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

[fight for rights]

get the paperwork into court right away for set aside go to see CAB at oncejudge in clambers should never have come about with out them being there.

[Ibsys]

Your local MP will have a surgery - Book an appointment and take along the data - when enough MP's start raising complaints something will get done

 

My friends, who have a serious problem with NatWest went to our/their MP who refered the matter to Bar Pro Bono who, when the going got tough, they dropped the case like a brick, whence Nat West pulled a vicious stunt as the saw merit in the case and repossessed the house. The FOS refused to put right their serious flaws in the matter.

[Ibsys]

get the paperwork into court right away for set aside go to see CAB at oncejudge in clambers should never have come about with out them being there.

 

What happened on the day is that NatWest's solicitors went into Chambers to have a private word with the judge before calling in my friends. The Judge was missing some papers and took papers from the NW solicitors, he nosed through the papers and said he had not read the case, refused to hear our opposing defence told our friends they had no evidence, would not look at papers already submitted and the term was used, at my advice, from our friend to the judge "ARE YOU TRYING TO RUSH TO JUDGEMENT, JUDGE, I WILL BRING YOU PROOF OF EVIDENCE AT THE APPEAL".The NatWest Solicitor said it had been to the FOS and this was repeated by the judge. In my statement to court, I had proved 3 fatal flaws in the FOS decision but the judge refused to read the statement and said "I was a nothing". The parties involved were worried until they found I am not a solicitor then abused their power.I have produced evidence from FSA MCOBS, Nat West have broken the law, the FOS is proffesionally negligent, the conveyancing solicitiors have not adhered to the law and have not provided a duty of care nor put right their legal obligations, I have read evidence and put a case from papers mounting to 10" thick but all falls on deaf ears. This term alone is strong wording and is on its own reason for an appeal as it is on record and states the judge is not hearing evidence so how can he make judgement? I had read this but during this year there was a big case in Northern Ireland where a case went to appeal because there was "a rush to judgement".Problem is only 21 days exist to eviction. My own opinion is that the mass of evidence had mounted so Nat West had to do something.

[rdm2006]

Not sure this will help but here is a link for the european ombudsman (apparently he names and shames)

 

 

Are NatWest pulling the old commercially sensitive trick?

Edited October 13, 2012 by rdm2006

[rdm2006]

ruinedbynatwest had a similar thing happen to him here

[red-ed]

This is a disgrace - our legal system and ombudsman service - both there to defend our rights, no matter who you are or what your status, is infested with bias and incompetence - the whole system from the banks to the MPs seems to have gone to hell and a handcart. Ed

[Old Cogger]

This is a disgrace - our legal system and ombudsman service - both there to defend our rights, no matter who you are or what your status, is infested with bias and incompetence - the whole system from the banks to the MPs seems to have gone to hell and a handcart. Ed

 

 

Wow: -

 

 

Sums it all up, must of missed Council, legal profession etc.

[pop_gun]

Thank you Sweet Jane for your reply. I have now written to my MP, Mr Kevin Brennan who has sat on several financial committees and like me has an interest in corporate and financial governance. I am not optimistic at present that anything can be done but one can hope.

 

Just one further illustration of the FOS's attitude to clamiants. I entered into loan agreement with Barclays in 2007.

 

It was secured on my property and in the terms it stated that if the loan was not repaid after 6 months, it would convert to a mortgage. The loan was not registered by the bank and after one year, the bank declared that the facility was no longer available and that it would now be converted to a secured loan, increasing the repayments by 4 fold.

 

I pointed out the terms of the original agreement but Barclays stated that again it was a commercial decision. I appealed to the Ombudsman and in its final decision concluded that Barclays had not produced a sigend agreement for the first loan and still cannot, but nevertheless the terms of the loan were clearly short term (in spite of the clause relating to the conversion to a mortgage) and that Barclays had acted fairly.

 

What is the point of this institution and I believe it would be one idea for the programme Watchdog, which often refers consumers to the FOS, to do a piece on its shortcomings. The loan remains outstanding and has now for 6 years. I am shortly to commence proceedings against Barclays for breach of contract, failure of care and skill in executing a contract under common law and negligence.

 

Sadly had my contract been a year later I would have been covered by the new provisions of the amended Consumer Credit Act which consolidates the fomer common law position but I have not given up hope yet.

 

I'am in a similar predicament.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?357628-Natwest-purchase-protection-insurance-claim-struck-out

 

Please don't give up if a district judge strikes out your claim. You are in the right.

