Halifax Bank Beneficiary and Executor Fraud.

[uaruman]

Financial Ombudsman? defined as a grievance man? Sadly not in my experience. I will explain one of the most bizarre experiences I have ever had with the Financial Ombudsman, and quite frankly why I would not waste one minute of my time with them in the future.

 

Since the death of my father over a year ago, I have been trying to ascertain details of a particular, recently closed account in my fathers name. From the information I was supplied, this was closed around two months before his death. Given the circumstances, I was advised to contact the Halifax Bereavement Centre, at branch level.

 

The reason for this was unexplained withdrawals, one for cash in excess of 100k, and other incidental matters which totalled in excess of 200k.

There was evidence of fraud, but difficult to pinpoint without evidence.

(Yes I am aware of the Police! but apparently suspected fraud cases are not financed to the degree they should be. Unfortunately, at the present time, I cannot go into this due to my complaint against a certain police force being upheld by the IPCC).

 

This I did. What follows is true, documented and shows what a total farce passes for the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

In March 2009 I applied for details of this account to be forwarded to me, given that all the bank requirements were in place. ID, death certificate and a copy of the Will naming me as an executor. I was then informed that the Halifax Bank only dealt with Solicitors. Full Stop.

 

I then employed a Solicitor, who the Halifax did deal with, but unfortunately they 'forgot' to disclose the account in question. When this was questioned they said unless a 'grant of probate' was issued they could not disclose any information in relation this account. Sooo, we have suspected fraud/theft, a police force with no money and no interest, and a bank who declines to assist in a probable fraud on a deceased persons estate.

 

Enter the Ombudsman. Several weeks ago he informed that he had instructed the Halifax Bank to disclose quite a long list of information to me. I telephoned the Halifax Bank and they confirmed his conversation.

I then telephoned them back a week later to see where this information was and they then denied knowing anything about it. ( a week prior it was on their computer listed for sending).

 

When I contacted the Ombudsman about it he said that ' the Halifax Bank had behaved reasonably, and were entitled to change their mind, as was any banking organisation'.

 

My opinion? I just think the Halifax are no better than the alleged fraudster, and are more than condoned in their actions by the Financial Ombudsman.

 

All this is documented.....this is a shorter version.

 

More to follow rest assured

Edited January 27, 2010 by uaruman
date change

[patrickq1]

have you contacted your MP also the head of the financial services committee MP JOHN McFALL he has a webpage but it is better to write to him at the house of commons...sorry to hear your story myself i would get the media involved the newspapers etc...this is a massive fraud by any account and also the cheif of police at the FRAUD SQUAD IN THE NEW SCOTLAND YARD DEPT ask the commissioner to intervine and sort this out

and let him know of your concerns with the local branch...ime sure fireworks will go off

good luck

patrickq1

[tifo]

the Independent Assessor is just as biased as the FOS.

 

i passed 3 similar claims to the IA due to biased and irrational decisions by the Adjudicator which were then upheld by the Ombudsman and Review Team. In my case, the account had been sold to a DCA and had then been cleared in full. That would mean i owed no money on the account.

 

however, when i claimed default charges from the bank they wanted to pay the DCA, who was not a party to the complaint. I said i'd cleared the balance at the DCA but the FOS said, that's fine get the money back from them when the bank pays. When i didn't accept this, they then said the bank is allowed to keep the refund towards the amount it wrote off when the account was sold because i hadn't paid them. This decision is obviously biased and irrational in any sense of the word, but i never got my refunds in the end. The banks won't correspond with me anymore and always cite the FOS decision.

 

so in my opinion it is useless sending a case to the IA.

[citizenB]

Since posting the above, I have been advised by ReallyMadWoman that if you make a complaint to the Assessor or the FOS about the FOS. Then your original complaint against the bank/whoever will then go on hold whilst they investigate your complaint about the FOS

 

So it may just be worth holding off until your original complaint has been completed.

[uaruman]

Firstly, many thanks for all the good advice from several individuals, especially in relation to John McFall and the Independent Assessor.

 

It's interesting, because those who have read my story might be interested to know what my Solicitors opinion is with regard to the FOS, their findings and their stance. 'Absolute B....ck's (his words not mine). I wouldn't be that polite.

 

The major problem is that when they act in tandem (the FOS and the Banks) as in my case, what do you do? The law states you must do x, y, z. The bank says; yes we know that, but unfortunately under our rules we can't! The FOS then compounds it by agreeing with them, and then finds against you as an individual.

