Complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service

[Jeff2000]

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!

 

 

 

 

That is my understanding also.

[patrickq1]

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 THINK I SUFFER FROM A LACK OFUNDERSTANDING and cohesive wording...if the debt collections company write to you you have only one option and that is to respond ,but initially we all seem to forget to first write back the initial letter WITHOUT PREJUDICE I DO NOT AKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY.. or words to this effect..without those words and if you engage with the debt collections company then you have possibly aknowledged the debt...thats what i always thought but unfortunitley most of before we got to cag we would write letters argueing without the above without P so perhaps i am thinking wrong and worrying over nothing ...at the moment i am on my 5th letter to both OFT and FSO about HFO AND MORGAN STANLEY seems they have forgotten i exist so ive made a very strong complaint about their services nd let them know they have let me down badly so ive also written to MP JOHN Mc FALL and see if he can send his big toe up there backsides because just how many of us have complained against these useless morons who seem to sit on there backsides and accept their wages for doing what...

TIME FOR ACTION AND A CAMPAIGN TO FIND OUT WHY WE ARE BEING LETDOWN......

get of my high horse and go back to my anger management cubby hole

[lexis200]

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 THINK I SUFFER FROM A LACK OFUNDERSTANDING and cohesive wording...if the debt collections company write to you you have only one option and that is to respond ,but initially we all seem to forget to first write back the initial letter WITHOUT PREJUDICE I DO NOT AKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY.. or words to this effect..without those words and if you engage with the debt collections company then you have possibly aknowledged the debt...thats what i always thought but unfortunitley most of before we got to cag we would write letters argueing without the above without P so perhaps i am thinking wrong and worrying over nothing ...at the moment i am on my 5th letter to both OFT and FSO about HFO AND MORGAN STANLEY seems they have forgotten i exist so ive made a very strong complaint about their services nd let them know they have let me down badly so ive also written to MP JOHN Mc FALL and see if he can send his big toe up there backsides because just how many of us have complained against these useless morons who seem to sit on there backsides and accept their wages for doing what...

TIME FOR ACTION AND A CAMPAIGN TO FIND OUT WHY WE ARE BEING LETDOWN......

get of my high horse and go back to my anger management cubby hole

 

Or you can completely ignore them;) As has been said, I'd find it nigh on impossible to believe they can stop the clock ticking on statute barring, only your deeds can do that. That's why they get increasingly desperate the nearer to the 6 years you get. As long as you don't pay them or acknowledge, they can't start the clock again no matter what they do.

 

This is where I have a bit of a problem though as I'd rather try to work things out than flat ignore them. Of course this means the agreements which I worked out were duds a year and a half ago could be well on their way to being statute barred accounts. As it is I've tried to work things out so am still 6 years away:rolleyes:

[diddydicky]

Without Prejudice, is not the magic bullet that it might appear to be so use it carefully,

 

The SB clock ticks from the moment that the debtor last made a payment to the account or acknowledged the debt in writing

 

the creditor can NEVER stop or re start the clock, nor can he credit your account without your express permission (by diverting a one pound cca fee for example)

 

responding to demands for payment and denying the debt is NOT an "acknowledgement" of the debt

 

acknowledgment of the debt would be along the lines of

 

i admit/dont deny but i cant afford to pay you etc

[lexis200]

Are you stalking me DD?

[diddydicky]

Are you stalking me DD?

 

:D:D

[Kraken1]

Seen this?

 

Disgusted consumers turn on ‘shoddy’ complaints watchdog - Times Online

 

I don't agree with all the points made, I don't accept that there is any intrinsic bias (the figures speak for that alone), but I think some bits might be valid. 22k is not enough to get a decent adjudicator and an adjudicator needs time, and no targets, to make a decent decision.

 

It does support the fact that you need to present a claim well to get the right answer.

[lexis200]

I knew someone who worked at the FOS as a contractor (I've mentioned this before, but she was still working there. As she's long since left I can give a little more detail now). She had no knowledge of the job, and when she arrived was literally sat down at a desk and given cases to decide on.

 

They had to clear a certain amount of cases to earn their commission, and in her case when a compensation complaint came in clearing them meant simply getting the banks to make an offer, any offer to the customer. It didn't matter if they owed the customer several thousand but only offered £50 (her example), as long as that offer was made her case was considered closed. If it was refused by the complainant it didn't matter, it just needed that initial offer as after that it could be referred to the Ombudsman (if they allowed it!) and was out of their hands.

 

She wasn't aware of our financial trouble when she spoke to me and was very much of the 'all debtors are liars' school. She described a couple of situations, one regarding CCA stuff which she had no knowledge of, and I do mean none. This didn't stop her responding in favour of the bank though, and she did this without reading up on anything to help her understand what the complaint was about. When I (cautiously) asked if that was a bit dodgy as she'd not given the complainant a chance, she'd simply decided that they'd clearly had the money so not having a contract didn't matter at all.

 

The other she told me of was a bloke who'd complained about something the bank had done which had cost him some money. He written many times and got evidence that they'd received the letters, but because the bank told her that they hadn't received them she found in favour of them. I asked if she had checked their story and she asked why she would - they were banks and therefore would not lie.

 

The icing on the cake was that before she contracted there she had worked in banks for many years so was a completely biased individual anyway.

 

I don't know what full time personnel are like there, but contractors need to close cases to get commission, and in order to close a case quickly it's easier to find in favour of the bank.

 

This is of course only one person's experience there, so maybe she was just particularly biased or had a particularly lazy boss who didn't bother training her.

