Financial ombudsman comes under fire as insider reveals litany of bad practices

[pop_gun]

rdm2006, i would suggest taking this to court if they rule against you.

[rdm2006]

rdm2006, i would suggest taking this to court if they rule against you.

.

 

That is how FOS ruled, However, when I found out that the bank had "not been able to provide some information" I immediately stated that they were probably withholding the info in order to obtain a ruling in their favour. Due to a bank (I think it was HSBC) sending info which was meant for FOS to a complainant, it has now been proven that that is exactly what has been happening.

 

I have written to FOS, insisting that they now advise me what information was "requested but not provided" and if the missing info has been provided to me (I SAR'd them on another matter) then will the case be reopened, I am just waiting to hear back from them.

 

edit: -

 

The other thing was: - I had explained to the bank that I already had a LIFE policy provided by my employer which was noted but ignored, 6 years later I was talking about that to one of the mortgage assistants (Joking about being worth far more dead than I was alive) on the phone who told me I could have used that which I queried (without letting on) and was eventually passed to the head of mortgage complaints he agreed i could have used it but disagreed that the policy was mis-sold and confirmed it in writing.

 

About half way through the FOS complaint the bank wrote to FOS and told them that this advice (confirmed by the HEAD of Mortgage Complaints by phone AND in WRITING) was an error! Guess what FOS did .......................... accepted this (without exception or question) and didn't even write to tell me that the bank had done a complete U-turn

 

But then they are impartial aren't they?

Edited January 31, 2011 by rdm2006

[Crapstone]

In my case the the company refused to supply and the FOS said they had no choice other than to rule out that the charges and fees were justified. They provide enough info. You have to be just as clear and comprehensive as you would in a court.

[rdm2006]

I was quite precise and clear in my complaint - despite this shown on FOS website under making a complaint

 

The ombudsman service is a free and informal alternative to going to court. We decide if your complaint is valid by looking at the facts of the case – not at how well you present your complaint. And we prefer to hear from you in your own words.

 

 

I think the rules need changing - If the company fail to supply documents then it should be an automatic win for the complainant - as they are either being obstructively negligent or they have failed to abide by the law in retaining documents as per the DPA.

 

That would sort out this withhold info lark.

 

It shows that FOS are no longer fit for purpose, even the banks (the very people who set up this system) are refusing to co-operate with their own preferred arbitrator.

 

If it wasn't so infuriating it would be laughable

 

Edit: - when there were rumblings about a government run FOS equivalent (but with more powers), the banks were up in arms, it would serve them right if that was now brought in due to the lack of co-operation.

Edited February 1, 2011 by rdm2006

[pop_gun]

.

 

About half way through the FOS complaint the bank wrote to FOS and told them that this advice (confirmed by the HEAD of Mortgage Complaints by phone AND in WRITING) was an error! Guess what FOS did .......................... accepted this (without exception or question) and didn't even write to tell me that the bank had done a complete U-turn

 

But then they are impartial aren't they?

 

this made my blood boil. how on earth can they claim impartiality and then do something like this.

 

use the FOS ruling and the evidence of your case, in court. the courts will no doubt rule in your favour.

[Ibsys]

My sentiments exactly. The staff at the FOS just don't seen to examine all the fact and data before making any sort of decision. I wonder why we don't all get to gether and make an "on mass" complaint about this seeming incompetent organisation. However, who who we complain to!

 

I have found what I believe to be a bigger [problem]! The FOS get £495 per complaint. I had 8 issues with LloydsTSB so this should amount to £3960 but the FOS only received £495. There are 8 complaints in one so the FOS cannot afford to look at all issues so only looks at the easiest complaint- the PPI and tells the bank to refund it plus interest. The other seven issues are dismissed. The FOS has a budget of £112m and for 2010 there were 27000 extra complaints so 300 extra people are needed to service the workload. So anyone with only ONE complaint gets it looked at but if there are several, then the FOS cannot afford to rule on it so it falls by the wayside!

[mikesmotor]

Having had an issue with the FOS and been totally fobbed off along with a large number of other people the question I have to ask is, When are we going to get together and. on mass, put a complaint to the regulating authority of the FOS and stop wingeing amongst ourselves?