 

I, for example, was told that the Halifax had been told to supply me with information. Full stop.

 

Seven days later I was then told by telephone, that the Halifax had behaved reasonably,

and as such, didn't need to supply me with any information at all.

 

This scenario really belongs in some dystopian Russian novel, or is it just a sign of how anything, especially in todays poltical climate, can be done tongue in cheek?

 

Part 2 of my monologue will continue after my dealings with the recommended individuals. Just one last thought; having read recently of the large increase in fraud due to the present economic climate, I was surprised to read the recorded crime figures for fraud and forgery were down 13%.

 

Like to know how it's done? All will be revealed during my stay on here and my saga with the FSO

Edited January 27, 2010 by uaruman
clarity

[BankFodder]

Have you got the FOS' decision to dislcose in writing?

[yourbank]

comments withdrawn as BankFodder has given advice

Edited January 26, 2010 by yourbank
thought better of it.

[renegotiation]

Firstly, many thanks for all the good advice from several individuals, especially in relation to John McFall and the Independent Assessor.

 

It's interesting, because those who have read my story might be interested to know what my Solicitors opinion is with regard to the FOS, their findings and their stance. 'Absolute B....ck's (his words not mine). I wouldn't be that polite.

 

The major problem is that when they act in tandem (the FOS and the Banks) as in my case, what do you do? The law states you must do x, y, z. The bank says; yes we know that, but unfortunately under our rules we can't! The FOS then compounds it by agreeing with them, and then finds against you as an individual.

 

I, for example, was told that the Halifax had been told to supply me with information. Full stop.

 

Seven days later I was then told that the Halifax had behaved reasonably,

and as such, didn't need to supply me with any information at all.

 

This scenario really belongs in some dystopian Russian novel, or is it just a sign of how anything, especially in todays poltical climate, can be done tongue in cheek?

 

Part 2 of my monologue will continue after my dealings with the recommended individuals. Just one last thought; having read recently of the large increase in fraud due to the present economic climate, I was surprised to read the recorded crime figures for fraud and forgery were down 13%.

 

Like to know how it's done? All will be revealed during my stay on here and my saga with the FSO

 

I could tell you some stories about the F.O.S.. They are Just another part of the Establishment.

 

I might have something you would be interested in in a month or two Bankfodder. Very juicy.

Edited January 26, 2010 by renegotiation

[uaruman]

Now this is where it starts becoming a little like the X Files. I had a telephone call from the FOS telling me what he had instructed the Halifax to do. Then he asked did I want them to write ( to the Halifax) for the information or would I do it.

 

I said, in all honesty, having been played with by the Halifax for nearly a year I would prefer the FOS to do it. He said 'ok ring you back in 5 minutes'.

 

He rang me back as promised and said ' having spoke with my manager, he has informed me that we are not an information gathering service, and that you should write yourself'.

 

I should in all fairness have smelt a rat straight away. Then he gave me a list of points (of information) that had been agreed with the Halifax. I telephoned them immediately and they said they had agreed to this with the FOS.

 

Seven days later I telephoned the Halifax to ask where the information was. They then denied any knowledge or agreeing to anything with the FOS. I then telephoned the FOS, who said that after a meeting with management, they had decided that the Halifax had behaved in a reasonable manner.

 

I received that decision yesterday in writing. This was 14 days

after being told the complete opposite on the telephone

 

Anybody want to try and work that one out? You really couldn't make it up could you. Again, being polite, the word contradictory springs to mind

 

'Part of the establishment' is also extremely polite. The word disgrace is more apt.

[tifo]

the FOS state they have NO POWERS to make the banks do anything, i.e. the bank is free to behave how it pleases. I've been told this and on questioning their powers via the FSMA 2000 and them being part of the FSA they said they're an independent company and no mention of any powers.

 

so what use are they? we're losing money (and a lot of time) because of their decisions.

 

as another example, through the FOS i recently agreed a refund of PPI and an extra £100 in compensation. The bank then wanted to pay £50 instead of the £100 and less on the PPI, FOS said up to you whether to accept or decline. My argument that we agreed the PPI and an extra £100 and that a decision by them is legally binding on the bank made no difference. In the end i took the offered PPI and £50 otherwise there would have been another long wait after nearly 2.5 years (August 2007 to Dec 2009). So i lost about £400 in this complaint.

