Complaints about the FOS

[WOOD73]

Didn't take to long for that question to be asked.

 

For the record no I did not used to work for the FOS. I just see the same posts over and over again complaining about the same issue. I thought it was about time that someone attempted to respond to this issue.

 

However, I am begining to wonder what is the point..

 

But dosent the fact that you've seen so many threads about the same thing, hint that there is a problem?

[WOOD73]

Exactly, you have said it yourself, the Court not the FOS

 

Insufficient evidence would be decided upon by the CPS not the IPCC !

 

What i said was, the court cannot decide to enforce an unenforcable or missing cca, it is restricted from doing so by law, the same law that the FOS should adhere to but dosent!

 

And yes it is the cps, but again its a point of law, and not decided upon by the court.

[Suetonius]

Consider these posts:

 

Hi

 

Because an agreement is unenforceable it does not mean that the agreement has not been made.

 

Enforceablilty of the agreement would only be an issue if the agreement was defaulted and one of the parties decided to enforce its terms regarding payment or compliance.

 

If the agreement is unenforceable because of a breach it does not mean that you can stop paying.

 

It means tht if you stop paying and the agreement is indeed unenforceable the creditor cannot recover the debt though the court.

 

But if the court does does decide to enforce (and in the case of a temporary failure to deliver a 77 request they will), then all cost interest and charges will be due for the period that payment was withheld.

It makes no difference that the creditor was not complying with the act in that period.

 

If you want to withold payment then you must be prepared to argue your case under section 127 and it is a good idea to be sure of your ground because if you loose and you have withheld payment,you will find that the whole agreement will be enforced that means everything due according to the agreement will be due.

 

Regards

Peter

 

and

 

If I can butt in.

 

If the agreement is not enforceable, it is just that - unenforceable. The debt still exists.

 

A F&F settlemnt means that the debt is satisfied and gone - a much better outcome IMHO.

[Suetonius]

What i said was, the court cannot decide to enforce an unenforcable or missing cca, it is restricted from doing so by law, the same law that the FOS should adhere to but dosent!

 

And yes it is the cps, but again its a point of law, and not decided upon by the court.

 

But the entire point is that the FOS is not a judicial, regulatory or an enforcement body. The FOS can't say what a Court can and can't do.

 

Enforceing an agreement as I understand it relates to the Creditor (either original or by assignement) applying for a Court Order to enforce the terms of an agreement.

 

Therefore, it is for a Court to decide if it will grant a Court order. A Court may be prevented (under s.127). However, this has to be something that is deemed in Court. Not by the FOS

[cerberusalert]

Exposed: the banks’ cosy ties to watchdog

 

Exposed: the banks’ cosy ties to watchdog - Times Online

 

A WHISTLEBLOWER has exposed how Britain’s financial watchdog allowed banks to influence the bonuses and career prospects of its staff.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA), which presided over the banking collapse, gave financial institutions a formal role in determining the pay of the very regulators tasked with overseeing them. The disclosure unmasks the cosy relationships created when Gordon Brown swept away the Bank of England’s supervisory role in 1997, paving the way for the excesses of the credit boom to grow unchallenged.

[Suetonius]

Exposed: the banks’ cosy ties to watchdog

 

Exposed: the banks’ cosy ties to watchdog - Times Online

 

A WHISTLEBLOWER has exposed how Britain’s financial watchdog allowed banks to influence the bonuses and career prospects of its staff.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA), which presided over the banking collapse, gave financial institutions a formal role in determining the pay of the very regulators tasked with overseeing them. The disclosure unmasks the cosy relationships created when Gordon Brown swept away the Bank of England’s supervisory role in 1997, paving the way for the excesses of the credit boom to grow unchallenged.

 

This post further proves my point. The FOS is not the FSA. The FOS is also not the industry watchdog or the industry regulator !!

[WOOD73]

But the entire point is that the FOS is not a judicial, regulatory or an enforcement body. The FOS can't say what a Court can and can't do. I agree to some extent, but if law prevents courts from deciding something, then the FOS should follow that law, not decide weyher or not they want to!

