Walter Merricks - Is it time he resigned?

[The cobbett slayer]

Isn't it about time we started pressing for the resignation of Walter Merricks as Chief Financial Ombudsman.

 

It is quite clear that he has no intention of taking a firm line with the banks and will simply continue to issue a string of half hearted "warnings" about the way in which the banks deal with charges claims.

 

In a speech recently, he stated ".....I'll just repeat what the rule says: handle complaints consistantly and remedy recurring problems"

 

Mr Merricks is consistant in one thing - ducking the issue of bank charges and the way in which the banks are dealing with claims. Maybe it's time for a stronger leader at the Ombudsmans office.

[nicsussex]

Maybe it's time for a stronger leader at the Ombudsmans office.

 

Bankfodder?

[crfx250]

Isn't it about time we started pressing for the resignation of Walter Merricks as Chief Financial Ombudsman.

 

It is quite clear that he has no intention of taking a firm line with the banks and will simply continue to issue a string of half hearted "warnings" about the way in which the banks deal with charges claims.

 

In a speech recently, he stated ".....I'll just repeat what the rule says: handle complaints consistantly and remedy recurring problems"

 

Mr Merricks is consistant in one thing - ducking the issue of bank charges and the way in which the banks are dealing with claims. Maybe it's time for a stronger leader at the Ombudsmans office.

 

 

I think you're dead right there. Although the FO is an ombudsman service

and not a regulator as such, his attitude to the tidal wave of bank charge complaints is breath-takingly limp.

 

His office now receives 1000 bank charges complaints a week. To put that into perspective, thats 25 every hour his is open is open. By any standards imaginable, that indicates there is a very very serious problem out there. And this isn't gonna get solved by someone who couldn't punch

their way out of a sopping wet paper bag.

[Lokiy2j]

Hello, I came across this forum on my travels around the world wide web and felt I just had to say something.

 

Who exactly do you think you are?

 

Why do you think you know Walter Merricks' job better than he does??

 

As it has already been stated, the job of the chief ombudsman and the FOS in general is to not impose their will on the banks who are just trying to make a living!

 

If you are so incapable of managing your own money that you incur bank charges, then you deserve everything you get!

 

It's unfair to be charged for trying to spend more money than you earn or infact are lent?? no wonder this country is heading for a recession!

 

The terms and conditions of each bank account is laid out very clearly for the "layman" to see, so why are you surprised when you are charged!!?! I find it very very convienent that all of a sudden you people have a problem and the only scapegoat you can find are the banks! and when the FOS doesn't immediatly back your claim you call for the resignation of one of the best in the business!

 

Sometimes I wonder how most of you would react if you were told what those at the FOS really think of your whining and sniveling little pleas. perhaps if a firmer hand were taken with the people who get the charges it would turn the country's fortunes round and we would enter a golden age of financial independance!!

 

Walter Merricks does the job he has been asked to do, if you want someone to tell the banks off for charging "unfair" fees or upsetting you then perhaps you should run to your mothers who may actually care. The FOS have a very important job to do and with the complaints of so many time wasters the people who really need their help are going unheard, just think about that next time you take offsense for paying for your own mistake!

[BADGER 69]

Paying for your mistakes is one thing. Paying through the nose is another. I'm neutral here. I live with in my means but I sympathize with anyone who can't get out of debt because of down right greed.

[nicsussex]

Hello, I came across this forum on my travels around the world wide web and felt I just had to say something.

 

Who exactly do you think you are?

 

Why do you think you know Walter Merricks' job better than he does??

 

As it has already been stated, the job of the chief ombudsman and the FOS in general is to not impose their will on the banks who are just trying to make a living!

 

If you are so incapable of managing your own money that you incur bank charges, then you deserve everything you get!

 

It's unfair to be charged for trying to spend more money than you earn or infact are lent?? no wonder this country is heading for a recession!

 

The terms and conditions of each bank account is laid out very clearly for the "layman" to see, so why are you surprised when you are charged!!?! I find it very very convienent that all of a sudden you people have a problem and the only scapegoat you can find are the banks! and when the FOS doesn't immediatly back your claim you call for the resignation of one of the best in the business!

 

Sometimes I wonder how most of you would react if you were told what those at the FOS really think of your whining and sniveling little pleas. perhaps if a firmer hand were taken with the people who get the charges it would turn the country's fortunes round and we would enter a golden age of financial independance!!

 

Walter Merricks does the job he has been asked to do, if you want someone to tell the banks off for charging "unfair" fees or upsetting you then perhaps you should run to your mothers who may actually care. The FOS have a very important job to do and with the complaints of so many time wasters the people who really need their help are going unheard, just think about that next time you take offsense for paying for your own mistake!

