shall i ise financial ombudsmen or court action myself??

[Aqualibrium]

Just a wee note from my own experience here:

 

 

The problem with FOS is that you are not allowed to refer the complaint to them until you have had a final decision from the bank (which is after 8 weeks),(( Not to my knowledge. I called the Ombudsman to query this "final offer" and it turns out that the standard letters that the bank sends you in reply to your letters, which state "we cannot refund your charges", are classed as final offers. I contacted the Ombudsman 5 weeks after my prelim and they took it on, no questions asked.)) and then there is a further delay becuase of the amount of cases being put to the FOS.(( This is true, they do have many cases to consider and they did advise me of this, but it still only took 4 weeks and 5 days from the date I lodged my complaint to the Ombudsman, for the bank to offer me a settlement)) So the timescale is quite lont until you get your mony back.

 

[tifo]

had my case hearing today and the judge said i was not entitled to any interest and as the fos obtained an offer that they advised i should take that.

 

not a good judge.

 

the FOS agree you are entitled to ALL your charges back AND 8% interest (simple, not compounded).

 

i've had 100% charges offers and have refused as no interest. The FOS have then gone back to them and asked for interest (on one account 8% compounded as the bank made the offer, on the others only 8% simple).

 

if the bank had offered you only 70% you should have got the FOS to look at it again or pass it onto another team level.

 

i guess as soon as the bank offered 70% you took them to court or did the Ombudsman say that's fair?

[bwdski]

The FOS do not get 8% - just the charges - sometimes - most of the time they refuse to get involved in contractural disputes - they only get involved in the ones they think they can get back - hence the *high* success rate.

 

If you have previously taken toe case to court YOU CAN take it to the ombudsman - in the extremely unlikely event that you actually lose.

 

This is a common misconception, and one that the FOS have quoted on record as not being true.

 

If favour the court route simply because YOU are in control of the whole thing - and it clogs up the courts. In my eyes, this is a guerrilla war and you can see the tactics are starting to work.

 

In the beginning the FOS would not get involved AT ALL - the court route HAD to be the way.

 

Now the courts are getting fed up with dealling with very little but bank charge claims that never materialise. It is this action that will result in the judiciary forcing the issue - as can be seen in the papers, pretty much every day.

 

If the FOS had the same volume (and their workload has increased 10 fold in the last year) nothing much would have happened. They would have perhaps employed more people, or you would just have to wait longer for an answer. It would not have bought the subject to a head as it has by forcing the court route.

 

The FOS will only accept claims for the last 6 years - which a judge would have no say on - if the bank believes this issue to be one of the limitations act, it is up to them to prove it.

 

If the court route is pressed, there is the chance that a precident will be set eventually, as a bank will trip up eventually and will trip up on a case with disclosure.

 

The court route is not expensive - you get your money back.

 

It also encourages people to fight back against consumer injustice - it's not just the banks that rip people off.

 

You get your money back IF YOU WIN.

[Aqualibrium]

Although I do not know how the FOS deal with interest, as I wasn't aware they dealt with it at all and I didn't want it enough to include it in my claim anyway to see what happened, what I DO know is that they do not take 'ages'. They only took just under 5 weeks to get a settlement offer from my bank. I noticed that a few people have said they have refused their banks offers through the FOS because they have fallen short of the amount originally claimed, this looks like a stalling tactic from the bank, if they offer an amount that the FOS would deem reasonable, perhaps in the region of 200 either way of the original claim amount, then they still dodge the investigation, plus, if the claimant refuses this amount, which the bank will be banking on (no pun intended) because it is lower than they are willing to accept, the bank gets more time, as the claimant then has to mission the court process.

 

In my case though, I have been offered 140 pounds more than I originally claimed, although as yet, I have no idea why, I am considering calling the FOS, as it looks like the bank have just willingly added on the charges that I have incurred while the claim was ongoing. This to me looks like it may be a sign they are thinking of shutting my account down, or I may just be para, who knows.

 

Thing is too, even if you do not get a satisfactory offer from the bank, through the FOS, the FOS state that if you are not happy with the offer, to contact them, giving details. Okay, so they may not entertain many people who are pushing purely for interest, after being made an offer for the full amount of charges because they may deem the amount of charges ONLY as a reasonable settlement, this, I believe, will probably depend solely on who is handling your complaint, so I think this is why people are getting different results and seeing different procedures of handling the claims.

Personally, I think if the amount falls short of the claimed amount (minus interest) then they will have a go getting the full amount, but for something like chasing interest only, I don't think they would be too enthusiastic, considering the amount of claims they have to get through, I think they see getting the charges amount back as first and foremost and would probably rather do that for as many claimants as possible, than ignore new claims to pursue interest for people who have already had a 'reasonable' offer from the bank. I cannot say what the FOS would deem reasonable obviously, but I have a feeling it's along the lines of the full amount of charges only, but again, this could be dependant on whoever takes on your case and deals with it. I never claimed interest from the start and have no regrets about it, all I wanted back, was the amount they took, I'm happy with that, so the FOS worked brilliantly for me.

