Financial Ombudsman - a recommendation

[The old chap]

Well we could just not wait any longer for FOB. They were still messing about and not answering the questions of How the bank offers were made up so told them that they werenot really working for us but to make them selves look good by just asking the banks.

Letter to bank monday 14 days or else. Now we shall see as it is them and us.

Regards

[Guest Niklowe]

I added this to the end of my complaint to the FOS

 

If, as you have replied to other complainants, that you have no authority to change policy, this would beg the question of the need for the existence of the Financial Ombudsman Service at all.

[The old chap]

Well, we wrote to the Ombudsman and again asked him to explain how he arrived at his figures and a breakdown on how the figure had been arrived at. Had a letter back basically saying that he did not explain things like that. If he thought that it seems resonable it should be for you too. Interest, no, not in his remit. So papers in the court and we await on the bank. Fun aint it.

The old chap.

[joneshousehold]

What about complaining to FOS about their own actions. I did and got a very nice apology with a comment about a training need. It won't help you much I expect but it will make them explain themselves a bit more. Also don't they have to publish figures about their own complaints. If they get too many it may begin to attract some attention.

[The old chap]

Thanks for your mail. We found even talking to them on the phone did not get far. They dil not explain how they came to their answers until we wrote to them and said we are going to court. Then we had an 'opinion' back but even then there was no real explaination. I think the arbitratrators are a bit full of them selves as one cannot really chalenge what you domnot know as a layman. So wait for the court now.

[Guest Battleaxe]

If I wasn't so far away I would go to Court with you.

[johnyboy]

Sent my letter:

 

Dear Sir

I am writing to let you know that I have no faith in the FSA to act in the public interest or to regulate the banks and so am taking action myself against the Halifax for illegal charges.

I realise that you are concerned about receiving over 150 complaints per week, but the consumer action group, of which I am a member, receives over 4000. This suggests to me that the general public has more faith in the help and support of the CAG than it does in the FSA.

I would also like to express my grave concern about the future prosperity of the UK if the banks continue to destroy people with excessive charges to which you appear to turn a blind eye and if the courts continue among other things to raid pensions.

I foresee a massive drain on the UK economy in the future as those tens of thousands of people who had their pensions stolen to fund illegal bank charges are forced to rely on the state to survive and anticipate a dramatic rise in the social problems that will go hand in hand with this.

By your inactivity now, you are building a very dangerous future.

Regards

 

 

Johnyboy

[Guest Battleaxe]

Sent my letter:

 

 

Ooops FSA is the Financial Services Authority, FOS is the Financial Ombusdman Service, two different beasts.

[johnyboy]

never mind, it can go again.

 

I don't trust either of them anyway

[Struggling_Simon]

Battleaxe - Like you, I sent the FO my stiff e-mail, and got a reply inviting me to make a formal complaint if I wished (by sending in all the evidence , etc.) - I replied, declining to, AT THAT TIME. If you haven't received such an e-reply within a day or 2 of you sending your original stiffie, then I reckon they're getting swamped already !! They might even be GETTING THE MESSAGE at last !!!

 

You say you're not playing fair, but you're playing by their rules, aren't you ? Who's to say that's not fair then, eh ? That's reciprocity and mutuality in the raw , innit ?

 

Fell Outta My Tree Laughing at this one...Do you mean to say that YOU have actually been honoured with a communication from MBNA's Assistant Vice President ? Whoa - RESPECT !!! Makes you think you're being taken notice of, for once, doesn't it !!

 

I, too, felt just as important when I got a letter PERSONALLY signed by their Assistant Vice President. You've just burst my balloon, though. The AVP who signed MY letter was a Susan Pemberton.

 

They're ALL Assistant Vice Presidents, then !! There's a whole open-plan typing-pool full of 'em.

 

To me, that sums up their bl**dy attitude.

 

Yours (ever so slightly) sincerely

 

Bill-k

Chief Assistant Vice Under-Manager to the Chair.

 

 

 

MBNA will be most likely working to the 'American' business model for financial institutes. This 'Assistant Vice President' title (AVP) usually signifies that the person has been working for the company for a year or more with some (in-house) accreditations.

