Halifax Bank Beneficiary and Executor Fraud.

[BankFodder]

do the banks 'really' pay £400-£500 a time for a complaint to be heard?

doubt this is the case otherwise they would have paid out almost 500 mil in 1 mill complaints so far...

you only need look at the report written by fos or was it fsa from 2007/2008 saying 65% of all claims were satisfied well that says it all mr merriks was really pleased he had left the organisation in good hands cobblers they are all pi**ing in same pot taking us all for mugs

patrickq1

my opinion only

Yes, that is what they pay - and believe me they don't care. It is set off against tax anyway so it is the UK taxpayer which carries the cost in the end

[uaruman]

Reply to BANKFODDER.

 

Can't seem to find your admin e.mail address. Did try and leave you a private message but your inbox is full.

 

Anybody help on this one (it must be there somewhere lololol)

[uaruman]

I'm all ears when you are ready. Email our admin address and I'll respond

 

Can't seem to find your admin e.mail address! Sure its there somewhere lol

Let me have it please

[BankFodder]

Can't seem to find your admin e.mail address! Sure its there somewhere lol

Let me have it please

try admin(at)consumeractiongroup.co.uk

[HermieMonk]

Hello,

 

I have been involved in a dispute with a Lender over a repossession which was so blatantly mishandled that any reasonable person would agree that the Lender was liable.

 

Not so the FOS. The Adjudicator did not uphold my complaint nor has the Ombudsman. Both failed to consider key points and refused to tell me why they hae ignored these key points. They are simply biased in favour of the Lender.

 

This is not the ranting of an irrational 'moaner' - I have full documentation of my complaint and independent observers have attested to the disgraceful behaviour of the lender.

 

The key to me is that here does not appear to be any totally independent assurance that the decisions reached by the FOS either at Adjudicator level or Ombudsman level are sound. No one nows how many irrational and biased decisions have been made and how many people out there have suffered financially.

 

I have written to the Chairman of the Select Committtee via my MP to express my concerns but they were too busy on other matters to take an interest.

 

I have suficient grounds to go for Judicial review but can't fund it. The grounds are quite clear because bias in a public judgement are grounds for a review. I will be better of from a personal viewpoint to use any money that I could raise to take the Lender to court.

 

As there is no appeal route against the FOS apart from a judicial review, they are free to act in a totally arbitrary and cavalier fashion with any redress which is a disgrace.

 

In my own matter, I will probably go to the courts but it is a shame that a test judicial review could not be launched by an interest group or a group of individuals so that this rot could be stopped or at least to ensure that diligence is focussed on their activities.

 

Comments on this would be gratefully received. Would anyone be interested in forming an action group as I would be willing to devote time to making it work? Is there an action group already there?

[uaruman]

try admin(at)consumeractiongroup.co.uk

 

Emailed you regards Uaruman

[uaruman]

Hello,

 

I have been involved in a dispute with a Lender over a repossession which was so blatantly mishandled that any reasonable person would agree that the Lender was liable.

 

Not so the FOS. The Adjudicator did not uphold my complaint nor has the Ombudsman. Both failed to consider key points and refused to tell me why they hae ignored these key points. They are simply biased in favour of the Lender.

 

This is not the ranting of an irrational 'moaner' - I have full documentation of my complaint and independent observers have attested to the disgraceful behaviour of the lender.

 

The key to me is that here does not appear to be any totally independent assurance that the decisions reached by the FOS either at Adjudicator level or Ombudsman level are sound. No one nows how many irrational and biased decisions have been made and how many people out there have suffered financially.

 

I have written to the Chairman of the Select Committtee via my MP to express my concerns but they were too busy on other matters to take an interest.

 

I have suficient grounds to go for Judicial review but can't fund it. The grounds are quite clear because bias in a public judgement are grounds for a review. I will be better of from a personal viewpoint to use any money that I could raise to take the Lender to court.

 

As there is no appeal route against the FOS apart from a judicial review, they are free to act in a totally arbitrary and cavalier fashion with any redress which is a disgrace.

 

In my own matter, I will probably go to the courts but it is a shame that a test judicial review could not be launched by an interest group or a group of individuals so that this rot could be stopped or at least to ensure that diligence is focussed on their activities.

 

Comments on this would be gratefully received. Would anyone be interested in forming an action group as I would be willing to devote time to making it work? Is there an action group already there?

 

The problem is we all seem to be dealing with is the proverbial smoke and mirrors situation. One thing all these organisations have, in vast amounts, is time and money. The second problem is public awareness. How do you generate that?

