant I had no cover (significant sick pay or savings etc). I don't see how this is relevant. I took it to FOS and they rejected my complaint. I have questioned it and they say their records show it was opt in at this time. But I know this isn't true. Can anyone give any advice on how to proceed with this?
  19. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4425464/Staff-meltdown-Financial-Ombudsman.html Sorry If I posted in the wrong place or if it has already been posted.
  20. First of all, thanks all for contributing to this forum, your time and efforts are highly appreciated! I have received a Final Decision (rejection) from my employer's Group Income Protection insurance (UNUM) I have asked my employer to appeal UNUM's decision through the FOS (as I am not the policyholder) but they have declined to do so and refused to send me a copy of their T&C with UNUM. I am still off sick with bipolar and anxiety disorder and my claim is roughly around 16k£ Any suggestions? I feel like my only recourse at this point is against my employer
  21. 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.
  22. I am so angry that FoS have listened to what Natiowide have said about timescales and i cannot claim !! There must be a way to do so, as i NEVER need any form of PPI. the reply from FOS was : i feel the below i totally unfair as u did not know i had ppi on the card until i found an old statement last year. also nationwide did not tell me of any time-scales-limits , i feel they have used dirty tricks. there must be a way for me to make a claim as i am disgusted they have basically said "tough" Dear Mr xxxxxxx Thank you for your email dated 10 February 2016. I have attempted to contact you on numerous occasions to discuss the complaint with you, however I have been unsuccessful. I apologise that you feel this way, however under the dispute resolution rules set out by the Financial Conduct Authority, businesses are entitled to not consent to us looking at a complaint on six and three and as a service we have to consider this before we can proceed to look at the merits. In your case Nationwide has not consented into us looking into your complaint, therefore we have to look at whether it’s been more than six years since the PPI policy was sold and more than three years since the you became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that you had cause to complain. We are an impartial service and have consider evidence provided by both you and the business in order to reach a fair outcome. Our general approach is that statements clearing setting out PPI ought reasonably to have made the consumer aware that PPI was added to their account. In your case, your monthly statements would have shown that you were paying for insurance. Whilst I understand you may not have checked every single statement, it would have been clear from the statement that you were paying some sort of insurance which would have been enough to give you cause to question what it was you were paying and complain. I appreciate that you have told us that you were not aware that there was a timescale to make a complaint and Nationwide never informed you of this, however they are not required to do so. I have to consider that it is reasonable to assume that you should reasonably have known you had cause to complain more than three years before you did – so unfortunately your complaint falls outside the three-year time scale as well and I remain of the view that the complaint could have been referred to us within time. If there’s anything else that you think we need to consider that relates specifically to reasons why your complaint was made outside of these timescales, please let us know within 21 days. We’ll then look at things again taking into account what you send us - but unless you have any new information it is unlikely that our view will change. Should you request for an ombudsman to make a decision on your complaint, the ombudsman will not be considering your complaint, but rather whether we can look into the complaint any further. I am sorry that we were not able to help you more on this occasion. Yours sincerely Mena Salih Financial Ombudsman Service 0203 069 6556
  23. 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.
  24. Complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service since the end of 2013 to date, number 27 of which 21 have been upheld. On a lot of the complaints, BH has failed to respond to the FOS which I think shows their contempt not just for their customers, but for authority as well. This says that if you are having a problem with BH whether it be shoddy goods, (a settee stuffed with towels instead of foam in one case), if you get no satisfaction with a formal complaint to BH, then make a complaint about them to FOS. BH have never denied repeated nuisance calls or sending men around to customers houses who are having a problem or who have a complaint. If the adjudicator considers a customer should be compensated, (and it has many many times), then BH will be ordered to pay out.
  25. Hi, I was hoping to get some opinions as to whether an ombudsman adjudicator opinion on settlement is acceptable or whether I should appeal to an ombudsman. My mother had a contract with Vodafone, in October 2015 the contract was cancelled and I put the number in my name, there was no outstanding balance. In December 2015 my mother received a letter from Vodafone demanding £44.06 outstanding, I immediately went online and complained - I received two emails from Vodafone on December 13th stating no outstanding balance. This non-existent Vodafone debt was passed to a DCA named Zinc group who began chasing my mother. We wrote a recorded delivery complaint to Vodafone and got no response. Once the time limit for going to the ombudsman was reached we went to the communications ombudsman. Zinc group continued to hound my mother until April 15th 2016, despite me informing them and the ombudsman requesting no recovery activity to take place whilst the investigation was carried out. Plus Vodafone have been putting negative entries on my mother's credit file which has seen her score drop by over 150 points in the last few months, it is the only negative entry for her. The ombudsman adjudicator has upheld my complaint, I know this from a communication from Vodafone, I haven't had the ombudsman letter yet. They have instructed Vodafone to clear the false debt, remove negative entries from my mothers credit file, and issue her with £50 compensation. This amount of compensation seems low considering this has been going on for 6 months, I was expecting more like £150. Although I have had many debts, my mother never has had any and this is the first time a debt collector has ever chased her. So it caused her stress and sleepless nights. Since this is my mother I'm pretty angry about the whole thing, so just wanted opinion on whether this is a more than adequate resolution and requesting more comp would be unreasonable, or if I should try for more.
  • Create New...