Very disappointed with FOS response

[boingy]

I recently complained to the FOS about my credit card company adding charges an interest to my account whilst they hadn't responded to a S78(1) request in a timely manner.

 

S78(6)(a) states that the credit can't enforce the account during this time, which is exactly what my CC company did, for four months until they finally managed to respond to my S78(1) request.

 

As soon as my CC company sent a copy of my CCA and S78(6)(a) no longer applied, I continued making what was my minimum payment before they defaulted, whilst challenging the charges and interest applied whilst they were in default.

 

Despite sending copies of all correspondance and evidence to the FOS, with me clearly explaining my situation and highlighting specific terms of the CCA, the FOS wouldn't uphold my complaint.

 

What a farce. I thought the FOS were there to protect consumers? My CC company have blatantly breached the CCA, and the FOS won't help, despite me not doing anything wrong. I'm now in the region of £1000 down.

 

Thanks for nothing FOS!

[dirkuberpower]

FOS are not there to protect consumers. Regulation by the FSA is set out to protect consumers. FOS are an indpendant arbritator there to settle complaints between you and the bank/firm.

[tifo]

FOS are an indpendant arbritator there to settle complaints between you and the bank/firm.

 

Yeah, right .....

[master99]

FOS are not there to protect consumers. Regulation by the FSA is set out to protect consumers. FOS are an indpendant arbritator there to settle complaints between you and the bank/firm.

 

 

 

rubbish they are on the side off the banks

[rebel11]

Banks know they can get away with murder, thats why they refer matters to the FOS, in reality the FOS are useless.

[dirkuberpower]

rubbish they are on the side off the banks

 

you dont have a clue what you are talking about

[tifo]

you dont have a clue what you are talking about

 

You don't seem to have any idea of how bad the FOS can be, or maybe you've only had good experiences with them. They are DEFINITELY on the side of the banks.

[dirkuberpower]

You don't seem to have any idea of how bad the FOS can be, or maybe you've only had good experiences with them. They are DEFINITELY on the side of the banks.

 

based on the fact they rejected your complaint?

FOS uphold a majority of complaints in favour of the consumer so therefore are definetely not on the side of the banks. If yours was rejected then there would be a reason why.

[tifo]

based on the fact they rejected your complaint?

 

Nope, based on the fact that i had many complaints upheld and many rejected and i've had in depth discussions with them.

[tifo]

FOS uphold a majority of complaints in favour of the consumer so therefore are definetely not on the side of the banks.

 

based on the fact yours were upheld so you didn't have to suffer irrational decisions and a lack of transparency or any regard for the law (which they can and do disregard when it suits them)?

[dirkuberpower]

based on the fact yours were upheld so you didn't have to suffer irrational decisions and a lack of transparency or any regard for the law (which they can and do disregard when it suits them)?

 

I havent had a decision upheld, I worked there.

 

A lot of consumers complain to FOS with allegations that cannot be proven. The banks provide written evidence of such documents being signed and consumer provided with information. Documentary evidence will always take presidence over 'I wasnt told this, I wasnt told that' and would do in court too.

 

The timescales are shocking at the moment, but they are getting over 2000 complaints a week at the moment and its such a shame this 'reclaim' culture and these CMC [problematic] are taking over a majority of their workload.

[tifo]

I havent had a decision upheld, I worked there.

 

Maybe you can tell us :

 

Why can the FOS disregard law and established precedents in favour of being 'fair and reasonable' when it helps the bank but won't use the same criteria which helps the consumer.

 

Why can they award money to a third party who is not a part of the complaint, has never been a part and has never (obviously) submitted any documents. I'm told the FOS have no power to join a third party to a complaint but seem to think it fair to send them money.

 

Why will an Ombudsman never overturn an Adjudicator decision which is clearly wrong. For example, where an Adjudicator says 'i don't care what you say'.

 

I could go on with many more questions which have never been answered. I'm not here to argue with you, but the FOS is not fair and reasonable at all.

[dirkuberpower]

Maybe you can tell us :

 

Why can the FOS disregard law and established precedents in favour of being 'fair and reasonable' when it helps the bank but won't use the same criteria which helps the consumer.

 

Why can they award money to a third party who is not a part of the complaint, has never been a part and has never (obviously) submitted any documents. I'm told the FOS have no power to join a third party to a complaint but seem to think it fair to send them money.

 

Why will an Ombudsman never overturn an Adjudicator decision which is clearly wrong. For example, where an Adjudicator says 'i don't care what you say'.

 

I could go on with many more questions which have never been answered. I'm not here to argue with you, but the FOS is not fair and reasonable at all.

 

1. FOS do not disregard law and would use the same criteria for a consumer. The problem being is often the consumer has no evidence and the bank does. This point also makes no sense as FOS uphold a majority of complaints.

