Complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service

[Jameson78]

waste of space the FOS beleive me ive been writing and sending documents that they keep losing and changing personel,,my complaint goes way back to 2006 and after sending 83 pages ime still waiting ?

 

 

That's unbelieveable!!

 

I think we still need to push forwards!

 

The alternative is to write a "bemused" letter to each DCA... which could go on forever?

 

Still complain and let them be charged £450!

[reallymadwoman]

Some people will be aware that I haven't posted on the site for about ten months. I can't explain why at the moment, nor can I comment about my FOS complaint. I hope to be able to do so very soon.

 

In the meantime please, please do keep complaining to them, but don't hold your breath waiting for a response or expect a positive response, at least not before the London Olympics! The only purpose of complaints to the FOS at the moment is

 

a) To keep the numbers up

b) To cost banks/DCAs the investigation fee.

 

Many thanks to everyone who sent enquiries about my health etc, and apologies for not replying. Hopefully all will become clear this week.

 

RMW

[patrickq1]

hello rmw nice to see you back although myself i only occasionally come on well let me reword that i only occasionally respond but illness has forced me to sit back and try be stress free nice your back hope your well

pat

[spark1]

Just recently I have had two complaints against DCA's settled via the FOS. Both went in my wife's favour and she was awarded money for the distress and inconvenience caused by both the DCA's, namely 1st Credit and Booker Management Services Limited.

 

Overall I am happy with the service and would use them again.

 

Spark

Edited November 24, 2009 by spark1

[42man]

Good news Spark thanks for that...can you enlighten us a little more on what 1st Credit did ?

[spark1]

42man

 

About 2.5 years ago, 1st Credit sent her letters using the Barclaycard Logo paper along with their own letters asking her for unpaid debts. The debts were not hers, but they carried on using solicitors, connaughts and other collectors etc.

 

Connaughts sent SDs, you know the usual stuff you read on here. I complained to the FOS and they contacted 1st Credit, but 1st Credit still carried on.

 

It was a long draw out process, but worth it in the end, because they may think twice before they start on another innocent person.

 

If you look on the FOS site, they have now drawn up requirements for DCA's to follow in relation to debt collectiing.

 

Also the complaints were only filed with the FOS about a year ago.

 

Spark1

[42man]

I really hope you reported them to the Office Of Fair Trading too. What a terrible story...

[spark1]

42 man

 

I did report them to the OFT and also the ICO who found them to have breached the DPA, so lots went on.

 

Spark

Edited November 24, 2009 by spark1

[reallymadwoman]

Some people will be aware that I haven't posted on the site for about ten months. I can't explain why at the moment, nor can I comment about my FOS complaint. I hope to be able to do so very soon.

 

In case anyone from the Bank is still reading (explains point one) the estate agent is coming round tomorrow to take his photos, so if you want a charging order, you'd better move quick as I'll be renting after the sale goes through. Don't let the outstanding FOS complaint stop you, just like it hasn't stopped you doing anything else.

 

No doubt you have been copied the latest missive from the entirely biased adjudicator, but don't get your hopes up as I will not be giving up. If it costs me every penny of the equity, I will take this just as far as I can.

 

On a more serious note, can anyone outline the procedure for judicial review which is apparently the only way to appeal an FOS decision.

[patrickq1]

hi rmw hope things work out for you

here it is the procedure for JR

Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review - Ministry of Justice

[reallymadwoman]

Thanks. I will start my research now. I have absolutely no confidence that the Ombudsman will come to any different conclusion.

[citizenB]

Nice to have you back, RMW. Hope you are well

[angry cat]

A point to bear in mind:

 

The FOS state that if one does not agree with his decision, one is free to take the matter to Court.

 

Factually, this is incorrect if ones case is complex and involves a large amount of law.

 

The General Consumer, is not able to fund litigation in complex cases;

going to trial in such could cost in excess of £20,000!

 

Furthermore, it is nigh on impossible to obtain legal aid funding.

 

Therefore, the FOS are letting down the General Consumer;

the FOS are fully aware of these sometimes insurmountable hurdles.

However, they contue in their own procedural fashion, leaving many who have valid cases, left in limbo.

 

Hardly fair nor reasonable, is it?

[reallymadwoman]

I've been reading up on Judicial Reviews all day (apart from when the estate agent was here - apparently he has a queue of people wanting to buy in this road so I could be moved by Christmas) and it sounds complicated and expensive as loser pays all costs. How many of the general public could afford to risk having to pay costs not just for themselves but also the FOS and any other interested party - e.g. the Bank involved?

Add to that the cost of getting to the hearing unless you live in one of the five cities where the Administrative Court sits - I don't, nearest is London @ 200 miles - and the abundantly obvious fact from what I've read so far that you can't do it yourself and will need not just a solicitor but also a barrister.

If someone had set out to design a system to deter anyone from challenging this sort of decision, they couldn't have come up with anything much better.

[reallymadwoman]

Nice to have you back, RMW. Hope you are well

 

Thank you. I was much better before all this c**p blew up again. Didn't sleep well last night.

[patrickq1]

A point to bear in mind:

 

The FOS state that if one does not agree with his decision, one is free to take the matter to Court.