[dirkuberpower]

I have found what I believe to be a bigger [problem]! The FOS get £495 per complaint. I had 8 issues with LloydsTSB so this should amount to £3960 but the FOS only received £495. There are 8 complaints in one so the FOS cannot afford to look at all issues so only looks at the easiest complaint- the PPI and tells the bank to refund it plus interest. The other seven issues are dismissed. The FOS has a budget of £112m and for 2010 there were 27000 extra complaints so 300 extra people are needed to service the workload. So anyone with only ONE complaint gets it looked at but if there are several, then the FOS cannot afford to rule on it so it falls by the wayside!

 

thats incorrect, the FOS fee is £500 and is payable by bank for every complaint that they fail to resolve.

 

FOS should look at every complaint, if they dont, get on to them. What you say about people with several complaints is baloney and they certainly dont pick the easy one.

 

The problem with having several complaints on the go is that it confuses the issue. Mostly the customers do one FOS form which generic, frivilous complaint points covering every PPI. This causes issues.

 

In 2010, FOS recruited about 100 contractors (£210 per day each!) I was one of them.

[pop_gun]

Having had an issue with the FOS and been totally fobbed off along with a large number of other people the question I have to ask is, When are we going to get together and. on mass, put a complaint to the regulating authority of the FOS and stop wingeing amongst ourselves?

 

i, (among hundreds of thousands) would sign any petition towards these ends.

[Ibsys]

Having had an issue with the FOS and been totally fobbed off along with a large number of other people the question I have to ask is, When are we going to get together and. on mass, put a complaint to the regulating authority of the FOS and stop wingeing amongst ourselves?

 

I have done some reading and intend to take the matter up with my MP. My own issues I intend to take up with Lloyds at Executive level and the Assessor at the Ombudsmans office also neds to be brought out into the open. There is also a journalist who has written about the Ombudsmans service. But yes, we should get something going.

 

We could use the Freedom of Info Act amongst other things.

[dirkuberpower]

i, (among hundreds of thousands) would sign any petition towards these ends.

 

You could do, with no fos you could take it to court instead as your own expense.

[phatram]

subbing

[Super Bean]

Agree on the voice stress widgets, that stuff has to have been sold by people from the Gene Hunt school of policing. "But he SOUNDS like a dodgy geezer, guv!"

 

As to false accusations, I can only speak for myself, and I'd go back to my earlier post- I ask questions, but people "hear" accusations. There doesn't seem to be a good way out of this, the obvious "I'm not accusing you of anything, I just need to understand..." always gets the other side riled up good an proper, and always seems to end in a complaint against me. Some "special" people find it an affront to their honesty that they can't just ask for a cheque and get one, and they can't understand I need to know a bit more if there's something obviously missing or wrong. Undisclosed driving bans are an unpopular one, because you just know somebody's going to say they didn't know they'd gone to court and been banned.

 

I think turning real, provable, fraud cases over to the criminal courts has had an effect on accusations- I certainly got the full fire and brimstone about the offence of false reporting, don't say it if you can't prove it, it could be you in a court for wasting police time etc etc a couple of years ago in training.

 

Now we get complaints about "dragging out" a claim for weeks because every time we find what used to be a reason to decline a claim, we give everyone a chance to explain it via a letter, which of course takes an extra couple of days c/o postie, rather than take the story as given, because nobody wants to be that guy who tried to write up a fraud case and got stuck on because the case failed. And we aren't allowed to decide on fraud based on supposition, opinion, or anything we worked out ourselves, we always have to apply for police reports/database disclosures to prove or disprove it, and that means a wait for the police to complete their enquiries, which takes months in some places. Not exactly helping the customer "journey" though, is it? If I try to shortcut anything, like not waiting for a police report because that police service takes forever, I get the claim kicked back down anyway.

 

Frustrates the crap out of me some days, that the only way to be fair and not make unfounded accusations seems to be to take an unfairly long time. Answers on a postcard, but only ones that don't involve fraudsters getting away with it!

 

The never EVER wrong? Yeah, we have them too. Sadly, they get everywhere. I try not to be one, I know we have them in the office, and sometimes we have them as policyholders too. My favourite was the chap who absolutely flat out demanded satisfaction under the Freedom of Information Act, and would not get off my phone until somebody with a legal authority in my company accepted notice of his FoI demand for X Y and Z unrelated to his claim. For those who don't know, FoI only applies to government-type places, not us, but could I explain that to him and explain his rights under the Data Protection Act might help him get information? Could I bunnies. Apparently I am a lowly peon who's not qualified to understand the complexities of FoI law (true, as far as it goes), get me someone who knows what they're talking about. I finally got a compliance officer to agree to talk to him. Cost me a bar of chocolate that did, and I never did get to find out what happened.