 

Unless, like I was (and others on this site), you actually become involved in similar situations, it's of little interest to anybody.

The one thing that really took my breath away was the audacity and blatent double speak of the FSO. I felt as though they thought they were dealing with a retard (me).

 

They have now asked if I am satisfied with their handling of the situation, my comments and do I wish to continue with my complaint. I will of course do this. This takes time, my (eventual) money, but also knowing full well that the end result will also be the same. It's Kafkaesque situation brought about by big banks, their full use of the capitalist system for their own ends, and a goverment that panders to their every need, bonus payments included.

 

My thoughts? Appeal all you want. They just move the goal posts!

Edited February 2, 2010 by uaruman
clarity

[Coactum]

From what you have said I would not let this rest. I would respond to their feedback request stating your dismay at their appalling handling of your complaint and that will not regard the matter to have been satisfactorily handled until the bank have divulged the requested information.

[renegotiation]

Hello,

 

I have been involved in a dispute with a Lender over a repossession which was so blatantly mishandled that any reasonable person would agree that the Lender was liable.

 

Not so the FOS. The Adjudicator did not uphold my complaint nor has the Ombudsman. Both failed to consider key points and refused to tell me why they hae ignored these key points. They are simply biased in favour of the Lender.

 

This is not the ranting of an irrational 'moaner' - I have full documentation of my complaint and independent observers have attested to the disgraceful behaviour of the lender.

 

The key to me is that here does not appear to be any totally independent assurance that the decisions reached by the FOS either at Adjudicator level or Ombudsman level are sound. No one nows how many irrational and biased decisions have been made and how many people out there have suffered financially.

 

I have written to the Chairman of the Select Committtee via my MP to express my concerns but they were too busy on other matters to take an interest.

 

I have suficient grounds to go for Judicial review but can't fund it. The grounds are quite clear because bias in a public judgement are grounds for a review. I will be better of from a personal viewpoint to use any money that I could raise to take the Lender to court.

 

As there is no appeal route against the FOS apart from a judicial review, they are free to act in a totally arbitrary and cavalier fashion with any redress which is a disgrace.

 

In my own matter, I will probably go to the courts but it is a shame that a test judicial review could not be launched by an interest group or a group of individuals so that this rot could be stopped or at least to ensure that diligence is focussed on their activities.

 

Comments on this would be gratefully received. Would anyone be interested in forming an action group as I would be willing to devote time to making it work? Is there an action group already there?

 

I can't comment on your specific case, but if you think you have grounds to take it to County Court and get a judgement, then that's what you should do. Then, you can question what to do next. I don't think it is impossible to launch court action against the F.O.S. as an individual. Anyhow, all irrelevant, we need people to go to the F.O.S. and get a negative outcome; then go to the Independent Assessor and get a negative otucome; then got to County Court and get a positive outcome; then say 'hang on a minute something is very wrong here' and assess further options. That's what everyone has to do. Obviously one should try and get some advice from the site team about a County Court case if they are unsure. I will start a separate thread highlighting this approach. It's a no brainer that this will work for us.

Edited February 3, 2010 by renegotiation

[uaruman]

My reason for joining this site was to make people aware of the mess known as the FSA. The cost of my additional legal bill through the FSA is around £2,500 since I started dealing with them.

I think personally that this site is a perfect platform for embarrassing the FSO and its minions (and others like them).

 

Legal action is expensive, and whilst I appreciate various conclusions in respect of this avenue, the FSO was designed to operate the way it does. Biased, off kilter and wrong. You certainly wouldn't (as renegotiation suggests) be telling anybody anything new with regards to the FSO, although I more than understand his line of reasoning

 

Its a very expensive white elephant, which serves little or no purpose, and has absolutely no powers whatsoever. The banks are, quite literally, laughing all the way to the bank.

[patrickq1]

the FSO was designed to operate the way it does

when you consider there paymaster is the banks i dont think you can expect honesty and clarity of judgement to come from them...

theycounty court is the correct action from here you can also get the judge to ask for the documents you so need and all the relevant data, i think if this can be got at then you can compare the data you had previously been provided and you may see a difference in what you have as far as the courts go its your best bet ,it would and also may bring into the frame as to the previous judgement concerning the eviction and eveything that was wrong from there we can also help on here with what to do next from when the new case begins so good luck as regen says he can ask the mods for more help and their is some on here qho are really top notch in their advice

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

i also hope you notified MP John \mc \fall with regards to his help and explain you really have grounds for judicial rev but also explain you need his input as he has the authority to demand a reveiw of your circumstances with the relevant society it may be just a nod and a wink to get this moving the way it needs to your local MP wont be much cop unless it is an opposition MP who can then force an action because the Local MP knows to not act is pretty bad due to an election loomin .. just a thought

[uaruman]

Will diclose more at end of this month, but due to impending legal action cannot say a lot more now. I think BANKFODDER should have the bigger picture by now. Will start process as suggested. Just waiting for a reply from the FSO

[renegotiation]

Just waiting for a reply from the FSO

 

You mean F.O.S.? I keep getting confused between the F.O.S. and the F.S.A. when you type it F.S.O.. Stop it or i'll sue.

