Complaints about the FOS

[Suetonius]

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.

 

I can't really argue with you on that one

[InformedSearcher]

I think maybe the real crux of it all are the mannerisms from all parties....

You go to this welcoming bank. They effectively sign you up telling you how good and helpful they can all be. The same applies for the 'other' (very profitable services) they offer. An example like buying a printer then finding out the ‘official’ ink costs maybe more than the hardware itself.

So anyhow we have account or loan and one month have a problem. Oh, did I get told that some unforgiving and unhelpful soul was now going to start calling me not once but anything up to daily? Did someone tell me that they use auto diallers so it's actually pot luck you will be the (un)lucky receiver of the call? Did they tell me that these friendly people have a pariah department whose aim is to demoralise you, make you feel guilty of uncommitted crimes or simply want you to remember that once upon a time debt was a criminal offense?

Things then go downhill and you then hear 'help' as it is defined is at hand. There are these bodies who 'actually' claim to give you advice and help you if you feel you've been unfairly treated or charged. It comes in the form a nice little leaflet about complaints from your financial institution. You have effectively entered a downward spiral of the hidden fact of the finance industry, aka 'The Collections Department'. Their role is to 'extract' monies from you and try to tell you that your credit in future will be affected and that paramount they are the primary people to pay. This is like the time the bank said to me, when I explained I don't even have money for a stamp that I can call them free from the branch!

Now after all this panic, desperation, verge of debt collector visits, daily phone calls you find that if you do have a problem you might have to wait up to 40 days or 8 weeks for even the 1st thing to happen when going to these 'controlling bodies'. By then your eviction can well be on its way, your other creditors are now charging you fees because your bank stopped paying them.

You are quickly demoralised and in fact find out maybe that you filled the form in wrongly or did not follow a procedure. You feel these places like the FOS are in fact 'just' a service to look at what you want but don't exactly act as you expected. They are ‘offialdom’ doing 'just' what they are expected to do and not there to 'hold you hand' or 'help you'. This is where your attitude to these facets of the financial world changes from 'efficient, helpful and friendly' to (albeit maybe perceived wrongly), to 'One sided to the financial institution'. The reality is that the financial institution you are dealing with (directly or otherwise) has vast resources and an equally confident legal department working full time. Their view is that they are right and you are going to have a tuff time proving otherwise with or without 'outside' help.

Michael

[citizenB]

Thanks, but you won't win any fans for that statement. It would appear that the general perception of the FOS is that it is in league with the Devil and that the Chief Ombudsman is the living reincarnation of Satan on earth.

 

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'.

 

 

I now understand that the remit of the FOS is not to ajudicate on the enforceability of a "dodgy" agreement. In this respect I feel that as it isnt in their remit.. that is what they should write back and advise the consumer and the bank.

 

What they do do however, is to write to the bank saying.. okey dokey you are in the right. And to the consumer, the bank has supplied you with what they have to.. they vary it a bit from consumer to consumer with extras such as. An agreement is not the only proof of the existence of an account. At no time do they advise that it isnt in their remit and only a court can decide.

 

What is so frustrating for CAGers is that the Bank advise in their final letter that the FOS is the next step. When in fact it should be Trading Standards or the OFT

[cerberusalert]

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

 

Maybe not but they are supposed to follow the rules as laid down in FSA's handbook.

[Suetonius]

I think maybe the real crux of it all are the mannerisms from all parties....

You go to this welcoming bank. They effectively sign you up telling you how good and helpful they can all be. The same applies for the 'other' (very profitable services) they offer. An example like buying a printer then finding out the ‘official’ ink costs maybe more than the hardware itself.

So anyhow we have account or loan and one month have a problem. Oh, did I get told that some unforgiving and unhelpful soul was now going to start calling me not once but anything up to daily? Did someone tell me that they use auto diallers so it's actually pot luck you will be the (un)lucky receiver of the call? Did they tell me that these friendly people have a pariah department whose aim is to demoralise you, make you feel guilty of uncommitted crimes or simply want you to remember that once upon a time debt was a criminal offense?

Things then go downhill and you then hear 'help' as it is defined is at hand. There are these bodies who 'actually' claim to give you advice and help you if you feel you've been unfairly treated or charged. It comes in the form a nice little leaflet about complaints from your financial institution. You have effectively entered a downward spiral of the hidden fact of the finance industry, aka 'The Collections Department'. Their role is to 'extract' monies from you and try to tell you that your credit in future will be affected and that paramount they are the primary people to pay. This is like the time the bank said to me, when I explained I don't even have money for a stamp that I can call them free from the branch!