Enforceing an agreement as I understand it relates to the Creditor (either original or by assignement) applying for a Court Order to enforce the terms of an agreement. Yes I agree, but if no agreement exist or it is not 'just so' then the court cannot make the order, and is up to the creditor to prove the cca is correct or exists.

 

Therefore, it is for a Court to decide if it will grant a Court order. A Court may be prevented (under s.127). However, this has to be something that is deemed in Court. Not by the FOS. It is the cases where s127 applies that I do refer to, and I talk about non existant or clearly unenforceable cca's.

 

 

I read a post, thought it was on this thread, but cant find it now, where the FOS made an award and ordered it paid towards a debt that was in dispute, due to non production of or some problem with a CCA, surely this is in breach of guidelines?

[Kraken1]

Incidentally, I was once offered a job as a FOS adjudicator. Didn't take it though.

 

This said, I do know a good whack about ADR and have worked in the field for a fair few years now, for a couple of adr services. What S is saying is right. You can not like it, but it is right.

 

It is true that the FOS cannot rule on points of law. Indeed, it is current thinking in ADR that any service should not rule on a point where there is any legal debate. This is the job of the courts. It is also true that adr is not suitable for every claim. Some don't deal with commercial claims, others have certain process restrictions.

 

The courts decide cases on the basis of the law, ADR looks at what it thinks is right and the law is only one consideration. If you have admitted a debt is yours, but are arguing that it is unenforceable due to non compliance with something (a DN for eg) then I doubt you will get anywhere with FOS. Maybe if your adjudicator is really crap you might, but they will probably just look at it and say that the debt is yours, therefore you are liable. The agreement might not be enforceable in court but the FOS is not a court. Therefore the argument is irrelevant from the point of view of FOS.

 

Best way to look at is that the FOS is like a bus - it is great if you want to go to where the bus stop is, ok if you are going in the general direction but fairly rubbish if you live in the middle of a moor; it is generally ok for many folk, but not all.

 

I do however agree that generally the competence of your adr service is dependent on the quality of your adjudicator. FOS have so many adjudicators and the starting salary is fairly low so miy instinct is that there might be some issues.

[cerberusalert]

This post further proves my point. The FOS is not the FSA. The FOS is also not the industry watchdog or the industry regulator !!

 

My post is not aimed at you. I have no interest whatsoever in your inane ramblings. The post was made to show that if the regulator cannot be trusted why should the adjudicator.

[davey77]

..

 

Therefore, it is for a Court to decide if it will grant a Court order. A Court may be prevented (under s.127). However, this has to be something that is deemed in Court. Not by the FOS

 

I understand where Suetonius is coming from 'in part'. Trying to let folks know that the FOS are not our champion, a police body or that they can protect us from the DCA ****. Certainly, some have thought, that the FOS are akin to the CAB in that they will defend our rights and stand up for us etc. Which isn't their role.

 

My problem is where the FOS tell you they are impartial and do not take sides. Then, they go and do the opposite, defending that stance as the most 'probably' course of events that took place in relation to your complaint despite when evidence to the contrary is presented to them.

 

They ignore factual evidence in favour of taking the word of the financial institution and for the FOS to contradict already existing case Law and the Consumer Credit Act is inappropriate to say the least. I ask for impartiality and consistency from the FOS. That's all.

 

From my experience and that of others, those qualities are not what we receive. The FOS decide what is and isn't enforceable. The FOS pronounce Judgement as if they are the Courts. This is surely not the actions of a neutral dispute resolution body who does 'not take sides'.

[WOOD73]

 

 

The courts decide cases on the basis of the law, ADR looks at what it thinks is right and the law is only one consideration.

 

 

So are you then saying that if the FOS thinks that the law is not right it can go against it?

[sosumi]

The irony is, when you're in debt you're broke.

You don't have money for a solicitor.

You don't have money to go to court with.

Very often you struggle to find the money to pay for recorded delivery post, which is the only (and not very reliable) proof that you've written to 'companies' that are a) Loaded b) Ignorant and c) Criminal.

[WOOD73]

The irony is, when you're in debt you're broke.

You don't have money for a solicitor.

You don't have money to go to court with.

Very often you struggle to find the money to pay for recorded delivery post, which is the only (and not very reliable) proof that you've written to 'companies' that are a) Loaded b) Ignorant and c) Criminal.

