FOS - delaying complaints?

[MarkieMark]

This is the reasons why the Financial Ombudsman Service is not fair

 

1. They can dictate the terms under the FSA handbook and FSMA.

 

2. Unlike the court both parties have to exchange documents which will be relied upon as evidence, the FOS do not disclose any information which the obtained from the company complained of.

 

3. The Civil Procedure Rules state prior to issuing proceeding it encourages parties to use the Alternative Dispute Resolution. But the ADR is not fair.

 

4. The Courts want a chronology of the case and skeleton arguments which the FOS dont have this process.

 

5. The Appeal process does not work because the Michael Barnes does not reply to your letter.

 

6. The FOS claim to be impartual when they are funded by the organistions who fund them.

 

7. On the final decisions they make no reference who which information they used to make the decision.

 

8. The website does not tell you what sort of complaints they investiage ie Data Protection?

 

9. The timescales for them to make a final decision is too long and many consumers will give up because of these long delays.

 

10. Like the courts each party is given an opportunity to mitigate their argument but in the FOS you have no rights.

 

11. You would expect a body that carries out the functions on on behalf of consumers to protect tye consumer like what the act says.

 

12. How can you have the a body who represents both parties?

 

13. Like the Particulars of claim each point is investigated but with the FOS they do not look at all the information.

 

14. Would Judges be able to conduct a case if the claimant was issuing proceedings against a company that the Judge had shares in?

[tifo]

This is the reasons why the Financial Ombudsman Service is not fair

 

Spot on!

 

I agree with all of these and am losing money (over £10k) because of the FOS. Not even the govt and judges are above the law (that's why they can end up in court) so why does the FOS, a private company, seem to be?

 

One more to add to that list is that they take into account legislation, or not, when they feel like it.

 

For example, in all my complaints the DCA is not entitled to any payment from me, so says primary legislation (CCA 1974) yet they decide the bank can pay them?

 

Another example, they don't have to send you all info they have about you as part of a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) because not everything with your name/details on is actually about you? How do they come to that? I would have thought all submissions the bank made with regards to my complaint would have to be about me and the account i held?

[MarkieMark]

In addition to the above, I made an application under section 7 of the DPA act 1998.

 

Not all the information the FOS had been disclosed. I had kept records of all emails I had sent them.

 

If they are professionals then why cant the keep proper records?

 

There are many things that concerns me.

 

I even looked at the Hunt Review who overseas the FOS.

 

I am concerned why the Hunt review only allowed submissions from financial institutions rather then the consumers who complaint about organisations.

 

Lord Hunt is a partner at the law firm, Beachcroft LLP, and is a solicitor by background. A Conservative former cabinet minister, he is a member of the House of Lords and president of the Chartered Insurance Institute.

Is there some conflict of interest if you have Lord Hunt who is a member of the Charted Insurance Institute?????

 

what about independent, impartual, fairness???

[tifo]

In addition to the above, I made an application under section 7 of the Data Protection Act act 1998.

 

Not all the information the FOS had been disclosed. I had kept records of all emails I had sent them.

 

This is what i said before. The FOS say that not all info with your details is actually about you and this is why a SAR will not get you the banks' submissions and evidence used in the complaint, even though you would argue that the info concerns the account you had and is about you.

 

They agree you are entitled to view this info, they just won't send it to you. The tactic used (against me) is that this can only be sent when a complaint is ongoing, before a decision is made. If you ask, they will refuse, then later they will say the decision has been made and complaint is closed, therefore you are not entitled now.

 

They're really annoying and play games with the consumer!

[tifo]

the FOS are meant to be a mediator between 2 parties, yet they make their decision based on what the bank says and the complainant has no appeal process.

 

as a mediator, if the bank say they will pay the DCA then the FOS should ask me if i agree and if i don't why not and provide evidence. They don't do this, they simply make the decision that the bank can pay, end of. There has been no mediation.

 

i've asked them how they've made sure the DCA is entitled to this money and can i also see the proof please, because i have unable to obtain this from the DCA. I've also asked them when did the DCA become a part of the complaint and as the complainant, why was i not told about this?

 

Of course, they have no real answers to me.

[cashins]

Only just came accross this thread and it is of interest because some point in the not to distant future I may well be claiming myself.

 

It makes grim reading.

