DN issued FLM whom I signed as a guarantor

[AuntieP]

You can say 'incompetent' if you think they are and have evidence to back it up...but it may be best to stay really calm if you can, and incisively take the Adjudicator's reasoning apart. Be polite and keep it as short as possible, emhasising the main issues not every tiny thing.

 

By the way, Adjudicators and others are sometimes incompetent. In my case they said an award was taxable, though their own guidelines said differently, fought for months to defend this, eventually reducing the tax from 20% to 10%. Later the Principal Ombudsman overruled the Adjudicator, Ombudsman and Service Review Team and said it was not taxable at all. That is incompetent !

 

I am not allowed to post links yet, but if you google "financial-ombudsman-problems" you should get to a web site about incompetence at the FOS

Edited November 18, 2010 by AuntieP
typo

[Deb T]

I'll post it for you ...

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk/

 

Nice website you have there.

[functions]

thank you guys

 

wow, i have calmed down! i'm not so riled anymore. taken a couple of days though.

 

Auntiep, i came across your site just earlier this week. it's really informative but highlights clearly its failures.

 

i think i may have put a little too much explanation in there so i'll shorten it down, hopefully and stick to the main points.

 

i got a consumer satisfaction survery from the fos recently in the post. hmmm...i suppose i can express my dissatisfaction with its decision on there? i'll be fair because there were some nice and helpful people on the phones

[functions]

do you think it's worth sticking to this point.

 

I mentioned previously how the company consistently claimed their debt to be a 'priority debt' over the phone. the adjudicator has not addressed that complaint whatsoever. i personally think that's just one example of the company's deceiving nature and is a fine point to highlight. i've written in the letter that i'm currently typing up how i want the company to substantiate and explain this claim of theirs.

 

another thing, the adjudicator is accusing me of not keeping in touch with regards to the account and that's being judged based upon the letters i sent. much of the contact was with the original debtor and they only referred to me as guarantor when payments were missed and this was mostly always on the phone. i dont understand why other forms of communication (LIKE THE PHONE) have not been taken into account at all especially since i mentioned their harassing nature. if the phone conversations are pretty much worthless in all of this then why are they allowed to continue? why was my request for communication to be in writing ignored.

 

another thing was that that the company was judged to have acted sympathetically to my cause. how is that feasible when my offer of payment was rejected and any amounts that i did pay would be pocketed but court and other action would still continue. wouldnt they have done the same if i hadnt paid?

 

does anyone see my point? i'm sorry if it doesnt make sense...i guess i'm so frustrated that the message has gotten garbled

 

ugh - every point made by the adjudicator is just wrong and completely short-sighted. would it be too long if i mentioned those points...thats basically my rebuttal although i need to have a look at the docs i sent them to see if theres other issues ignored

ahh dear