As I have found district judges are no better than the FOS where banks and public institutions are concerned.

[Old Cogger]

D.js in a hell of a lot of cases do not know the area they are suppose to be dealing with, they have only specialised in a certain areas, hence the judge lottery which proves how corrupt the system is., if a DJ cannot understand the fundementals of an area a case is being dealt at, then they should re-schedule to a wiser one.

[ikle pickle]

I just wanted to let you all no that following the adjudicaters decision re Santander the case now being looked at by the Ombudsman and all though we are still waiting we have been to our MP who has looked at our case the adjudicaters responce and said he is unsure what is going on here as the FSO are supposed to no what they are doing but looking at their responce and the evidance which contradicts then some thing some were is a miss. My mp has mow contacted the FOS re our complaint and asked when responding to quote him I'n their decision etc not sure if it will make a difference but will keep u all posted x

[ikle pickle]

Hi Guys:???:

As i mentioned in a previous posting, i to feel that something some were is not quite right with the investigations and responses received from Adjudicators at the FOS. I say this openly as i to raised a complaint against the lender Santander. Santander put our family threw hell if i am quite honest and set us up from day one, however i struggle immensely to put details together which i have now been left to feel possibly could be a reason for the response received by the adjudicator not to up hold my complaint and vote in favour of the lender.

 

However as frustrated as i was and still am, questioning whether there is actually any justice in this world, in have since appealed her decision for the Ombudsman to re look at our case. I have recently received a letter that my complaint will now be looked at by an Ombudsman however having read the Adjudicators response becoming more concerned that given that the Ombudsman's decision is final, if i don't send a summary very soon that is clear then more than likely will receive exactly the same response.

 

Because i started to question myself with respect to my complaint i have following reading this thread taking my information to my MP who when looking over the response received, looking at the evidence which contradicts the adjudicators resonance all though did not say it in so many ways, did say something some were is a miss especially given the fos are supposed to be highly experienced in such arrears.

 

My MP has written to the Ombudsman asking that the response to my complaint quotes him as well, i am not sure what difference this will make if any?

 

I would like to ask if some one on here can help me put a letter together for the Ombudsman and then perhaps if of interest i can keep you all posted on the response that is received . I honestly believe there is back handers going on, i could be wrong but given that the response received from the adjudicator is all in the favour for the lender and has missed out nearly all of our points given along with documentary evidence to support something some were is wrong and i don't no about you guys but i believe strongly in right and wrong and that if you speak the truth justcel will prevail or couldn't i be further from the truth, surely there must be some honesty left

[Dougal16T]

Hi Guys:???:

As i mentioned in a previous posting, i to feel that something some were is not quite right with the investigations and responses received from Adjudicators at the FOS. I say this openly as i to raised a complaint against the lender Santander. Santander put our family threw hell if i am quite honest and set us up from day one, however i struggle immensely to put details together which i have now been left to feel possibly could be a reason for the response received by the adjudicator not to up hold my complaint and vote in favour of the lender.

 

However as frustrated as i was and still am, questioning whether there is actually any justice in this world, in have since appealed her decision for the Ombudsman to re look at our case. I have recently received a letter that my complaint will now be looked at by an Ombudsman however having read the Adjudicators response becoming more concerned that given that the Ombudsman's decision is final, if i don't send a summary very soon that is clear then more than likely will receive exactly the same response.

 

Because i started to question myself with respect to my complaint i have following reading this thread taking my information to my MP who when looking over the response received, looking at the evidence which contradicts the adjudicators resonance all though did not say it in so many ways, did say something some were is a miss especially given the fos are supposed to be highly experienced in such arrears.

 

My MP has written to the Ombudsman asking that the response to my complaint quotes him as well, i am not sure what difference this will make if any?

 

I would like to ask if some one on here can help me put a letter together for the Ombudsman and then perhaps if of interest i can keep you all posted on the response that is received . I honestly believe there is back handers going on, i could be wrong but given that the response received from the adjudicator is all in the favour for the lender and has missed out nearly all of our points given along with documentary evidence to support something some were is wrong and i don't no about you guys but i believe strongly in right and wrong and that if you speak the truth justcel will prevail or couldn't i be further from the truth, surely there must be some honesty left

 

Afternoon all

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the FOS favour the Banks. I made a complaint under Section 140b of the CCA 1974 and the FOS have written to say this is 'not in their remit'

BUT the FOS are specifically charged by Parliament to examine ALL complaints!

 

I for my part have written to Santander and invited them to take action as I will counter their claim with a full, complete and robust claim under S140b!