 

General question: Assumming that you could afford it and are prepared to accept the risks involved in going straight for a court action, would you bother making a complaint to the FSO in the first place?

 

David

[tifo]

if you've settled the account in FULL out of your own pocket then you will get a refund.

 

if even a penny was written off, or the account was sold, you will have to pay that off first.

 

legislation or not, the FOS don't seem to care for the law, except their own.

[cashins]

Don't think I will bother with them then.

 

David

[tifo]

Don't think I will bother with them then.

 

It's up to you at the end, i'm just stating what's happened to me.

 

The FOS don't believe in you getting money you haven't paid, i.e. when a debt is written off or sold to a DCA, even if it's unenforceable etc.

 

I lost over £10k to the banks and DCAs because of their decisions. The DCA gets the money without working for it, or the bank keeps it towards the written off amount, any extra left over you will get.

[tbern123]

This is the reasons why the Financial Ombudsman Service is not fair

 

1. They can dictate the terms under the FSA handbook and FSMA.?

 

Not exactly 100% accurate. The FOS is not the FSA and are actually subject to the regulations and rules of the FSA in relation to the Ombudsman Service. The FOS do not make up the rules, they only follow them.

 

2. Unlike the court both parties have to exchange documents which will be relied upon as evidence, the FOS do not disclose any information which the obtained from the company complained of.

 

When the FOS contact a bank about a complaint, they initially request the bank to resolve the complaint (refered to as a stage one letter).

 

If this fails to resolve the complaint, they send the Bank a second letter (refered to as a stage two letter) In this letter teh FOS demand copies of all documentation (i.e terms and conditions, offers) that relate to the customers complaint and the Bank also provide details of what they have done to try and resolve the complaint.

 

3. The Civil Procedure Rules state prior to issuing proceeding it encourages parties to use the Alternative Dispute Resolution. But the ADR is not fair.

 

Again this is not entirely 100% accurate, it can be fair (admittedly not all the time, but what in life is).

 

4. The Courts want a chronology of the case and skeleton arguments which the FOS dont have this process.

 

There is nothing to stop you providing the FOS with either a chronological breakdown or any skeleton arguments. As previously mention Banks provide the FOS with a chronological breakdown of how they have handled the complaint.

 

5. The Appeal process does not work because the Michael Barnes does not reply to your letter.

 

I can't comment in relation to their appeal process, as I have not had to use it as each of my complaints have so far been upheld.

 

6. The FOS claim to be impartual when they are funded by the organistions who fund them..

 

The case fee Banks pay to the FOS are paramount to penalties for not resolving complaints. You have to bear in mind that this fee is payable even if the complaint is not upheld.

 

How would you prefer for the FOS to be funded ? Would it be better for consumers to pay a fee, each time they wanted to make a complaint or for the FOS to be paid out of the public purse ?

 

7. On the final decisions they make no reference who which information they used to make the decision.

 

In all responses from the FOS they should both outline their understanding of your complaint, their thought process and why they have reached their decision

 

8. The website does not tell you what sort of complaints they investiage ie Data Protection?

 

Here you go. It is important to remember the FOS is a Financial Ombudsman, complaints in relation to the data protection act, should be made to the correct body, in this instance the ICO

 

9. The timescales for them to make a final decision is too long and many consumers will give up because of these long delays.

 

10. Like the courts each party is given an opportunity to mitigate their argument but in the FOS you have no rights.

 

11. You would expect a body that carries out the functions on on behalf of consumers to protect tye consumer like what the act says.

 

12. How can you have the a body who represents both parties?

 

13. Like the Particulars of claim each point is investigated but with the FOS they do not look at all the information.

 

14. Would Judges be able to conduct a case if the claimant was issuing proceedings against a company that the Judge had shares in?

 

The FOS do not carry out their functions on behalf of the consumer and they are not there to protect the consumer.

 

The FOS do not represent either party.

 

The FOS is not a consumer champion and are not an industry watchdog. They are purely an OMBUDSMAN service just like any other omudsman.

 

All the FOS actually do is suggest a resolution to your complaint. It is down to you if you accept it.

 

I am concerned why the Hunt review only allowed submissions from financial institutions rather then the consumers who complaint about organisations.

 

The Hunt Review did not only allow submissions from Financial Institutions.

 

As stated on the Hunt Review website, the below are submissions they have recieved.