 

Factually, this is incorrect if ones case is complex and involves a large amount of law.

 

The General Consumer, is not able to fund litigation in complex cases;

going to trial in such could cost in excess of £20,000!

 

Furthermore, it is nigh on impossible to obtain legal aid funding.

 

Therefore, the FOS are letting down the General Consumer;

the FOS are fully aware of these sometimes insurmountable hurdles.

However, they contue in their own procedural fashion, leaving many who have valid cases, left in limbo.

 

Hardly fair nor reasonable, is it?

ARE MOST OF THEIR STAFF SELF EMPLOYED ?

[patrickq1]

I've been reading up on Judicial Reviews all day (apart from when the estate agent was here - apparently he has a queue of people wanting to buy in this road so I could be moved by Christmas) and it sounds complicated and expensive as loser pays all costs. How many of the general public could afford to risk having to pay costs not just for themselves but also the FOS and any other interested party - e.g. the Bank involved?

Add to that the cost of getting to the hearing unless you live in one of the five cities where the Administrative Court sits - I don't, nearest is London @ 200 miles - and the abundantly obvious fact from what I've read so far that you can't do it yourself and will need not just a solicitor but also a barrister.

If someone had set out to design a system to deter anyone from challenging this sort of decision, they couldn't have come up with anything much better.

Perhaps your MP could help and saying that what about a letter to MP JOHN MC FALL after all he is commitee chairman of the finance and banking sector this sector he is highly critical of them and i beleive he is sympathetic to us the votors and may help ?

[angry cat]

ARE MOST OF THEIR STAFF SELF EMPLOYED ?

 

I know for a fact that, some of them are part time!

[reallymadwoman]

Perhaps your MP could help and saying that what about a letter to MP JOHN MC FALL after all he is commitee chairman of the finance and banking sector this sector he is highly critical of them and i beleive he is sympathetic to us the votors and may help ?

 

I know my MP will not help. He belongs to the 'debtors are criminals' school of thought.

[angry cat]

Nothing to stop you from writng to John McFall himself!

[patrickq1]

also rmw you could go to his opposite member of another party in your area and complain about him...this works wonders but john McFall is the best bet in this situation

[reallymadwoman]

Current position

 

1. Complaint about the FOS on hold whilst they fast-track the complaint to the FOS. They apparently can't do both at once.

 

2. The best I can hope for from the adjudicator is the complaint will be upheld against Blair & co, but will not include harassment, discrimination or any complaint against BOS in general, therefore to go further I would have to go to an Ombudsman which could take another 6 months with no guarantee they would come to any different conclusion. Excluding BOS from the complaint is actually an easy way out for them.

 

Is there any reason why I can't take any and all action short of actually issuing proceedings whilst still allowing the FOS complaint to proceed? I want to keep my options open until the last possible minute because whilst that complaint is still undecided the bank cannot issue against me - or they could and risk a less than impressed judge.

 

Apart from preventing the bank doing anything other than send more nastygrams, there is always a possibility that the FOS will see sense (did anyone else see that flying pig?) and save me the hassle of going legal until I'm ready to do it, so I don't want to withdraw the complaint yet.

 

Having just read through this, why am I complaining about the FOS being so slow. I'm now really good at ignoring the threatograms, so if the bank can't realistically do anything else, the longer they take the closer we get to statute-barred. At the rate the FOS have moved so far, it'll be so far past statute barred that not even Lowells would have a go.

[patrickq1]

Having just read through this, why am I complaining about the FOS being so slow. I'm now really good at ignoring the threatograms, so if the bank can't realistically do anything else, the longer they take the closer we get to statute-barred. At the rate the FOS have moved so far, it'll be so far past statute barred that not even Lowells would have a go.

 

i was thinking about the statute barred this cannot happen if the bank have passed this data to another company the other company would just issue a default against you rendering the statute barred obsolete,i have just instructed eperian for this that i inted taking action against them because hfo have issued a default against me whilst i am in dispute with ,organ stanley...if it werent for hfo my case would be statute barred

patrickq1

so like you rmw i am considering to take morgan stanley to court to force this issue i want answers from them about charging double ppi and they will not pass the data to me they have also lied to the fso concerning the double ppi yet i have it in black and white on my statements ?/

[reallymadwoman]

Lowells have apparently 'bought' one BOS account. They have put the account in their name on my CRA file. I'm not complaining. They can issue as many defaults as they like, it still won't get them a response from me or any money.

Since there is an outstanding complaint with the FOS if they issue proceedings they will have egg on their faces - the courts don't like people trying to circumvent alternative dispute resolution services, which is what the FOS is. In fact, I'd like Lowells to issue so I can claim wasted costs from them as well as make them look entirely stupid.

 

I don't see how issuing a default could make an account not statute barred? If the 6 years has passed then can pay themselves for all the difference it would make.

[exchange]

Perhaps I've got this wrong, but I thought the Statute barred clock could only be restarted by the debtor by acknowledging the debt in writing or by making a payment. If the creditor can restart the clock then nothing would ever get statute barred!

Edited December 1, 2009 by exchange
typo