FOS - delaying complaints?

[MarkieMark]

I wanted to let you know I had a bad experience with the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

The failed to investigate my complaint properly and I have every evidence to support this. My wife passed away in 2005 and I needed time to grieve and felt it was time to tell these so called professionals that you not as good as you think you are.

 

My complaint was about the Zurich New Built warranty and I found their documentation misleading. I had lots and lots of problems with me new home and was even served a notice of contravention because my new home was in breach of building regulations.

 

The contract between Zurich and the developer was they would build the new home in accordance with the Zurich technical manual. The policy only makes reference to damage and major damage. What a worthless warranty this is. The Zurich technical manual says the new home has got to be built in accordance with the building regulations... when I bought the matters which were in breach of the building regulations they said its not covered under the warranty. I decided the take the property developer to court as a litigant in person and they had the biggest firm of solicitors representing them. I did not CARE I wanted to fight this all the way. It was a battle and I had done my home work.

 

At the end they settled out of court. When you read about the things in the media you realise how true it all is.

 

Whilst in proceeding Zurich gave the developer information which was breach of data protection act 1998. They claim to be independent????

 

Any I asked the Financial Ombudsman Service to investigate this complaint. THEY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE MY COMPLAINT PROPERLY and despite providing them with the evidence to support that statement I have made they told me I was time barred.

 

Limitations Act 2000 states I have upto 6 years but the Financial Services Market the FOS can dictate if they want to close the complaint whenever they want.

 

In addition to the above the Financial Ombudsman Service have immunity laws to protect them from claim for damages. Why do they need immunity laws to protect them if they are professionals?

 

I even sent two letters recorded delivery to the Independent Assessor and got no reply.

 

I even contacted Lord Hunt who reviews the FOS and they did not want to know. WHAT ABOUT CONSUMER PROTECTION AS THE ACT CLAIMS?

 

THEY CLAIM TO TREAT CONSUMER COMPLAINTS FAIRLY WELL IN MY CASE THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

[MarkieMark]

Hi

 

I have also looked at the Human Rights Act 1998 s6 Rights to a fair trail and also the European Convention Rights 6(1)

 

The case I found interesting was Ringeisen V Austria A13 (1971) 1 EhRR 455.

 

Paragraph 96 The applicant acused six member of the regional commission of bias.

 

Financial Services And Markets

2000 Chapter 8

Section 233: Data protection

452. This section inserts new subsection (4A) into section 31 of the Data Protection Act 1998. This is needed to ensure that the scheme operator does not have to disclose information it has obtained when considering a complaint brought under the ombudsman scheme if disclosure would prejudice the performance of its functions.

 

Check this out also

 

issue 64 - September/October 2007

 

Lord Hunt

 

ombudsman news

 

issue 64

 

September/October 2007

subject to scrutiny

 

I have often remarked on how well the ombudsman model has stood the test of time – largely unchanged since 1981 when the Insurance Ombudsman was first established as a voluntary scheme.

The key feature of that scheme – that it was a free service funded by the industry and that consumers should give the firm a chance to resolve a complaint before approaching the ombudsman – is now embodied in statutory form.

But it’s time to look at some other aspects of the model to see whether the Financial Ombudsman Service will be fit for purpose in the next decade. So we have asked Lord Hunt of Wirral to conduct a review.

He will be focusing on the openness and accessibility of the service to its wide range of customers and stakeholders and will be consulting widely. He could hardly be better placed or qualified for the role. Many in the insurance industry will know of Lord Hunt’s career as a leading insurance lawyer. He knows both the legal system and the insurance world, and was closely involved in the setting up of the Insurance Ombudsman. IFAs will know him as the founding chairman of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers, while others may recognise him as the current President of the CII (Chartered Insurance Institute).

He has had a distinguished political career as a senior MP and as a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher. So while he knows a thing or two about the financial services world, he can also bring the independent mind of a parliamentarian to this exercise.

Walter Merricks

chief ombudsman

[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?

[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???

[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.

[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?

[MarkieMark]

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.

 

 

Give me your email address I will be more then happy to forward you a copy of the email.

[MarkieMark]

If you have to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service, I would STRONGLY recommend request the following:-

To ensure that your complaint is investigated fairly request all copies of all documentation under section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 from the company you complained of.

It is advised that any requests made under the DPA are sent recorded because it is so easy to say we did not receive your request.

Make a second Data Protection request from the Financial Ombudsman Service; request them to erase names of other individuals. This is to ensure that you and the company in question will have same documentation. If documents disappear at least you have the opportunity to advise the FOS at a later stage.

Request a summary of the documents in their possession; this will be another opportunity to raise matters later stage.

Request that they do not destroy any documents without your permission or prior to destroying them to let you know.

[MarkieMark]

Another avenue

 

CPR 31.16 provides that disclosure can be ordered prior to the commencement of proceedings where the Court is satisfied that it may dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings.

[MarkieMark]

Tifo Just as I expected they would treat you.

 

From experience I tell you the FOS are not that good.

 

I looked at the following acts which applied to my complaint.

 

Data Protection Act 1998 Section 7/10

 

Unfair Contract Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999, which now applies to house purchases. Whippee about time.

 

Civil Procedure Rules 1998

 

Contracts (Rights For Third Parties) 1998

 

Consumer Credit Act 2006 about time they removed the threshold of £25,000.00 this will increase claims against financial organisations who lend money. Two claims instead of one for larger sums .

 

Despite what the Financial Ombudsman claimed, still took the developer to court and they settled out of court.

 

They told me that that Zurich did not breach the data Protection act but how wrong they were. The Information Commissioner Held my complaint and Zurich offered me a £100.00 but I refused. From experience I learned to have a paper trail for everything.

 

Their documentation says they are EXPERTS.

[MarkieMark]

I asked them about giving me a Fair Hearing they refused. This chap Michael Barnes was not prepared to investigate dispite giving them evidence to support the statements I had made.

[MarkieMark]

JDey I agree with your comments 100%

They call themselves EXPERTS..... well they did not impress me with the sound knowledge.

It appears to me a game... on the balance of probabilities most consumers would give up the fight because of the long delays..... it took them 9 months to fully investigate my first complaint and my second complaint they advised me could take upto nine months....

You would get better results from the small claims court.

WHEN THEY ARE WRONG THEY DONT WANT TO REPLY TO YOUR LETTERS.