[HermieMonk]

Yes, the County Court route is going to be the way forward for me but it does rankle with me that the FOS is 'selling a pup' to the gulllible consumer and their arrogance for an organisation with a public duty is really unbelievable.

 

This is the problem to some extent, as I do detect that my MP and possibly the Chairman of the Select Committee see unsubstantiated assertions as moans from someone who didn't get a decision in their favour.

 

Going to the Courts, getting a judgement that contradicts their decision will be one way but what is not known is how many decisions have been wrong and biased and how many will be wrongly assessed in futre with many people conceding out of frustration or inability to argue their case (after all, the FOS is meant to make it easier for lay people to get a hearing - what rot!).

 

Ideally, if 'template' or bare bones details of cases (initially annonomised) that have or are beng dealt with unfairly are collated by an individual and then asessessed by experts, then this could be used to force the issue. Or even if the outcome of Court decisions at variance with FOS decisions are collated, this would carry more weight and identify the scale of the problem.

 

I am really angry about FOS and the damage it has and could be doing to people's lives and would be willing to commit some time to try to influence some change.

 

Again, if there is any practical and feasible way I can push this forward, comment gratefully received.

[renegotiation]

Hermie, we can do this. Get a County Court judgement with an identical case, ***if you are confident***, and come back here with it. That is what I am doing and my case is 'cast iron'. I am going to have jobs when i'm finished. They were well warned. No I.A. to bail them out this time. Indeed, he will be for the chop too. Off to court to expose them. When a few of us do this, others will follow. It's the way it works. Always harder being the first isn't it... See you back here in the future hopefully and we, others too I hope, can liaise with Bankfodder and progress with the issue.

[HermieMonk]

Thanks for that.

 

Yes, it is the way forward as long as complainants taking this course liaise so that results can be collated in some way.

 

I am also looking for basic info from people who have contacted their MPs about FOS problems so that there are a number of reference cases available at some point.

 

I'll keep you updated with any progress I make.

[uaruman]

You mean F.O.S.? I keep getting confused between the F.O.S. and the F.S.A. when you type it F.S.O.. Stop it or i'll sue.

 

A thousand apologies think its called senility :-|

[uaruman]

At least we have established now that the Halifax Bereavement Centre and the fos (ok renegotiation? ) are not the the most truthfull or reliable organisations to deal with. In fact it beats me why anybody would deal with the fos in a case like mine, especially after my experience. The Halifax Bereavement Centre is a fancy title for an organisation that will supply any information to you, as long as it doesn't implicate them in any breach of a statutory duty of care.

 

What you have to do is imagine the following scenario; a late octogenarian, frail, possibley confused and partially sighted, who also has

numerous other medical problems pops into a branch of the Halifax Bank, picks up a six figure sum in cash, and then disappears, only to purchase a property in a sun drenched location several days later.

 

The question was very simple for the Halifax. How was the cash collected, who served him and could I see a copy of the withdrawal slip? Lets face it, wouldn't you be curious? The Halifax Bereavement Centre continually refused to disclose this information, plus will not divulge a copy of any transactions on this account. (even though at one point they did agree to with the fos, then changed their minds) Strange? It gets stranger still.

 

This 6 figure sum eventually, after a disclosure was required in relation to submitted accounts for eventual probate, was apparently paid to a PLC described by the 'Times Newspaper' as a ' terrific team of specialists'. (No names yet sorry).

 

Sooo bearing that in mind, I then ask for copies of that transaction from the company in question. After a letter, numerous emails and telephone calls, I finally receive the paperwork. There is just one slight problem with the alledged documents. The relevant information is missing! There are no signatures, no details of the actual history of transactions and the whole items seem to be blank original documents, with relevant items inserted long after the transaction was made. I might be wrong but 2 of the sheets submitted to me are blank templates with a name at the top with several financial items inserted.

 

Where do you go from here? Well I have some phone calls to make tomorrow and be sure that very shortly, I will disclose information that might surprise some individuals. Please note thal ALL this information is documented so I am not in the least bit concerned about this particular post.