 

I agree, and if you cant/dont trust the FOS when you have a problem, what else can you do?

[yourbank]

I agree, and if you cant/dont trust the FOS when you have a problem, what else can you do?

Take the bank/financial institution to court.

[Kraken1]

Sort of...but I think it is a little more complex than that.

 

They should consider the law, but in the case of unenforceable agreements I guess that their thought process would work like this:

 

The debt exists, the consumer has admitted this.

The agreement is unenforceable in court

We are not being asked by the creditor to enforce the agreement

We are being asked for a declaration that the agreement is unenforceable

We are not a court so cannot enforce the agreement and cannot therefore comment on enforceability. This would be outside of our remit.

They can then go and consider any claims for harassment or similar, but cannot get involved in technical legal questions as it is not relevant to their consideration of the case.

 

If the complaint centres around interpretation or application of the law, then it should be considered by a court. Not FOS.

 

This is only a guess, mind.

 

 

It is my understanding, however, that the FOS is about as popular with the banking industry as it is here. Banks and similar have invested a fair amount trying to curtail and restrict them and have failed. The FOS service has been judicially reviewed and sued a number of times and always has come out ok. On balance I feel that the biggest problem is a lack of understanding of what it actually does and how it does it.

[Suetonius]

I think the best way to explain it is to read section 127 (Enforcement of certain regulated agreements and securities)

of the Consumer Credit Act and see if it says the FOS or if it says Court.

[sosumi]

Take the bank/financial institution to court.

But with what YB? If you have no money?

[Suetonius]

I understand where Suetonius is coming from 'in part'. Trying to let folks know that the FOS are not our champion, a police body or that they can protect us from the DCA ****. Certainly, some have thought, that the FOS are akin to the CAB in that they will defend our rights and stand up for us etc. Which isn't their role.

 

Thank you, I know I am not the best with words or explaining what I am trying to say.

[angry cat]

In relation to section 77 / 78 it may be worth having a read of the Rankine case, where the argument was decided upon by a Judge.

 

How interesting that you quote the Rankine case, just as many Banks do.

That judgment was flawed and many barristers agree as such.

 

AC

[Suetonius]

But dosent the fact that you've seen so many threads about the same thing, hint that there is a problem?

 

 

Totally agree, but I feel that alot of it is based on the fact that the role of the FOS is misunderstood. That is why I thought it would be helpful to try and correct any misunderstandings.

[Suetonius]

My post is not aimed at you. I have no interest whatsoever in your inane ramblings. The post was made to show that if the regulator cannot be trusted why should the adjudicator.

 

The Adjudicator is not an employee of the FSA and is not paid by the FSA.

[Suetonius]

I read a post, thought it was on this thread, but cant find it now, where the FOS made an award and ordered it paid towards a debt that was in dispute, due to non production of or some problem with a CCA, surely this is in breach of guidelines?

 

Non production of an agreement under section 77 / 78 would only in theory preclude enforcement (seeking an order from the court for enforcement) paying a sum to a debt which even if unenforceable still exists would not be enforcement.

[davey77]

This post further proves my point. The FOS is not the FSA. The FOS is also not the industry watchdog or the industry regulator !!

 

The FOS and FSA are part of the same corrupt, diseased, bureaucracy infesting this country to the point of saturation. Headed by corrupt and immoral politicians who are part of the greed obsessed system that's sole goal is to keep the ordinary people under thumb and to try to make them powerless against the malignant and indifferent state we call government.

[WOOD73]

But with what YB? If you have no money?

 

 

Court is not always the route to take though, if you have an issue with the way the bank has handled your complaint, not necessarily the outcome, for example.

 

suetonius, I do understand where you are coming from, yes people do often misunderstand there role, and this does lead to disgruntled posts, but I do think the points starting to come across now, to me anyway, is the fact that the financial instituions are held with much higher regard than the consumer, which is so evident by the fact that they believe what they are told by the banks even when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

[Suetonius]

How interesting that you quote the Rankine case, just as many Banks do.

That judgment was flawed and many barristers agree as such.

 

AC

 

It may very well be flawed, but it is a judgement never the less, made by a Judge in Court.

 

The Judge in Court was the point I was making.