 

Seldom have I heard such an uninformed rant - if you had actually read around this forum a bit before posting you may have actually understood what this site was all about

[hagenuk]

Personally I am still laughing at the notion that banks are "just trying to make a living!" it must be so hard to live on a profit of £11.5 Billion for example, (HSBC) or £9.3 Billion (RBS) or £7 Billion (Barclays) or £5.4 Billion (HBOS)

 

The combined profit from the major banks was almost £40 Billion last year - not bad for companies just trying to make a living.

[Michael Browne]

I came across this forum on my travels around the world wide web and felt I just had to say something.

You just happened to stumble across this forum and an obscure 8 month old thread with just 3 posts!! What on earth were you googling? Your name isn't Walter by any chance?

[Bookworm]

All right, guys, you know the drill, don't feed the troll, he came, he had his little rant and moved on, let's leave this thread to die again, shall we?

[Michael Browne]

All right, guys, you know the drill, don't feed the troll, he came, he had his little rant and moved on, let's leave this thread to die again, shall we?

Spoilsport

[Lokiy2j]

Troll? sorry Bookworm you speccy little geek, but moderator or not, why don't you grow a pair and allow people to express their own feelings on this subject?

 

I suppose you support the notion that Walter Merricks should step down, all because you can't manage your own money?

 

and with regards to the notion that the profits of a few big banks indicate some sort of overall affluence for these companies, I would suggest you take a look at the facts, for instance with a profit of £7Billion Barclays have still reduced their workforce in this country by approximatley 1,500 in 2007 alone. no wonder they make so much money.

 

It's not from the odd £50 charge it's from the fact they pay pennies for staff in india! and whilst they do maintain a staffin the UK the most of the "call centre" staff are in the north, where we all know they can get cheap labour.

 

I really do not need to trawl these forums reading "what this site was all about" to get a very good idea that it's a bunch of busybodies moaning that they can't spend other people's money!

 

Anyway I'm pretty sure this post will now be "moderated" by "bookworm" as he couldn't possibly allow such obvious truths to be stated on his forum. Which is a shame because if any of you lived in the real world perhaps you would figure out how to spend your money wisley.

[Generic Username]

Hi.

 

I am always interested to hear people's opinions on the Financial Ombudsman Service, especially views such as Loki's. I think he is absolutely spot on with what he says. Walter Merricks is doing a first rate job under very difficult circumstances. Why, he even does the recorded voice message when you call the FOS. "My name's Walter Merricks and I'm the Chief Ombudsman." He's leading from the front, putting himself out there. In my mind, that shows courage and valour, and no little guts.

 

As for the charges, as said, don't get into debt. Live within your means. If you think the charges are disproportionate, don't run the risk of incurring them. If your circumstances change, immediately consult your local bank or building society. Maybe the charges should be 10p or 20p? You pay for a service. You agreed to the tariff of charges when you signed up to the mortgage. It was all fine and dandy when you were living in your gingerbread house on Lollipop Lane. The first sign of a dark cloud however, and you're all bleating about the banks and calling for the resignation of a man who could not be more dedicated to maintaining a thoroughly decent and professional service.

 

Carry on Walter. You're doing a fine job sir.

[Bookworm]

Growing a pair? Tall order for me, and one that would surely involve a severe realignment of my lifestyle, not to mention a bit of a shock to my husband, I fear.

 

Should Walter Merrick step down? Well, the original post dates back from May 2007, at a time when the OFT had done not a lot to help us consumers on the subject of bank charges, before doing a 3 point-turn that would put a London cabbie to shame, which culminated in the current court case, on which, pun totally intended, the jury is still out. So, based on that, and considering the man finally decided to do the job he was being paid for, I'd say no, probably not. So that's your question answered.

 

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your vituperations because frankly, well, we've heard it all before and they are neither new nor original in their agressiveness. I feel sorry for you that you should be so small-minded that the only way you seem to be able and put your point across is by this unleashing of venom, but hey, whatever rocks your boat, honey.

 

I have asked the other users to refrain from posting because in my experience, people like you thrive on the attention and I don't think you are worth that attention, which is why after this post, I will only intervene in any post which flouts the forum rules. For someone who is so self-righteous, you have read those, I hope? If not, here they are, I would suggest you pay attention to them:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

 

Have a nice day now.

[The cobbett slayer]

Sorry Marie but I have to respond.

 

The respondant is clearly an idiot as it has (as Michael put it) stumbled across a very old thread. I wonder how that has happened. Users of other sites trying to recover what they used to have?

 

You would think that they would know better!

[Lokiy2j]

It's a shame.

 

A crying shame. that this country is turning into a mini-americana.

 

There used to be a time when the poeple of this country knew how to do their own taxes, and balance their own cheque books.

 

Unfortunatley my belief is that this forum and "consumer" group are the product of the lazy american way that is infecting every facet of this country.

 

Why pay for my mistakes? I can just sue!