 

I agree with Eddie to be honest...and I most definitely have seen both sides, not from a call handler point of view though.

 

There are good eggs and bad eggs in every box. Halifax were exemplary and efficient throughout my home insurance claim. 1st Central however were abysmal during my car claim.

 

I wish Direct Line had the same attitude as you regarding fraud. The 3rd party in question in my car claim ran into me and then decided to lie about it. Despite the fact he has no witnesses and I have a completely independent witness stating I never moved an inch, they still see fit to harbor him and 'give him the benefit of the doubt'. What doubt?

[mikesmotor]

Hi Super Bean

 

I was interested to read that you had a n abysmal experience with 1st Central. I to had a similar experience which resulted in me having a county court judgement agaist me and loss of my no claims bonus.

[dirkuberpower]

 

I think the rules need changing - If the company fail to supply documents then it should be an automatic win for the complainant - as they are either being obstructively negligent or they have failed to abide by the law in retaining documents as per the DPA

 

 

Then that's unfair on banks. Dpa rules say they don't have to hold records for more than 6 years.

[patrickq1]

I too could never find fault with my branch the Halifax, but ROYAL LONDON INSURANCE are the **** of the earth , it took me 11 months for my flood claim settlement ,they grudgingly had to pay out outside the courtroom doors ,they are lucky my wife was their as i wanted the judges ruling on it...but that was twenty years ago.. hopefully things have changed since then one group of people whom i cannot abide is the claim-chasing loss adjusters ,that said my son in law was asked at the week end if he wanted to make money by an Asian lad in Preston and that he was to submit a claim to an insurance company for a car crash and the Asian lad would provide the witnesses, i just told my son in law to report it to the police as its people like that , that cost everyone of us money in higher insurance charges ....so any insurance company out their be aware a [problem] is taking place or about to in Preston

patrickq1

[rdm2006]

Then that's unfair on banks. Dpa rules say they don't have to hold records for more than 6 years.

 

and that 6 year clock starts ticking when the account/policy is ended.

 

Edit :- example, I have just rec'd SAR data on my mortgage Including the original offer from 1988

I believe certain data must be kept this way but actual financial transactions can be 6 years from the date of the transaction.

 

And are you saying that is is fair that the banks are refusing to supply FOS with info that they do hold ???

Edited February 25, 2011 by rdm2006

[AuntieP]

In 2010, FOS recruited about 100 contractors (£210 per day each!) I was one of them.

 

dirk..."contractor" ??? ...were you an Adjudicator ?

 

FOS are now looking for self employed, fee paid Ombudsmen, and recent adverts for Adjudicators were for a 9 month fixed contract. Something is up...perhaps a shortage of funds as the huge number of PPI cases is bringing in no money because the cases are not 'closed' so no fees are paid by the firms.

Edited March 28, 2011 by AuntieP
remove white space hopefully, plus minor clarification

[theghost]

I have had one experience (although it was someone else, I was just helping them) of the FOS and it ended positivley - they got all their money back in a case where they had been defrauded. It did take circa 6 months though.

 

I think the main issue is that they are overwhelmed by complaints from consumers. It doesn't help that people are often advised to complain for the most spurious reasons and end up clogging the system up.

 

The question is, if the FOS was removed where would the complaint go and does any other organisation have the capacity to deal with them? Its not cheap training people up to know about so many different areas of finance.

[rdm2006]

I have had one experience (although it was someone else, I was just helping them) of the FOS and it ended positivley - they got all their money back in a case where they had been defrauded. It did take circa 6 months though.

 

I think the main issue is that they are overwhelmed by complaints from consumers. It doesn't help that people are often advised to complain for the most spurious reasons and end up clogging the system up.

 

The question is, if the FOS was removed where would the complaint go and does any other organisation have the capacity to deal with them? Its not cheap training people up to know about so many different areas of finance.