Edited January 27, 2010 by tifo

[renegotiation]

I have what is a shocking case in the pipeline. I am 'intending' to take the F.O.S. to court. I am sure this must be possible. I reiterate, this is a real shocker. If that started a trend they would be forced to behave.

[tifo]

I've asked about this, was told by my MP to do a Judicial Review. But since the FOS is a private company why? They accept a DSAR instead of a FoI request.

[renegotiation]

I've asked about this, was told by my MP to do a Judicial Review. But since the FOS is a private company why? They accept a DSAR instead of a FoI request.

 

Just ignore the M.P. then.

[uaruman]

Having looked once again at FSO decision in relation to my case and outcome, it says tick box if you want to continue with your complaint. Is this the second stage of their process and mandatory or ???

 

Any suggestions please.

Edited January 28, 2010 by uaruman
clarity

[BankFodder]

I could tell you some stories about the F.O.S.. They are Just another part of the Establishment.

 

I might have something you would be interested in in a month or two Bankfodder. Very juicy.

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

[patrickq1]

Big Ears can i get a copy lol

[reallymadwoman]

If a complaint has gone all the way to the Ombudsman, the only way to challenge their decision - i.e. whether or not your complaint is upheld - is to apply for a judicial review.

 

It's a couple of months since I looked into this so I may have details wrong, but here's the downside. A judicial review is held in the High Court, which only sits in 5 of the bigger cities, it's apparently impossible to get legal aid, you really do need a barrister in court, and if you lose you end up paying your own and the FOS' costs, and since whoever you complained about are likely to be there as an 'interested party', you have to pay their costs too.

 

So yes, you can challenge an FOS decision, but only if you're so rich you wouldn't have bothered complaining in the first place.

[renegotiation]

If a complaint has gone all the way to the Ombudsman, the only way to challenge their decision - i.e. whether or not your complaint is upheld - is to apply for a judicial review.

 

Where have you got this information from? Are you sure that this couldn't be looked at in a County Court? Are you sure you couldn't get legal aid? Thanks.

[reallymadwoman]

I'm pretty sure the judicial review bit came either from their own website or somewhere on this forum. As for the rest, I probably started with Wikipedia and went from there. Probably also got some info from the Ministry of Justice website.

 

As I said, it was a couple of months ago - possibly about 6 - and my memory is c**p.

 

For Bankfodder - If anyone is doing a horror story on the FOS I have some info which they probably would like to hear.

[renegotiation]

I'm pretty sure the judicial review bit came either from their own website or somewhere on this forum. As for the rest, I probably started with Wikipedia and went from there. Probably also got some info from the Ministry of Justice website.

 

As I said, it was a couple of months ago - possibly about 6 - and my memory is c**p.

 

For Bankfodder - If anyone is doing a horror story on the FOS I have some info which they probably would like to hear.

 

They will obviously want any legal avenue to be as hard as possible. What is your opinion on all of this Bankfodder? It's definitely something we should be looking at I think. The F.O.S. has sunk to the depths where they see fit to ignore hard facts. Furthermore, do the banks 'really' pay £400-£500 a time for a complaint to be heard? Is that supposed to be after an initial verdict or only on those complaints that progress to an Ombudsman for a final decision?

Edited January 28, 2010 by renegotiation

[reallymadwoman]

I think they get the first two or three complaints free but are then charged for all complaints that are investigated, i.e. that are within their jurisdiction/time limits etc.

[patrickq1]

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

[reallymadwoman]

Had an update at the beginning of the week regarding the complaint now again progressing through the FOS system after a delay of 5 months whilst my complaint about delays was investigated.

 

It seems the respondent is not responding to their correspondence, so they've given them another four weeks to reply. Anything I'm required to respond to gives me a deadline or else chance to respond is gone. And the original complaint was ..... the respondent doesn't reply to correspondence!

[patrickq1]

you can only reply to the correspondance once the respondant replys to your correspandance in order for you to respond given that the fos have responded to your response you need to reply to the fos that no response from the correspondance has been forthcoming and you expect a more detailed response from the fos i think lol

is that being responsible or what hehe

patrickq1

[reallymadwoman]

I'm dealing with the creditor in my own way. In the meantime I'm happy to let the FOS dig themselves into a hole so deep even the Independent Assessor has to agree that the delays have been entirely unreasonable.