 

Perhaps if people like Bookworm actually had a job and worked for their money instead of "moderating" a forum all day long they might have something better to do with their time.

 

In regards to comments on my initial post to this forum, yes I stumbled across it, I am not part of a previous group or any other party you might have known.

 

It's funny that you brand me an idiot for stating something that is quite obvious to me, my bank account was opened for me before I could speak and when I was responsible enough I took on the responsibility of the account, over the years I have opened numerous savings & bank aco****s and every time I have been given reams of paperwork explaining all the ins and outs, but funnily enough the peopl who actually sell these accounts are happy enough to explain anything I need!

 

I wonder just a little if any of you took the time to ask before taking out these bank account exactly what the fees were? or perhaps if you read the numerous letters that would have been sent to you over the years explaining the increase in fees and what they applied to??

 

For you to denounce me as an idiot for having the common sense to read the terms of my bank accounts and not blame Walter Merricks, seems very very ironic.

 

oh and bookworm apologies for assuming you were a man, but knowing you're a woman makes all the more sense now.

[Guest vortex]

The case is OFT Vs. The Banks in the High Court. A case that the banks wanted. It is based on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

The OFT boss on the face of it did not appear to be doing anything with regards to this matter. He is now and it is a tough job.

If you would like to talk about the current test case there is a thread to do so.

The test case is focusing on whether the contract can be assessed for fairness under uk law. Those very issues of reading the contract are before the court because of the "strange language banks speak"(Brian Doctor, QC, OFT opening day statement) so in the UTCCR there is something called plain and intelligible language.

One issue everyone agrees on NOW is that Walter Merricks is not to blame NOW. So fancy some OFT test case discussion?

[Lokiy2j]

Oh we can discuss the OFT case if you like.

 

With regards to the "plain english" rule, that same rule was bought into the mortgage industry in 2004 when the FSA took over, it's not done a thing to stop people complaining that the charges that banks & lenders charge for the MEAF are fair.

 

My personal opinion is that poeple will moan and fixate on one thing so the banks will change the language to read a bit easier on those people who didn't do so well at GCSE level english, that will do nothing at all to dampen the complaints, I guarantee.

[Guest vortex]

What language is used is important, the bank states that there contract are fair and transparent. The OFT test case will judge that. Banks have changed their terms and conditions but it is to suit a service argument which they are arguing about.

With regards to the MEAF the 2004 report has been updated. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/meaf_goodpractice.pdf

[Crazy Diamond]

I wonder if Mr I-have-the-higher-moral-ground's employers are aware that he uses his work computer (a "finance" company, it will surprise noone to read), to access this site. Now, wouldn't that be an instance of gross misconduct for most companies, which in some cases, can lead to dismissal? I think maybe someone should go and read his employee's manual and double-check that he himself is not in fact doing something dishonest and not allowed. You never know, with the information unearthed by someone, maybe it is our moral duty to inform his employers. After all, we don't want to be accused of not reporting dishonest behaviour we were aware of.

[Guest vortex]

so that is why the posts are the way they are. That is interesting.

[Lokiy2j]

Ahhh, someone with too much time on their hands I see.

 

Crazy diamond if you wish to inform my employer then please by all means use your "consumer" power to try and cause me a personal problem, which by the way I would constitute a threat that has not been dealt with by this forums moderators.

 

I make no secret of where I work, however I feel no need to disclose this information to you, or anyone else on this board I could work for any company and my views would be the same.

 

so please by all means contact my employer and see if they care about an employee using the internet outside of office hours, because unlike you I CAN read the manual and have been told directly that what I am doing is perfectly acceptable. If you want to look like a monkey then go ahead do as you please.

[MarkieMark]

Hi.

 

I am always interested to hear people's opinions on the Financial Ombudsman Service, especially views such as Loki's. I think he is absolutely spot on with what he says. Walter Merricks is doing a first rate job under very difficult circumstances. Why, he even does the recorded voice message when you call the FOS. "My name's Walter Merricks and I'm the Chief Ombudsman." He's leading from the front, putting himself out there. In my mind, that shows courage and valour, and no little guts.

 

As for the charges, as said, don't get into debt. Live within your means. If you think the charges are disproportionate, don't run the risk of incurring them. If your circumstances change, immediately consult your local bank or building society. Maybe the charges should be 10p or 20p? You pay for a service. You agreed to the tariff of charges when you signed up to the mortgage. It was all fine and dandy when you were living in your gingerbread house on Lollipop Lane. The first sign of a dark cloud however, and you're all bleating about the banks and calling for the resignation of a man who could not be more dedicated to maintaining a thoroughly decent and professional service.

 

Carry on Walter. You're doing a fine job sir.

 

DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY ARE DOING JOB?? They failed to investigate my complaint properly and expect me to hide it under the carpet