2. FOS do not award money, they instruct the bank/firm in question to do that. I assume you mean the claims management companies receiving money. A consumer has a right to sign a contract for someone to deal with their complaint. If someone makes a complaint on behalf of a consumer, as long as there is written authorisation it is not for FOS to question. If a CMC acts outside of their contract or takes money they shouldnt off the consumer, then this would be a matter for Ministry of Justice to investigate not FOS.

3. I was an adjudicator myself, we are given guidelines by the Ombudsman, therefore an adjudicator has followed the same guidelines as what the Ombudsman would do themself. Only an adjudicator who made a wrong decision or their was more evidence providence after the adudicators response then it would be overturned.

[dirkuberpower]

duplicate

Edited October 25, 2010 by dirkuberpower

[tifo]

1. FOS do not disregard law and would use the same criteria for a consumer. The problem being is often the consumer has no evidence and the bank does. This point also makes no sense as FOS uphold a majority of complaints.

2. FOS do not award money, they instruct the bank/firm in question to do that. I assume you mean the claims management companies receiving money. A consumer has a right to sign a contract for someone to deal with their complaint. If someone makes a complaint on behalf of a consumer, as long as there is written authorisation it is not for FOS to question. If a CMC acts outside of their contract or takes money they shouldnt off the consumer, then this would be a matter for Ministry of Justice to investigate not FOS.

3. I was an adjudicator myself, we are given guidelines by the Ombudsman, therefore an adjudicator has followed the same guidelines as what the Ombudsman would do themself. Only an adjudicator who made a wrong decision or their was more evidence providence after the adudicators response then it would be overturned.

 

In reply to your points:

 

1. The FOS disregarded law in my case. I won't go into details as it is comprehensive, but the main law here was s.136 LoP 1925 as used for assignment of debts. In my case, they used this against me when required and disregarded this against the bank.

 

2. No CMC involved in my cases. My debts were sold to DCAs by assignment. Some I settled (including paying the charges, PPI and associated interest), some were outstanding. In each case, the FOS said because the debts were assigned the DCA should get the refund, even with the settled accounts (proof was shown and the DCA themselves said there was a £0 balance). They said if i didn't accept this, then the bank can keep the refund towards its write off (when it sold the account). They said assignment didn't matter since the bank was left with an unpaid balance. These decisions were clearly irrational. It meant i was in effect paying the DCA and the bank for the same 'debt' and when they wanted to pay the DCA then assignment mattered and when they wanted the bank to keep the money it didn't matter. In the end, i ended with getting no refund though the bank wanted to send the money to the DCA. The FOS said it was up to me to then chase the DCA for my money.

 

3. In my cases, the DCA was being sent the money without ever submitting anything to the FOS and purely based on the bank's offer. The FOS said they have no power to include a third party into a complaint between myself and the bank yet they had the power to send my money to a third party not involved with the complaint.

 

4. I took a few of the cases to the Independent Assessor but they were upheld for the FOS. I did not get the answer to why the FOS can pay my money to a third party not involved in the complaint and/or to whom i owe no money and why the bank can put my money toward a write off done when they sold the account.

 

I could go on with many other examples of how i feel i was treated badly by the FOS but there's no use. With many of the cases, the bank still sent the refund to the DCA even though i clearly did not accept their offer FOS decision. The FOS said this doesn't matter to them as it's between me and the bank. In a way i had not choice and it didn't seem to matter whether i accepted a settlement or not, the bank did what they wanted anyway.

[bugged lady]

In my daughter's case, which I have just asked to be escalated to next level. How does she prove bank didn't send her letters? Other than fact her salary went missing as a result. Other than fact that bank sent letter admitting they did not send letters to every customer! Other than the fact no rational person would ignore a letter telling you to change the sort code and a/c no that your employer pays your salary into or you won't get paid; but FOS seem to think my daughter would do something this stupid and take the risk of all her DD's not being paid and incurring massive bank charges!!!

[dirkuberpower]

 

 

 

4. I took a few of the cases to the Independent Assessor but they were upheld for the FOS. I did not get the answer to why the FOS can pay my money to a third party not involved in the complaint

 

 

FOS do no pay/send any money, so stop saying they did. Your bank paid it.

Also the bank if within their rights to pay money towards a debt if it is still there. FOS cannot change that and it is not unlawful. However, if the balance is nil, I do not understand why they would do that so you should persue it with the bank.

Edited December 2, 2010 by dirkuberpower

[Surfer01]

Based on my experience FOS definitley side with the financial institution. If you challenge their decision it seems that they then reverse it. FOS will only advise on the legality of the extra interest and it is for you to challenge it in court and the banks know this which is why they could not be bothered with keeping to the regulations as there is NO ONE to enforce them on behalf of the consumer!