[tifo]

but for something like chasing interest only, I don't think they would be too enthusiastic, considering the amount of claims they have to get through, I think they see getting the charges amount back as first and foremost and would probably rather do that for as many claimants as possible, than ignore new claims to pursue interest for people who have already had a 'reasonable' offer from the bank.

 

Out of personal experience, i have refused 100% charges offers from 4 banks and taken it to the FOS, who then agreed i was entitled to interest. I then refused the offer of charges + 8% interest as i said i was entitled to the unauthorised rate. They looked at it again but in the end i accepted charges + 8% interest as that is what a court would normally award on current accounts and the FOS said it is a reasonable offer.

 

But, they do allow the banks a lot of time and now i will have to wait 6 weeks for the bank to pay up before the FOS will ask them why i have not received a payment, even though the banks said 14 days to me.

[bwdski]

Out of personal experience, i have refused 100% charges offers from 4 banks and taken it to the FOS, who then agreed i was entitled to interest. I then refused the offer of charges + 8% interest as i said i was entitled to the unauthorised rate. They looked at it again but in the end i accepted charges + 8% interest as that is what a court would normally award on current accounts and the FOS said it is a reasonable offer.

 

But, they do allow the banks a lot of time and now i will have to wait 6 weeks for the bank to pay up before the FOS will ask them why i have not received a payment, even though the banks said 14 days to me.

 

Not too much to wait for money you thought you'd never see again

[tifo]

Not too much to wait for money you thought you'd never see again

 

it is too long.

 

6 weeks to wait AFTER you accept their offer. That's in addition to the 3 months or so the Ombudsman are now taking.

 

how do the banks manage to get the cheque to you in a few days at court and yet the Ombudsman allows them 6 weeks to pay up AFTER you accept their offer?

[Aqualibrium]

it is too long.

 

6 weeks to wait AFTER you accept their offer. That's in addition to the 3 months or so the Ombudsman are now taking.

 

how do the banks manage to get the cheque to you in a few days at court and yet the Ombudsman allows them 6 weeks to pay up AFTER you accept their offer?

 

 

To be honest, I don't see what difference it makes, as long as the money is coming. Unless of course, there are pending debts or things that have to be paid, but lets face it, there's usually always something needing paid.

 

I liked the Ombudsman for the simplicity of the procedure. And as for the 3 mths, that wasn't an issue for me, it was only 5 wks and then the 6 weeks they give the bank to pay up, so that's 11 wks - not bad for money that you never thought you'd get back, in my humble opinion.

 

Clearly the timescales will vary depending on when one places their complaint in relation to how well the FOS are staying on top of their workload and also, depending on the bank one is pursuing.

In addition, the Ombudsman has to be fair, hence the 6 weeks they give them. They cannot be seen to favour either party.

[tifo]

In addition, the Ombudsman has to be fair, hence the 6 weeks they give them. They cannot be seen to favour either party.

 

I'm just a wee bit annoyed at the Ombudsman, that's all.

 

After telling me they work like an informal court (at the beginning of my claim), they then told me that they don't work like a court (at the end of my claim), hence do not look at new case law, legislation etc until they review their set procedure, unlike a court. At the moment, their remit is charges + simple 8% interest and blinkers are set on that.

 

Then the bank tell me it takes 14 days to get the payment to me, but the Ombudsman tells them, take your time, do it within 6 weeks.

 

It's school holidays, i could have used the extra thousands i've accepted, being one reason.

[Aqualibrium]

 

Then the bank tell me it takes 14 days to get the payment to me, but the Ombudsman tells them, take your time, do it within 6 weeks.

 

It's school holidays, i could have used the extra thousands i've accepted, being one reason.

 

 

I can see your point, what would be handier is if the excessive charges weren't imposed in the first place, but unfortunately you don't get much without a struggle, especially when it involves banks.

I have a feeling that if the bank have told you 14 days, then it will be 14 days. The 6 wks is just their threshold, but they have to pay either way and logically, since they have already been beaten in this instance, it's probably in their interests to tie up as many of these cases as they can, as quick as they can. They must be running rings round themselves, so there's not much point them dragging it out to the wire when settlement has already been made.

You could call the bank just to double check it will be 14 days, wouldn't do any harm and at least you may get a definite date to look forward to

[tifo]

yes, thanks ....

 

i did call them and they said the same thing, they do it as soon as the Ombudsman sends them a weekly file with all cases to settle.

[Aqualibrium]

Good good.

I've got my fingers crossed for you that they stick to their word!

Good luck.