 

It's just a administrative grade. They usually follow the flow thus :

 

1st day to day 365 , Job title.

After day 365 , Administrative Officer(AO).

Once they qualify (in-house) they have the right to call themselves AVP.

 

Do NOT be fooled, these guys probably do not have any control at board level, nor even hold any shares, they'll most likely be worker-bees just like you and I.

 

In any event, a title doesn't give you nobility, dignity or respectability. It's not even indicative that you have any 'power'.

 

Everybody knows that you don't need to have a fancy title to have the qualities mentioned above,though.

 

repect to you all,

Simon.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Siomon,

 

You are right, we woke up to this ages ago. I suggested they put their names into a hat, job titles into another hat and what gets pulled with their name, like the football draws, this is their designation for the following month. We pay no attention to their titles. They are drones in the hive.

[DANIELLESMUM]

Hi people

 

I have been a busy bee this morning... So far I have added my signature (and emailed the link to everyone I know) onto the petitions regarding bank charges, and also tax credits.

 

I have also emailed the FOS to tell them what I think of them and that I won't be dealing with them, and that I will be pursuing everything directly through court.

 

I have explained that although G E Money (Grrrrrrr ) have referred me to them (FOS) as the last port of call when a complaint cannot be resolved, as the FOS say they have no power to intervene on the levying of charges what is the point?

 

I also advised them not to bother referring me to the FSA because I actually went there first and I went to the trouble of doing a full formal complaint and then the FSA subsequently advised me it all falls outside their remit and "The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is unable to intervene in or seek to resolve individual complaints", and they advised me to contact the FOS.

 

So as no one seems willing to help me or give me any advice (other than my many new found friends at the CAG who have given me the courage to tackle all this) then I will be taking on G E Money myself, but that I thought they (FOS) had a right to know that people have no faith in them.

[DANIELLESMUM]

Having re-read my recent reply from the FSA (which was a polite 'go away') I noticed.....

 

•Complain to the firm in the first instance to give them an opportunity to investigate your complaint and, if appropriate, put things right. Our rules require firms to investigate your complaint within eight weeks.

•If your complaint is not resolved to your satisfaction, you can ask the Financial Ombudsman Service (the Ombudsman) to consider your case. The Ombudsman is an independent body set up to help consumers resolve disputes against financial firms.

EIGHT WEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! They don't really give anyone a choice of doing anything other than court!

[Guest Battleaxe]

Daniellesmum,

 

it gets better once you take control. They make you jump through the hoops.

 

keep picking away and eventually you will win. I have put two complaints the FOS way, since sending a terse email to them and so far they have made the bank concerned take some action,, so I keep saying back to the FOS with the complaint and each time the bank gives a bit more ground. Yesterday i got the telphone recording I wanted and they have edited it, way to go. They didn't hand it over when I SAR'd the, but the FOS got it out of them, so I am continuing using the FOS regarding these matters until I get both complaints completely resolved to my satisfaction.

 

The rest is off to court we go and no out of court settlements either. They are going to speak to the Judge.

[Struggling_Simon]

Siomon,

 

....this is their designation for the following month. We pay no attention to their titles. They are drones in the hive.

 

 

Not quite my point, my point was that the designations are meaningless in the first place.

 

What they will try to do is instil some level of confidence with the customer so that the customer trusts them. Then they will try to manipulate the customer into making a mistake. i.e it is an abuse of trust.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Simon,

 

we agree with you. Long gone are the days when titles like these instill any confidence. Those of us who are 'old' campaigners realised these people are NEVER to be trusted and yes they will try to manipulate people, but sadly for them, it isn't going to happen, no matter what designation they use. For me ever to believe any of these institutions again, the letter would have to come from the Chairman of the Board of Directors and that will never happen.

[Struggling_Simon]

isn't a huge cop out on the part of FOS? i.e

 

We can investigate wrongdoing but not enforce anything, We can't investigate any wrongdoing if it is being enforced by other methods.

 

How much does this organisation get from the banks for doing absolutely nothing? Seeming enough to pay high-heid-yins 65K a year for 11 meetings.