Now after all this panic, desperation, verge of debt collector visits, daily phone calls you find that if you do have a problem you might have to wait up to 40 days or 8 weeks for even the 1st thing to happen when going to these 'controlling bodies'. By then your eviction can well be on its way, your other creditors are now charging you fees because your bank stopped paying them.

You are quickly demoralised and in fact find out maybe that you filled the form in wrongly or did not follow a procedure. You feel these places like the FOS are in fact 'just' a service to look at what you want but don't exactly act as you expected. They are ‘offialdom’ doing 'just' what they are expected to do and not there to 'hold you hand' or 'help you'. This is where your attitude to these facets of the financial world changes from 'efficient, helpful and friendly' to (albeit maybe perceived wrongly), to 'One sided to the financial institution'. The reality is that the financial institution you are dealing with (directly or otherwise) has vast resources and an equally confident legal department working full time. Their view is that they are right and you are going to have a tuff time proving otherwise with or without 'outside' help.

Michael

 

Very well put

[Suetonius]

Maybe not but they are supposed to follow the rules as laid down in FSA's handbook.

 

And your point being ?

[Suetonius]

I now understand that the remit of the FOS is not to ajudicate on the enforceability of a "dodgy" agreement. In this respect I feel that as it isnt in their remit.. that is what they should write back and advise the consumer and the bank.

 

What they do do however, is to write to the bank saying.. okey dokey you are in the right. And to the consumer, the bank has supplied you with what they have to.. they vary it a bit from consumer to consumer with extras such as. An agreement is not the only proof of the existence of an account. At no time do they advise that it isnt in their remit and only a court can decide.

 

What is so frustrating for CAGers is that the Bank advise in their final letter that the FOS is the next step. When in fact it should be Trading Standards or the OFT

 

You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, as I understand things, it is a FSA requirement for the referal rights to the FOS to be included.

[citizenB]

You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, as I understand things, it is a FSA requirement for the referal rights to the FOS to be included.

 

 

Ah, I see

[WOOD73]

 

What they do do however, is to write to the bank saying.. okey dokey you are in the right. And to the consumer, the bank has supplied you with what they have to.. they vary it a bit from consumer to consumer with extras such as. An agreement is not the only proof of the existence of an account. At no time do they advise that it isnt in their remit and only a court can decide.

 

 

And that is why most people say they are biased!

[Suetonius]

If you go looking for perfection, in an unperfect world, all you will find is disappointment.

[NitrousOxide]

It's been said a million times before,

the FOS will not comment on agreements and whether they are binding or not.

If used correctly the FOS are an excellent service.

Edit: What's with the pop-up whenever I use the word FOS?

[Kraken1]

I'm not sure I like the pop-up, or entirely agree with what it says. My old sociology teacher would have said that it is a 'sweeping generalisation'

[Pinky69]

No one is looking for perfection, just an organisation that does what it was set up to do and it has failed miserably - it is not fit for purpose, has untrained staff, an inadequate budget, and is biased towards financial institutions. Any service that takes over a year to reply to complaints is not an excellent service and the FOS needs to be replaced by an impartial body which doesn't make suppostitions about events and facts which border on lunacy. I think one of the qualifications for the job must be having an active imagination.

[NitrousOxide]

No one is looking for perfection, just an organisation that does what it was set up to do and it has failed miserably - it is not fit for purpose, has untrained staff, an inadequate budget, and is biased towards financial institutions. Any service that takes over a year to reply to complaints is not an excellent service and the FOS needs to be replaced by an impartial body which doesn't make suppostitions about events and facts which border on lunacy. I think one of the qualifications for the job must be having an active imagination.

My experiences have been the exact opposite. I could scan you a complaint they upheld, which would show they are definately not biased.

EDIT: The FOS do award interest by the way.

[Suetonius]

No one is looking for perfection, just an organisation that does what it was set up to do and it has failed miserably - it is not fit for purpose,

 

Ok lets break it down, what exactly do you think the FOS was set up for ?

[Kraken1]

I'm not sure I'd agree that they are bias. By definition if you think they are bias, and the industry does too, they are probably not...

 

I would agree that timescales and training might need work though.

[davey77]

Ok lets break it down, what exactly do you think the FOS was set up for ?

 

Lets not break it down again shall we. I think everyone has covered the main points for and against several times over so lets all move to something that's going somewhere.