 

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/24_block.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/3.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/54_grenet.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/11_A_Lakey.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/23_Reid_Brussels.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/52_Adamsamuel.pdf

 

The FOS don't believe in you getting money you haven't paid.

 

You make it sound that the FOS are insane for not agreeing to refund you money that you have not paid. In relation to most of your threads, I personally totally agree with the decision reached by the FOS. Common sense if nothing else would dictate that if you have not paid something, you can't have it refunded.

 

I think a lot of the frustration people have with the FOS is that they misunderstand the purpose and powers of the FOS. The below information, may shed some light on the situation.

 

 

"The Financial Ombudsman Service was set up by law as an independent public body. Our job is to help settle individual disputes between businesses providing financial services and their customers - fairly, reasonably, quickly and informally.

 

Established by Parliament, we are neither a consumer champion nor an industry trade-body. We are completely independent and deal with disputes fairly and impartially."

our aims and values

 

Legislation passed by Parliament -

 

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

 

PART XVI

 

 

The Ombudsman Scheme

 

The scheme

 

225 The scheme and the scheme operator

 

(1) This Part provides for a scheme under which certain disputes may be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person.

(2) The scheme is to be administered by a body corporate (“the scheme operator”).

(3) The scheme is to be operated under a name chosen by the scheme operator but is referred to in this Act as “the ombudsman scheme”.

(4) Schedule 17 makes provision in connection with the ombudsman scheme and the scheme operator.

 

226 Compulsory jurisdiction

 

(1) A complaint which relates to an act or omission of a person (“the respondent”) in carrying on an activity to which compulsory jurisdiction rules apply is to be dealt with under the ombudsman scheme if the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are satisfied.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the complainant is eligible and wishes to have the complaint dealt with under the scheme;

(b) the respondent was an authorised person at the time of the act or omission to which the complaint relates; and

© the act or omission to which the complaint relates occurred at a time when compulsory jurisdiction rules were in force in relation to the activity in question.

(3) “Compulsory jurisdiction rules” means rules—

(a) made by the Authority for the purposes of this section; and

(b) specifying the activities to which they apply.

(4) Only activities which are regulated activities, or which could be made regulated activities by an order under section 22, may be specified.

(5) Activities may be specified by reference to specified categories (however described).

(6) A complainant is eligible, in relation to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ombudsman scheme, if he falls within a class of person specified in the rules as eligible.

(7) The rules—

(a) may include provision for persons other than individuals to be eligible; but

(b) may not provide for authorised persons to be eligible except in specified circumstances or in relation to complaints of a specified kind.

(8) The jurisdiction of the scheme which results from this section is referred to in this Act as the “compulsory jurisdiction”.

 

Schedule 17 of this legislation contains some more info

 

This is what the FSA Handbook has to say about the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service

 

This is how the FSA define the Financial Ombudsman Service:

 

Financial Ombudsman Service - the scheme provided under Part XVI of the Act (The Ombudsman Scheme) under which certain disputes may be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person.

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service, also state on their website:

 

It’s our job to help settle individual disputes between businesses providing financial services and their customers.

 

We are not a regulator ("watchdog") or a trade body or a consumer champion. Our role is to settle disputes, without taking sides. So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.

 

I have also attached to this post a copy of the memorandom of association for the FOS.

 

Just because a few people have had bad experiences with the FOS, I would ask people not to right off making complaints to the FOS, however at the same time you have to be realistic in relation to your expectations.

 

 

*Disclaimer. I do not work for the FOS. However, I have dealt with them both professionally and personally

memorandum_of_association.pdf

[MarkieMark]

Not exactly 100% accurate. The FOS is not the FSA and are actually subject to the regulations and rules of the FSA in relation to the Ombudsman Service. The FOS do not make up the rules, they only follow them.

 

 

 

When the FOS contact a bank about a complaint, they initially request the bank to resolve the complaint (refered to as a stage one letter).

 

If this fails to resolve the complaint, they send the Bank a second letter (refered to as a stage two letter) In this letter teh FOS demand copies of all documentation (i.e terms and conditions, offers) that relate to the customers complaint and the Bank also provide details of what they have done to try and resolve the complaint.

 

 

 

Again this is not entirely 100% accurate, it can be fair (admittedly not all the time, but what in life is).