 

They are very useful for things that are cut and dried (or just plain black and white) but when there are other matters to consider their pally relationship with the banks is usually detrimental to the consumer (read the article by the whistleblower)

[caro]

I have had one experience (although it was someone else, I was just helping them) of the FOS and it ended positivley - they got all their money back in a case where they had been defrauded. It did take circa 6 months though.

 

I think the main issue is that they are overwhelmed by complaints from consumers. It doesn't help that people are often advised to complain for the most spurious reasons and end up clogging the system up.

 

The question is, if the FOS was removed where would the complaint go and does any other organisation have the capacity to deal with them? Its not cheap training people up to know about so many different areas of finance.

 

Many of them could go to court but some people are reluctant to use this route. If a claim is under £5k the only risk is the cost of the court fees, but many people, including those on certain benefits, they are exempt from that too.

[Ibsys]

thats incorrect, the FOS fee is £500 and is payable by bank for every complaint that they fail to resolve.

 

FOS should look at every complaint, if they dont, get on to them. What you say about people with several complaints is baloney and they certainly dont pick the easy one.

 

The problem with having several complaints on the go is that it confuses the issue. Mostly the customers do one FOS form which generic, frivilous complaint points covering every PPI. This causes issues.

 

In 2010, FOS recruited about 100 contractors (£210 per day each!) I was one of them.

 

My adjudicator was Roger Clarke who then said "I had cost the bank £495 in writing to complain" and after some research came up with the figures as posted. In my situation, all 8 issues were interconnected and consequential of each other. My loss was £70,000 which, whilst I accept there are some spurrious claims, some trivial, Lloyds actions cost credibility and jobs. The banks are doing tremendous damage and the FOS seams to condone it, even ignoring law breaking.

[caro]

My adjudicator was Roger Clarke who then said "I had cost the bank £495 in writing to complain" and after some research came up with the figures as posted. In my situation, all 8 issues were interconnected and consequential of each other. My loss was £70,000 which, whilst I accept there are some spurrious claims, some trivial, Lloyds actions cost credibility and jobs. The banks are doing tremendous damage and the FOS seams to condone it, even ignoring law breaking.

 

You might point out to Roger Clarke that if the bank had behaved themselves you wouldn't have needed to complain so they cost themselves £495.

[shara]

After looking at all your comments my conclusions re my case with the FOS seem founded.

All financial institutes are happy for you to go to the FOS, leading me to believe they do not fear the FOS authority, which kind of leaves us without a voice when we are trying to resolve stressful situations that could have huge impact on our lives.

Both the FOS and the financial institutes governed by them are playing tactical game with us.

With my case it crossed my mind that the FOS worked for the financial institute. None of the evidence I presented was even considered. The financial institute gave a report and the FOS went with it to close the case. A complete waste of time.

[Ibsys]

I have a case in with the FOS. I first went to them in August 2009, my complaint was against Capital 1. Capital 1 harassed me by telephone - I had anything from 5 -15 calls per day 7 days a week. They refused to set up payments plans and on one occasion they actualy told me that I should use my mortgage money to pay them. They piled the charges on, my original debt was 800 by the time they finished I owe £1180.

 

I was appointed a case worker, who was absolutely useless. She told me that I should take responsibility for the debt. That I could not write up a debt of this amount and not expect to pay it back. She also told me that the phone calls were not excessive considering I owed them the money. I lost my temper at her and wrote a letter of complaint because of her attitude - about 5 weeks ago I got a letter saying that she no longer worked fo the FOS and I now have a case worker.

 

Don't hold out much hope though.

 

I see this is some time ago, is the case still going on? Try this.... Send a CCA 1974 s78 (credit card) or s77 (loan). Capital One sold my debt to Lowell Group. I sent a s78 and Lowell Group wrote to Cap1 and they could not find the agreement so Lowell reduced the £3000 to NIL. It only took two letters. In most cases, credit card agreements before April 2007 are not signed, they are just credit card application forms so not valid agreements and so unenforceable. But remember this. The money does not exist, it had been created by Capital 1 out of nothing so you owe them nothing.Ask them for 3 things (which they cannot provide: 1. Copy of the lawfully binding contract signed by both parties.2. A validation of the debt. (the money does not exist so they gave you nothing-just a credit)3. Consideration of the contract. If they gave you nothing the contract is unenforceable at law.I did this with Lloyds TSB. I do have dispute with them but in this case, a £9500 credit card debt was reduced to NIL instantly!