[but6le]

having used the FOB we were so disapointed with their effort we decided to go alone, with help from a certain web site.

go for it alone its more fun with gain in sight.

[steppenwolfe]

My letter today to the financial ombudsman:

(cc The Guardian, & Here). I will keep people posted of the outcome

 

30 April 2007

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I have recently written to the Natwest bank. On 11/04/2007 I wrote regarding my bank account with them (XXXXXXXX held at XXXXXXXXXX branch) and on 03/04/2007 regarding bank account XXXXXXXX held at XXXXXXXXX branch). Both these letters were final letter before action and gave notice that after 14 days had elapsed I reserved the right to institute proceedings without further notice for return of illegally taken bank charges in the past six years.

 

Having heard nothing from them, I telephoned Their customer relations department (0208 236 8007) on 20/04/2007 @15:30 and spoke with a chap called Alan. I asked if they would be meeting my claim. To which I was given no specific answer, only that their aim was to respond to all claims within 'the 56 day FSA guidelines' (not indicating whether the claim would be met in full at that time or not).

 

Surely, given that the reputation of these financial institutions is suffering badly due to their illegal activities being exposed (indeed I recently heard it subsinctly expressed by a friend of mine as 'banks in this country suck the sweat off a dead man's b*****ks'!). Isn't it about time that someone with a bit of authority suggested that they meet the 14 day deadline given in letters before action rather than meet some arbitry 56 day deadline. That way they might actually have a chance of not be seem as financial pariahs and restore their tattered, tawdry reputation instead of being repeatedly dragged through the courts by dissatisfied customers.

 

It would appear to any reasonable man that there is a distinct lack of common sense, control or regulatory authority over these financial institutions while the guidence that they are given is at odds with legal reality. I just thought I ought to point this out in the hope that you will actually do something about this situation.

 

Yours sincerely

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Please remember that the FO when requesting a bank to settle does not include interest owed. "Not within their remit".

[Lokiy2j]

Oh dear.

 

Do you people have no life? E-mailing the FOS with your whines? why don't you all get a collective life??

 

I'm pretty sure all you are doing is making pests of yourself, why bother? why not use all that energy and effort and just sort your finances out? or read the terms and conditions that you are provided FREE OF CHARGE by the bank!

[notlam]

Thanks for your suggestion, Lokiy2j.

 

So simple. Why didn't I think of that?

[Bookworm]

Now, folks, if you will check this chap's posts, you will see they are all in the same vein, so please don't feed him, if we all ignore him, he'll soon get bored. Now THAT's consumer power.

[dannyg888]

one thing really gets me with the bank charges

and thats customers who do not learn from their mistakes

]

see youre all expecting to get money back for being charged but you need to look at why you got charged in the first place. and the bottom line is you cant manage your finances but for some chases its understandable eg standing order/direct debit went out when it shouldnt have.

 

but back on to learning, if the bank charge was set at 10 pound everyone will be going overdrawn and wont give a dam but being set at 30 pounds youre meant to be learning from a mistake. its like getting a speeding ticket or parking on double yellas when you get that fine you wont do it again will ya and anyway i cant see the banks losing but if they do youll all have to start paying for your accounts which will upset many people and more than likely cost alot more than one or two charges

 

-danny-

[phatram]

one thing really gets me with the bank charges

and thats customers who do not learn from their mistakes

]

see youre all expecting to get money back for being charged but you need to look at why you got charged in the first place. and the bottom line is you cant manage your finances but for some chases its understandable eg standing order/direct debit went out when it shouldnt have.

 

but back on to learning, if the bank charge was set at 10 pound everyone will be going overdrawn and wont give a dam but being set at 30 pounds youre meant to be learning from a mistake. its like getting a speeding ticket or parking on double yellas when you get that fine you wont do it again will ya and anyway i cant see the banks losing but if they do youll all have to start paying for your accounts which will upset many people and more than likely cost alot more than one or two charges

 

-danny-

One thing that really gets me is how people in this country can leave school unable to spell or punctuate correctly !