 

 

 

There is nothing to stop you providing the FOS with either a chronological breakdown or any skeleton arguments. As previously mention Banks provide the FOS with a chronological breakdown of how they have handled the complaint.

 

 

 

I can't comment in relation to their appeal process, as I have not had to use it as each of my complaints have so far been upheld.

 

 

 

The case fee Banks pay to the FOS are paramount to penalties for not resolving complaints. You have to bear in mind that this fee is payable even if the complaint is not upheld.

 

How would you prefer for the FOS to be funded ? Would it be better for consumers to pay a fee, each time they wanted to make a complaint or for the FOS to be paid out of the public purse ?

 

 

 

In all responses from the FOS they should both outline their understanding of your complaint, their thought process and why they have reached their decision

 

 

 

Here you go. It is important to remember the FOS is a Financial Ombudsman, complaints in relation to the data protection act, should be made to the correct body, in this instance the ICO

 

 

 

The FOS do not carry out their functions on behalf of the consumer and they are not there to protect the consumer.

 

The FOS do not represent either party.

 

The FOS is not a consumer champion and are not an industry watchdog. They are purely an OMBUDSMAN service just like any other omudsman.

 

All the FOS actually do is suggest a resolution to your complaint. It is down to you if you accept it.

 

 

 

The Hunt Review did not only allow submissions from Financial Institutions.

 

As stated on the Hunt Review website, the below are submissions they have recieved.

 

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/24_block.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/3.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/54_grenet.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/11_A_Lakey.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/23_Reid_Brussels.pdf

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/52_Adamsamuel.pdf

 

 

 

You make it sound that the FOS are insane for not agreeing to refund you money that you have not paid. In relation to most of your threads, I personally totally agree with the decision reached by the FOS. Common sense if nothing else would dictate that if you have not paid something, you can't have it refunded.

 

I think a lot of the frustration people have with the FOS is that they misunderstand the purpose and powers of the FOS. The below information, may shed some light on the situation.

 

 

"The Financial Ombudsman Service was set up by law as an independent public body. Our job is to help settle individual disputes between businesses providing financial services and their customers - fairly, reasonably, quickly and informally.

 

Established by Parliament, we are neither a consumer champion nor an industry trade-body. We are completely independent and deal with disputes fairly and impartially."

our aims and values

 

Legislation passed by Parliament -

 

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

 

PART XVI

 

 

The Ombudsman Scheme

 

The scheme

 

225 The scheme and the scheme operator

 

(1) This Part provides for a scheme under which certain disputes may be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person.

(2) The scheme is to be administered by a body corporate (“the scheme operator”).

(3) The scheme is to be operated under a name chosen by the scheme operator but is referred to in this Act as “the ombudsman scheme”.

(4) Schedule 17 makes provision in connection with the ombudsman scheme and the scheme operator.

 

226 Compulsory jurisdiction

 

(1) A complaint which relates to an act or omission of a person (“the respondent”) in carrying on an activity to which compulsory jurisdiction rules apply is to be dealt with under the ombudsman scheme if the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are satisfied.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the complainant is eligible and wishes to have the complaint dealt with under the scheme;

(b) the respondent was an authorised person at the time of the act or omission to which the complaint relates; and

© the act or omission to which the complaint relates occurred at a time when compulsory jurisdiction rules were in force in relation to the activity in question.

(3) “Compulsory jurisdiction rules” means rules—

(a) made by the Authority for the purposes of this section; and

(b) specifying the activities to which they apply.

(4) Only activities which are regulated activities, or which could be made regulated activities by an order under section 22, may be specified.

(5) Activities may be specified by reference to specified categories (however described).

(6) A complainant is eligible, in relation to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ombudsman scheme, if he falls within a class of person specified in the rules as eligible.

(7) The rules—

(a) may include provision for persons other than individuals to be eligible; but

(b) may not provide for authorised persons to be eligible except in specified circumstances or in relation to complaints of a specified kind.

(8) The jurisdiction of the scheme which results from this section is referred to in this Act as the “compulsory jurisdiction”.

 

Schedule 17 of this legislation contains some more info

 

This is what the FSA Handbook has to say about the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service

 

This is how the FSA define the Financial Ombudsman Service:

 

Financial Ombudsman Service - the scheme provided under Part XVI of the Act (The Ombudsman Scheme) under which certain disputes may be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person.