 

No reply from Santander.......I wonder why??!! (:

Best wishes to all

Dougal

[kerrywst]

This is a disgrace - our legal system and ombudsman service - both there to defend our rights, no matter who you are or what your status, is infested with bias and incompetence - the whole system from the banks to the MPs seems to have gone to hell and a handcart. Ed

 

Hello red-ed

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service is not there to defend consumer rights. That is a misunderstanding and may be the cause of the anger and frustration that you feel towards the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service, is not a consumer champion, watchdog or an industry regulator. The best way to think of the Financial Ombudsman Service is as an alternative dispute resolution service. In other words an alternative to the courts (although not a mandatory alternative).

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service is independent and is not on the side of the consumer of financial firms. When a complaint is referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service, it reviews the evidence and arguments provided by both sides and then expresses it's view of the complaint and where necessary either uphold or reject the complaint, with explanation.

[Gallahad]

your response kerrywest ignores the posts made by the insider who started this thread and would also indicate that you have not experienced dealings with the fos

G

[kerrywst]

There is no doubt in my mind that the FOS favour the Banks. I made a complaint under Section 140b of the CCA 1974 and the FOS have written to say this is 'not in their remit'l

 

Hello Dougal

 

Without wishing to state the obvious, s.140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) does state -

 

"Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships"

 

s.140b specifically relates to the powers of the court and not the powers of the Financial Ombudsman Service. In a similar vain to complaints relating to defaults of copy agreement requests, the Financial Ombudsman Service is unable to decide a complaint purely on a legal argument - where only a court can give a decision.

 

You must bear in mind, whilst the Financial Ombudsman Service was created by statute and has a number of statutory powers, it is still just a limited company and not even a government department. Therefore, cannot exercise the powers of a court.

[Gallahad]

And is staffed mainly by ex bank employees

G

[kerrywst]

BUT the FOS are specifically charged by Parliament to examine ALL complaints!l

 

This is not entirely correct Dougal

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service is only able to determine complaints that full within its jurisdiction - being Compulsory, Voluntary and Consumer Credit.

 

Furthermore, within the rules created by the Financial Services Authority, DISP 3.3.4, confirms that 'The Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint without considering its merits if he considers that it would be more suitable for the subject matter of the complaint to be dealt with by a court, arbitration or another complaints scheme.

 

This is especially relevant to your post in terms of s.140b and the powers of a court

[kerrywst]

your response kerrywest ignores the posts made by the insider who started this thread and would also indicate that you have not experienced dealings with the fos

G

 

My post was made in response to the post made by red-ed, it would not appear to contain any incorrect information about the Financial Ombudsman Service or the way in which it operates

[Gallahad]

No but it does smack of the standard party line and tells more in what it fails to say.

G

[kerrywst]

And is staffed mainly by ex bank employees

G

 

I do not understand the point you are making. Surely to determine complaints in regard to financial products, some form of in depth knowledge of those products is required.

 

Some of the staff there are more than likely ex bank employees, being ex bank employees they left their employment with whichever bank for a reason. It would be foolhardy to imply that as an ex employee they owe some form of allegiance to a former employer that either sacked them, made them redundant, didn't pay them enough or treated them in such a way which resulted in them resigning and looking for different employment.

[Gallahad]

I suggest you read the opening posts.

G

[kerrywst]

No but it does smack of the standard party line and tells more in what it fails to say.

G

 

Have I failed in anyway to not respond to the point made by red-ed in his/her post ?

 

I have simply corrected a misunderstanding,

 

I would have thought that contribution would have been welcomed rather than dismissed or dscouraged

 

However, if you would rather misunderstandings be left uncorrected and then so be it, Gallahad.

 

May your wish be granted

[Gallahad]

Misunderstanding comes more from reading the official spin than it does from those with experience in dealing with said body.

G

[sillygirl1]

Sounds like you might work for them with that eulogy.... the Ombudsman is supposed to be independant and not take 'sides', clearly we see the opposite in practice time and time again.

[MSAR]

There are so many laws that you could take into account when interpreting a loan or credit card agreement:

 

1. The Consumer Protection Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/43)

2. Contract Law (default for opt-out clauses)

3. Sale of Goods Act

4. Consumer Credit Act

5. Supply of Goods and Services Act

6. Distance Selling Regulations

7. Case Law

 

Anyone can look these up online these days, so it shouldn't be too difficult for the Ombudsman to have "cheat sheets" for the first six, and references for #7. I looked up these in 10 minutes, so just a day would provide a binder full of

regulations.