 

 

 

The information submitted to me is totally useless. So the question then begs to be answered; Do Banks and the Financial Services Industry collude? It would seem they do. So we now have the fos and fsa implicated in a situation, in which neither organisation feels threatened, because of their present dilatory governing bodies. I appreciate that banks are responsible to the fsa for certain products that they 'market', but these are two separate, individual companies at opposite ends of the spectrum

Edited February 6, 2010 by uaruman
clarity

[lookinforinfo]

Just Googled the FOS and got two very different results-the first will probably surprise some of you and the second will give you hope that you can take them to Court.

Consumer complaints to Financial Ombudsman soar | Pinsent Masons LLP

Judge rules against FOS over ?unfair? case fees | News | Money Marketing.

 

 

 

Last year for the first time, the FOS published a list of the most complained about companies and how often the FOS upheld [agreed with the complainant]. I couldn't find the figures on the FOS site but did here-

Financial Ombudsman Service | ADRnow

 

As an example, comparing several well-known high-street banks in terms of uphold rate can be illuminating:

 

HSBC 2,177 complaints uphold rate of 60%

NatWest 2,379 complaints uphold rate of 60%

Barclays Bank 8,283 complaints uphold rate of 71%

Lloyds TSB 6,947 complaints uphold rate of 81%

 

Perhaps the answer lies in only complaining to the FOS when Lloyds or Barclays are involved.

 

 

By the way, if you are dissatisfied with the way the FOS have handled your case, you can complain to the Independent Assessor who may look at your case again though it tends to be more often where the FOS have been slow to deal with your case for example rather than the decision they have come to.

Edited February 6, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[BankFodder]

What the figures don't tell you is that number of complaints which were brought against each bank and in which each bank then backed down.

 

It could well be that HSBC and NW bluff more and are more likely to back down when their bluff is called.

[uaruman]

It also doesn't tell you how many don't get past the initial screening process, usually by telephone.

[uaruman]

I have now returned the fos letter, ticking the box that says I WANT TO CONTINUE WITH MY COMPLAINT BECAUSE..... please tell us why...

 

Well apart from the fact that you, the fos, have behaved in a unprofessional manner, which seems to be general thread running through all these posts, you seem to have great difficulty in being honest.

 

For those individuals who havn't seen the blurb on the back of the fos adjudicator's conclussion letter, it says (please don't laugh renegotiation;)) We are the official experts in deciding who is right and who is wrong..

WE ARE COMPLETELY INDEPENDANT and make up our minds based on the facts of each individual case.

At the bottom it appears to have a Mission Statement (oh dear... makes you cringe doesn't it) It states

 

DECIDING COMPLAINTS NOT TAKING SIDES.

 

Ah well, now let me find that old copy of Billys Weekly Liar!

 

(if you look at Saturdays Guardian 6/02/10, Money Section, back page...... they also suffer from a strange malady called forgetfullness. Funny.. so did Bill Clinton:rolleyes:

Edited February 7, 2010 by uaruman
not to confuse renegotiation

[uaruman]

Anybody who followed my posts in relation to the fos might be extremely interested in how the situation developed, in relation to the above organisation, and how it is still unresolved.

 

It is basically a salutory warning to anybody who is either an executor or a beneficiary in a Will in the UK. The truth is stranger than the original posts, and I thank all those who replied with lots of good and sensible advice.

 

If anybody wonders why the UK banking system reached the depths that it did, so quickly, then the following posts might surprise some people.

The fos, if you look up my old posts, did absolutely nothing. They did come to some verbal agreement with the Halifax Bank, then shortly after denied it.

 

In all fairness, full marks to the National Westminster Bank who helped me 100%. Again thanks to Baydonhill who helped me uncover matters which really did beggar belief. So why did the Halifax Bereavement Centre, abley

assisted by the fos, play games and and withold information for over 18 months?

 

The story in the original posts was slightly misleading, although through no fault of mine. For those of you familiar with this story.. no explanation is required. Those who are not, have a look. I will update this weekly and explain how some banks operate, in an attempt to stop any fraudlent claims whatsoever!

 

Beneficiaries might also be surprised at what little power they have over fraudulent executors, and executors might be surprised how some banks just totally ignore all reasonable and lawfull requests they might have

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?243853-FOS-complaints&highlight=

 

1st thread above

Edited July 6, 2010 by uaruman

[Andymcq]

You have my sympathies, It took me many phone calls and and a threat to do "something" with my brothers ashes to stop the revenues and benefits from chasing my brother at my distressed parents address, even calling my dad out of hours to contact him.