A True story - Your comments/feedback please

[jmartinesq]

A woman who owns a small business has a disagreement with her bank.

 

In fact, she logs over 50 issues over 12 months, that her bank has done including unauthorised debits from her account,losing contracts, non returned phone calls, "refused" emails, upto 4 copies of same documentation being handed into her branch ...the list goes on, all backed up by documentary evidence, photographic evidence, bank staff testimonies, and even telephone recordings.

 

She further points out that the bank has clearly contravened

 

* 5 different sections of the FSA's handbook of Guidelines for financial firms

* 6 different sections of the FSA's handbook of Guidelines for Individuals (staff of a bank etc)

* 8 different sections of The Business Banking code of Conduct

 

(all documented, remember)

 

and wait for it, even contravened...

 

* The statement of principles of the British Banker's Association.

 

One of her 50+ points was incorrectly completed documentation, signed by the bank 3 months after she signed, and SENT OUT by the bank more than 4 months later again....despite nearly 20 requests for the documentation.

 

( Overdraft agreement signed by her in January, despite repeated requests for a copy of the document with her signature on it did not arrive until August that year, but wait - the signature by the bank was dated APRIL ! )

 

(so much for the 14 day cooling off period)

 

All in all, 12 months of repeated failings of the bank causing personal inconvenience, stress, increased cost and mental anguish.

 

She points the failings out to the bank, who several months later admit the points, and that the bank admits "maladministration"

 

a key phrase often referred to in the ombudsman's and the various code of conduct's "small print"

 

The offer of compensation? ..............................................................£1000.

 

For not 1 mistake, not 3, not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30, not 40,

 

....over 50 over a period of 12 months - all documented.

 

WAIT TILL YOU READ THE NEXT BIT.....

 

Appalled at the offer of the bank, she then goes to Trading standards who tell her -

 

1. As she is neither a sole pop or partnership, she falls outside of the protection of consumer credit regulations that would normally protect her as an individual. And because she is a company, BUT her turnover is less than £1m, her organisation would not be "recognised" by the FSA.

 

2. She then wrote a personally recorded delivery letter and parcel containing 2 inches of supporting evidence, to the Bank's chairman (as adviced by her local trading standards office) asking for his help and intervention, which she received a reply from the "Corporate Response Team" that they would investigate the complaint, and if they was to be a delay they would write back and inform her and keep her advised - they never did.

 

In fact, the letter and package was merely passed to the head of customer service, who merely referred her to the financial ombudsman. Yup, that was it. The buck was passed again...

 

Next, off to the financial ombudsman

 

3.Dilligent and tenacious, she perseveres, and jumps through all the hoops and beaurcracy documenting everything and presents her case to the Ombudsman.

 

4. 8 months later again, the ombudsman "partly" upholds her complaint, and subsequently the bank makes an increased offer of, wait for it................................. £250.

 

HOORAY WE THINK - A VICTORY, BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE....

 

5. The Ombudsman then pointed out that -

 

"the Ombudsman is not a regulatory body, and thus cannot consider, address or deal with the majority of issues outlined in your case, as the Ombudsman cannot fine, or penalise a bank"

 

(In fact, it would appear that the Ombudsman "could" only deal with 5 of the 50+ issues)

 

and

 

as the lady filed her complaint in her company's name, the Ombudsman "cannot consider complaints by a company's shareholders or directors personally", thus they were unable to "consider" her claim for compensation of personal inconvenience and distress.

 

and

 

Although she had suffered personal incovenience, and distress,The Ombdusman pointed out she had not suffered any actual financial loss.

 

6. Unrelented, she called the FSA - the Regulatory body in the UK and pointed out (on a recorded phone conversation) that -

 

The Ombudsman can't and won't consider the aspects of the evidence where the bank has contravened FSA regulations, as the Ombudsman is not "a Regulator", so her interpretation of that, is the majority of the points she had spent months documenting and raised in which the

bank has clearlycontravened FSA (regulatory) guidelines for both "firms" and "individuals" had NOT been taken into account in the final decision, as the Ombudsman felt it was outside of its remit.

 

The facts remain that, even though it was outside of the remit of the ombudsman, the documentary evidence still illustrated just how bad the true failings of the bank in its client relationship with the lady were - remember it was 50 points, not just 4 or 5.

 

But would appear, had clearly not been taken into account in the Ombudsman's decision.

 

7. The FSA response - "We are a regulatory body and do not deal with individual cases, please contact the financial ombudsman that is why they were set up."

 

The women pointed out the facts of the case, to ensure that the FSA understood her complaint.

 

The FSA responded, "Whilst we are sympathetic to your case, we cannot get involved with individual cases, Please contact the Financial Ombudsman directly, by the way while you are on the line would you like to be added to our list of those participating in our customer service

survey we are conducting at the end of the month."

 

What do you make of that? Comments or other experiences, please....

[bed32]

Surely the overwhelming message of this forum is that the various regulatory authorities and ombudsmen are on the whole totally ineffective in regulating and resolving issues.

 

It is left to the individual to use the civil courts to get compensation - but even then the level of compensation awarded is likely to be low compared to the perceived inconvenience and distress caused by the bank.

 

I am particularly frustrated in the way large organisations can effectively ignore the law with impunity knowing that no effective action will be taken against them.

[powelll]

I know you have asked for comments but...( shrugs shoulders, palms upwards ) I actually don't know what to say ( which if you know me is pretty unusual )...

[delboytrotter]

I have had dealings with the Finance & Leasing Ass, The Financial Ombudsman, the FSA and Courts and i have to say they are all useless,

There is only one thing that matters to big companies and that is making more money at the expense of consumers,

The goverment in the UK have a lot to answer for creating useless regulations that the big companies can ignore because they will not be chased for it,

I have a friend who was ripped of by a windscreen company (big windscreen company that also have a breakdown service and they have 3 letters in their name) he took them to court and won but they still laughed it of as he was only awarded £750 even though the car was ruined, anyway he wen to all the regulatory bodies and they could do nothing so he started a website dedicated to the crap service he recieved and made the company sit up and take notice...the site has had upwards of 15000 visitors now and must be causing them no end of leg pulling in their business but because it is all true they can do nothing aobut it.

If you want to make them pay them start a web based pressure group an dsend the address to everyone you know. It seems to have worked in his case as the company are trying to close it with out success....try hunting google for windscreenleak it makes interesting reading

How did the bank get away with offering £1000 then only £250 or was that on top of the £1000

Good Luck

[Guest Gertie100]

What made me laugh on the news this morning is that the banks are saying that if they are told they can't charge the unlawful charges then they will have to charge people to hold bank accounts!

Which bank do you know who only offer banking facilities? Don't they make enough on mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance etc?

I can see me going back to money under the mattress and once a month trip into town to pay all my bills in cash!

[Spiceskull]

Gobsmacked...although completely unsurprised...

[delboytrotter]

I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the UK Goverment would like us all to be paid electronically and all hold bank accounts, this is because they can keep a better eye on what is happening when people recieve large deposits of cash etc, but if the banks start charging for accounts again then it means that a lot of people will go back to wanting cash wages etc as they wont be able to afford to have a bank account and the employer would have no choice but to pay them in cash as banking is no longer a free way to recieve your wages, it could also mean that benefits would have to go back to being paid by giro again as abank account would not be a free way to recieve them

 

I think htis opens a huge can of worms that the bank will not like when they start losing money, mind you if the banks can make 40 billion profit in a year then there is something wrong anyway...just like the oil companies