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service, also state on their website:

 

It’s our job to help settle individual disputes between businesses providing financial services and their customers.

 

We are not a regulator ("watchdog") or a trade body or a consumer champion. Our role is to settle disputes, without taking sides. So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.

 

I have also attached to this post a copy of the memorandom of association for the FOS.

 

Just because a few people have had bad experiences with the FOS, I would ask people not to right off making complaints to the FOS, however at the same time you have to be realistic in relation to your expectations.

 

 

*Disclaimer. I do not work for the FOS. However, I have dealt with them both professionally and personally

 

IF you think they are fair and open about the way they deal with consumer complaints... well this will be something . They did not investigate my complaint properly.

 

I wonder why the Financial Ombudsman Service was setup? is there mega problems in the financial services???? is this ADR process setup because of the number of cases in the courts???? I wonder

 

I provided the them with lots evidence on their final decision they make no references to them.

 

You have mention some of the regulations above but they dont make head or tails to me and I suspect they would not mean much to many people.?

 

In my experience they are not what they are made out to be...

 

Thank you for providing me with feedback on my comments but on this occasion I think your wrong Experience Speaks Louder The Words.

 

Perhaps you should ask the FOS PERSONALLY to update their website with clearer information then consumers with understand the way the work better.

 

In addition to the above I think the Hunt Review should ask consumers for feedback on the way the FOS has handled their complaint. Currently the Feedback is only from the Financial Institutions and not consumers.

 

For your information I contacted the Hunt Review and made the above comments which you claimed were not 100% true. But they were unable to comment because the report had been finalised.......

[MarkieMark]

Perhaps you should ask the FOS to send a survey out to all those people who made a complaint and see what sort of response they get. This should be done independently.

 

Advertising this information will be very useful for the public.

[tbern123]

Sorry, it was not my intention to speak out of turn, I thought it may be beneficial to respond to the points that you raised.

 

IF you think they are fair and open about the way they deal with consumer complaints... well this will be something . They did not investigate my complaint properly.

 

Some people imply that there are mysterious and secretive goings on at the Financial Ombudsman Service. At best this is naive, they receive information from both parties and then made a recommendation (as they are only human, can be wrong). I have not seen any evidence to indicate that the FOS has a hidden agenda.

 

I wonder why the Financial Ombudsman Service was setup? is there mega problems in the financial services???? is this ADR process setup because of the number of cases in the courts???? I wonder.

 

Personally, I would not have thought that the number of court cases had a bearing on the creation of the FOS. Back in the 90's people were not as aware of their rights as consumers as they are now and were more likely to accept the word and findings of their Bank. If they didn't, to a certain degree it would be tough as they was little they could do.

 

In my experience they are not what they are made out to be....

 

What are they made out to be ?

 

Thank you for providing me with feedback on my comments but on this occasion I think your wrong Experience Speaks Louder The Words.

 

very true and that is why I am speaking from experience. As previously stated, I have made a number of complaints to the FOS as a member of the general public and I have had complaints that I have investigated (4 years working in a complaints department for a high street bank) referred to the FOS.

 

I can state as a matter of fact that despite peoples emotional feelings in relation to the FOS they are not bias towards Banks. Sometimes they side with the banks and sometimes they side with he consumer.

 

Perhaps you should ask the FOS PERSONALLY to update their website with clearer information then consumers with understand the way the work better.

 

As per the link I previously posted, they do explain how they work. There are a number of leaflets and guides that you can download. You can also use the search function on their site to look at different case studies explaining how the FOS deal with certain types of complaints. They usually also explain how they investigated the complaint and how they reached their findings.

 

In addition to the above I think the Hunt Review should ask consumers for feedback on the way the FOS has handled their complaint. Currently the Feedback is only from the Financial Institutions and not consumers.

 

Further to the links I previously posted in relation to the Hunt review, they did receive submissions from consumers. A request for submissions was also published in the press.

 

http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/3.pdf

 

For your information I contacted the Hunt Review and made the above comments which you claimed were not 100% true. But they were unable to comment because the report had been finalised.......

 

It is unfortunate that you missed your opportunity.

[tbern123]

Perhaps you should ask the FOS to send a survey out to all those people who made a complaint and see what sort of response they get. This should be done independently.