 

I've not really helped anyone here today through this distraction (my choice i know) and i bet there are a few posters waiting for answers to important questions it being the weekend and all.

 

This thread was started by Reallymadwoman. I'm not posting on this thread again until RMW pops back (hope all is well on that front) or i feel i have something fresh to add.

 

Enjoy the week everybody.. looks like it might be sunny (in devon at least.)

[sosumi]

Lets not break it down again shall we. I think everyone has covered the main points for and against several times over so lets all move to something that's going somewhere.

 

I've not really helped anyone here today through this distraction (my choice i know) and i bet there are a few posters waiting for answers to important questions it being the weekend and all.

 

This thread was started by Reallymadwoman. I'm not posting on this thread again until RMW pops back (hope all is well on that front) or i feel i have something fresh to add.

 

Enjoy the week everybody.. looks like it might be sunny (in devon at least.)

The wind blew our fence over last night Davey.

But I completely agree. Hope RMW's okay.

OFT's becoming a lot more reassuring - they're actually doing things that make a difference. My personal jury's out on FOS until (if ever) we hear from them. Knowing the OFT is taking real action (eg re. 1st Credit, spoof 'Debt Help' websites) let me sleep better last night. So well I didn't hear the fence break!

[Suetonius]

This thread was started by Reallymadwoman. I'm not posting on this thread again until RMW pops back (hope all is well on that front) or i feel i have something fresh to add.

 

Apologies if I quote you out of context Reallymadwoman, but I feel as the OP your view is also highly relevent.

 

To at least some extent I think the FOS are right in refusing to adjudicate on e.g. whether an agreement is enforceable as that is something that should quite rightly be decided by a court.

[Pinky69]

My experience of the FOS has been mirrored by many of the posters on here and one good experience cannot be generalised into drawing conclusions about the efficiency of any service.

 

If you don't know what the FOS was set up for, I suggest you read their website. I am not going to debate the pros and cons of a service which is unfit for purpose with someone who is as biased as the FOS itself.

[Suetonius]

My experience of the FOS has been mirrored by many of the posters on here and one good experience cannot be generalised into drawing conclusions about the efficiency of any service.

 

If you don't know what the FOS was set up for, I suggest you read their website. I am not going to debate the pros and cons of a service which is unfit for purpose with someone who is as biased as the FOS itself.

 

Thanks Pinky, I can confirm that I have actually read their website in great detail. I have also read the Disp section of the FSA Handbook, the CCA (1974 and as amended 2006) including subsequent S.I's. I have also read the FSMA 2000 and I have also read your threads in relation to the FOS.

 

I guess all I can really do now is wish you the best of luck with your complaint against the FOS.

[NitrousOxide]

My experience of the FOS has been mirrored by many of the posters on here and one good experience cannot be generalised into drawing conclusions about the efficiency of any service.

 

If you don't know what the FOS was set up for, I suggest you read their website. I am not going to debate the pros and cons of a service which is unfit for purpose with someone who is as biased as the FOS itself.

How can you claim they are unfit for purpose, without stating what you think their purpose is?

Most of the people who are not happy with them have either:

A, Used them for the wrong service i.e. CCA's and or DPA issues.

B, Not been clear about what their complaint is about.

C, Not followed the correct procedures.

 

If you were to dispute an amount on say a loan and the interest paid they may then ask to see the relevant documents (including the CCA).

Remember they are there to use if you have suffered a loss.

[Suetonius]

You may also find this an interesting read

 

Part 8 Enterprise Act 2002

 

Part 8

 

Enforcement of certain consumer legislation

 

 

213 Enforcers

 

(1) Each of the following is a general enforcer—

(a) the OFT;

(b) every local weights and measures authority in Great Britain;

© the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland.

 

Another piece of legislation (LAW) to confirm that the FOS is not an Enforcer.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Suetonius

[Pinky69]

We know the FOS are not enforcers - they are too ineffectual to do anything except defend the banks. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Suetonius]

We know the FOS are not enforcers - they are too ineffectual to do anything except defend the banks. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

I wonder how much you actually know about the way in which the FOS is actually funded. A very good friend of mine does work for the FOS.

 

For example, did you know:

 

Banks have to pay a fee whether a complaint is upheld or rejected

There is no financial incentive for an Adjudicator to reject a complaint. He / She gets paid the same either way.

Banks do not pay the levies and fees through choice. They pay them because they have too.

 

There is also case law posted within this actual thread that shows that companies take the FOS to Court about these fees.

 

Yes they are financed by the finance industry. How would you prefer them to be financed ?