 

Edit - hmm, have just read the article linked in the above post and it would appear to go exactly with what she told me. The 6 out of 10 cases cleared for instance - could that be the ones where they have offered a paltry sum which the FOS has said is fine, so case closed? It certainly makes their figures look better if they are seen to find in favour of the consumer more often than not, but what would be interesting is if they showed what those findings actually were.

Edited December 3, 2009 by lexis200

[lexis200]

Seen this?

 

Disgusted consumers turn on ‘shoddy’ complaints watchdog - Times Online

 

I don't agree with all the points made, I don't accept that there is any intrinsic bias (the figures speak for that alone), but I think some bits might be valid. 22k is not enough to get a decent adjudicator and an adjudicator needs time, and no targets, to make a decent decision.

 

It does support the fact that you need to present a claim well to get the right answer.

 

If they are happy to employ ex-bankers I don't see how there can not be bias. Admittedly not all will be for the banks, but I would be surprised if the majority were not very much in favour of banks over customers.

[reallymadwoman]

It does support the fact that you need to present a claim well to get the right answer.

 

It is obvious that none of the adjudicators who have dealt with my complaints have any idea of the law, normal practice or relevant guidelines therefore spelling out exactly what you are complaining about and why is essential. I have had to almost take each of the five adjudicators who have handled my complaints through the whole process step by step, and assuming they might make some effort to understand 'legal jargon' on their own invites them to find against you. Legal jargon in this case was calling the Consumer Credit Act the CCA.

 

What is even more worrying is that a senior manager (therefore presumably not a contractor) seems no more informed. The statute of limitations is so basic to a knowledge of civil law that it's really difficult to accept that someone in that position can't seem to grasp that if a claim is barred, it's barred, full stop. Saying sorry we're a bit late doesn't cut it.

 

One in particular didn't know the difference between aggravated and punitive damages, which is fair enough as I don't suppose it's something the FOS has to consider often. What isn't acceptable is to make a pronouncement on the subject without finding out. It's not difficult - I got the information on line so they can too.

[Marmeduke]

Regarding the last bit about statute barring; I was told by the CCCS last week that if the creditor attempts to contact the debtor within the 6 years of last payment, it stops the clock....which to me sounds like the daftest thing in the world since the creditor will, and even if they don't they can say they did.

 

Maybe the CCCs sometimes gets things wrong.

[diddydicky]

maybe the guy is a plumber

 

he certainly knows a lot about ballcocks!

[samcam]

Regarding the last bit about statute barring; I was told by the CCCS last week that if the creditor attempts to contact the debtor within the 6 years of last payment, it stops the clock....which to me sounds like the daftest thing in the world since the creditor will, and even if they don't they can say they did.

 

Maybe the CCCs sometimes gets things wrong.

 

 

So, once a year all they have to do is send you a letter reminding you of the debt and the 6 year clock restarts?

 

What's the point of that!?

[Pinky69]

There is no point to it - it is total drivel. You can contact the creditor as many times as you like or they you. What starts the clock is if you acknowledge the debt or make a payment, not contact. CCCS obviously have some badly trained staff who are giving misleading information and I would complain to their Complaints Deprtment about that.

[count orlok]

They would say that though wouldn't they. Their first duty would always to be to their paymasters.

[Chalkitup]

Be very careful with CCCS ...... see here:-

 

CCCS closing DMP re disputed accounts - The Consumer Forums

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

[reallymadwoman]

After a grand total of 2 years and 3 months this complaint is finally closed. The FOS basically made a complete hash of it and the Independent Assessor has recommended that they pay me nearly a 4 figure sum in compensation, probably half of what I would have got if they'd handled the complaint correctly. On the positive side, I can finally put this file in a box somewhere and forget about it. It is the last time I will use the FOS.

[The GodMother]

Can you explain more. Where did the FOS go wrong?

[reallymadwoman]

Issues identified by the independent assessor were delay, adjudicator not taking my views into account (and not even seeking my views on one occasion), adjudicator failing to keep me informed or be proactive in progressing the complaint, ombudsman failing to seek my views and ombudsman failing to issue a provisional decision before the final decision, which as we are aware cannot be appealed unless you're a millionaire.

 

The complaint was upheld and compensation awarded, but I did not accept the decision and am going down the court route now.

[citizenB]

Looks like I am a few steps behind you, RMW. Makes you want to scream doesnt it:mad:

[patrickq1]

And I Am Just Being Informed That My Case Is Now Active (whatever That Means) And Considering Ive Had Five Different Oeratives In The Same Department Handling The Same Complaint , So At Least You Got A Miserable Result From A Complete Waste Of Taxpayers Money Company Huh...makes You Sick They Ought To Hand It Over To Cag And Others To Run The Fos Perhaps We May Get A Different Result...one More Thing Fore I Forget..has Anyone Got Anywhere With Complaints Against Hfo ..i Have Sent A Sar Notice To The Ico And Fos And Fsa Concerning These Maggots And They Have Not Replied ...

Patrickq1

[patrickq1]

And My Complaint Started In 2006

[patrickq1]

well got my miserable result plus apoligy for delay,,,debt cleared 4,500 experian instructed to remove all knowledge of debt and clear my references as to make clean file,,,

i have just wrote back will accept the deal on one single condition they send me forms and start an action concerning my complaint against HFO as i am unhappy with the result that no action has been yaken against HFO otherwise if they cannot accept this condition then i reject the offer as being very unsatisfactory and wish to escalte the complaint

patrickq1

i aint letting HFO off with a single thing

[penmarine]

subbing

[straftat]

subbing