 

Advertising this information will be very useful for the public.

 

Not really practical and the results would be worthless as everyone who had their complaints rejected would give bad feedback and those that had their complaints upheld would more then likely give good feedback.

 

All a survey would show is that people don't like having their complaints rejected and I am sure you will agree, we don't need a survey to find that out.

 

I am not making any judgements in relation to your specific complaint. The point that I am trying to make is that people should not be put off making complaints to the FOS. Yes they do make wrong decisions, but the same could be said about any company or organisation. It would be impossible for them to get it right 100% of the time.

[MarkieMark]

With regards to section 7 DPA the FOS did not disclose all the information I had submitted to them.

 

These emails were showing the FOS where they went wrong.

 

I hold a very negative view when i comes to the FOS and thats because of my experience dealing with them.

[MarkieMark]

Not really practical and the results would be worthless as everyone who had their complaints rejected would give bad feedback and those that had their complaints upheld would more then likely give good feedback.

 

All a survey would show is that people don't like having their complaints rejected and I am sure you will agree, we don't need a survey to find that out.

 

I am not making any judgements in relation to your specific complaint. The point that I am trying to make is that people should not be put off making complaints to the FOS. Yes they do make wrong decisions, but the same could be said about any company or organisation. It would be impossible for them to get it right 100% of the time.

 

If they do get it wrong why dont they be open and honest about the matter. This is what the website claims it does.

 

I refer to Document Ref: 110/22.01.07 This is the document that the financial institutions give you once they have made a final decision.

 

I have to admit that there is nothing in the leaflet that states what the FOS cover and what they do not cover.

 

 

I queried this and had an email making the following written representation :-

 

"I confirm that we will apply any relevant legal principle or precedent, including the legislation you refer to, when ruling upon a complaint."

So how would I know they cover the DPA or not?

In addition to the above why does it take them seven months for a final decision. On the balance of probabilities most consumers would give up?

[tifo]

"I confirm that we will apply any relevant legal principle or precedent, including the legislation you refer to, when ruling upon a complaint."

 

I wish they'd have sent me this ... i have proof they haven't applied relevant legislation and precedents to my complaints, in fact, they seem to have gone against them.

[tifo]

tbern, thanks for all your points.

 

my complaint against the FOS is purely on the basis of them NOT applying common sense, legislation and precedents to my complaints and in response to their decisions, i have asked for the relevant legislation, guidelines etc. under which they have decided that the bank can pay a third party my money, a party who have not made a cross claim within my complaint etc. All i am saying is that their decision should follow law. If they prove so, i will accept it but until then i remain to be satisfied.

 

i think me and markiemark feel strongly about this, only a few of the majority who accept everything the FOS say. But i have seen, firsthand, their total disregard for the consumer and bias towards the bank. If this bias was lawful, then that would be fine with me.

 

anyway, we can agree to disagree as we all have different experiences of dealing with them.

[tifo]

in the last few weeks, i've seen 2 decisions change in a flash, purely based on what the bank subsequently says. All my statements totally ignored. I would say that's not being fair and reasonable, is it?

 

example 1, Citi want to pay the DCA. FOS agree. I disagree. A week later Citi want to pay themselves. FOS agree, i disagree.

 

example 2, Capital One and Barclays want to pay the DCA. I provide proof for each account i have cleared them (both Lowell).

 

Barclays will pay me. FOS agree because i supplied proof and i accept. I've now got the cheque.

 

FOS say Cap One will pay me. I agree. Capital One then say they still want to pay the DCA, FOS agree. I disagree.

 

So with regards to Cap One, FOS stated in writing i would get payment (legal team), i accept, then they allow Cap One to change this to DCA payment. Legal team say we didn't say that. Isn't their decision binding on the bank, especially if i accept?

 

What are they playing at?

[tbern123]

The FOS don't believe in you getting money you haven't paid

 

my complaint against the FOS is purely on the basis of them NOT applying common sense.

 

I just can't my mind around it, how can the FOS stating that you should not be refunded something you admit you have not paid not be common sense ?

 

Sorry Tifo for me, it is like getting on a bus, taking a ride for free and then demand that the bus company pay you the amount of the fare, as you get off the bus

 

I think the same basic principles apply

[tifo]

Sorry Tifo for me, it is like getting on a bus, taking a ride for free and then demand that the bus company pay you the amount of the fare, as you get off the bus

 

No, it's not like that at all. It's not the same bus (bank), and buses don't sell your fare to others to collect.

 

I owe the bank £0, whether they wrote it off or sold it, that's their decision.

 

I owe DCA £1,000, for arguments sake let's say i accept it.

 

I make a claim with the bank to pay me a refund. They agree to pay £500. Do i owe them anything, NO (£0). Then they pay me.

 

I make my own settlement with DCA.

 

Does the DCA have a claim within my claim to the bank? NO. Then why should they get my money? A court wouldn't allow it.

 

Does the DCA have a claim within my claim at the FOS? NO. Then why should they get my money? A court wouldn't allow it.

 

Is there any legal authority for the bank to pay a DCA etc without any cross claim? Would be good to know.

 

Maybe i'm on the wrong track with this :

 

if TBERN owes MARKIEMARK £1000 (not that he does), and i owe TBERN £500 (not that i do) should I pay TBERN or go direct to MARKIEMARK (if i somehow found out TBERN owes him money)? Would TBERN want to settle his own debt with MARKIEMARK or be happy if i say, sorry mate, i don't owe you anymore, i've paid it to MARKIEMARK, who you now owe £500? Maybe MARKIEMARK would have accepted £200 from TBERN for his £1000, but now TBERN still owes him £500 after TIFO pays him £500?

 

Plus TBERN has been for ages asking MARKIEMARK proof that he owes him any debt and hasn't received this, after making a lawful request which says MARKIEMARK is not entitled to any more money from TBERN until he complies.

 

The only winner here is MARKIEMARK who's got his money, without having to ask TBERN or respond to his request (and breaking the law).

 

TBERN goes to OMBY who has a reputation to act fair and reasonable within the law and tells him the whole story, who says, i'm sorry mate, TIFO was right to pay your debts off for you.

 

TBERN IS LEFT SHOUTING 'but why, but why, where's the law for this and who gave TIFO right to pay my debts for me.'?

 

*all ID's have been used for illustrative purposes only*.

[tbern123]

Does the DCA have a claim within my claim to the bank? NO. Then why should they get my money? A court wouldn't allow it.

 

Does the DCA have a claim within my claim at the FOS? NO. Then why should they get my money? A court wouldn't allow it.

 

 

But Tifo, why is it your money. You freely admit that you did not pay them. In fact you could argue that by buying your account the DCA has in effect paid the Bank your charges, thus they should get the refund as they paid them.

 

The argument can be twisted in so many ways, but I personally feel it stops at the fact that you can't have a refund for something you did not pay.

 

Would it really be fair for you to receive a payment in these circumstances ? I appreciate that you could use some of the payment to offer the DCA a reduced settlement. However, unless you are willing to go to court and take your chances (as previously posted one of the cases quoted is irrelevant).

 

It will be down to a Judge to decide what should happen. Going to Court is like placing a bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose...

[tifo]

In fact you could argue that by buying your account the DCA has in effect paid the Bank your charges, thus they should get the refund as they paid them.

 

Even if they paid 10p in the £1 and the bank wrote off the whole 100% and claimed tax relief on this?

 

Maybe i'm digressing ....

 

Well, let's see what the FOS have to say. I still want to be convinced they're acting within the law.

[tifo]

While i'm waiting, i'm going to put in a complaint to each DCA that buys the debt and manages it, for compensation for harassment (manager and alleged purchaser by complicity) and default maintenance (alleged purchaser), all in the absence of a valid agreement.

 

That would mean Lowell Portfolio I Ltd and Lowell Financial Ltd, Cabot UK Ltd (or whatever they're now called) and Cabot Financial Europe Ltd, etc.

 

That will more than enough pay for the 'losses' i am making . Plus i'm sick and tired of the constant stream of letters and threatograms i get, plus my credit score is not a good sight.

 

Or should i not?

[tbern123]

For substantial damages, you would better off going straight to Court.

 

As the FOS state in their technical notes

 

1. Where the degree of inconvenience and/or distress is sufficient to warrant a financial award, the level of the award is likely to be modest. Most awards are for less than £300 and in only a small number of exceptional cases do awards exceed £1,000. Awards involving pain and suffering are likely to be higher than those involving distress or inconvenience.