Financial Ombudsman - Huge delays not related to PPI

dunstonh wrote: »

The genuine complainants are suffering because of the actions of the non-genuine ones.

As are the genuine intermediaries. Ambulance chasers are parasites

2sides2everystory wrote: »

An awful lot who claim to be "genuine" fall into the other category though, by virtue of their 'another day another dollar/wham bang thank you M'am' mentality, do they not?

Possibly - but the fact that you claim to be genuine does not mean that you are, does it? After all, every ambulance chaser claims to be genuine then persuades you that it is easier to use them. One, Key Financial Claims, actually gets you to type up the FOS form on their website and send it to them so they can put it into the post for you.

Again I'd question if they really were a decent mortgage adviser who had built a meaningful relationship, and whether if that was so, the complainant might have been first expected to pick up the phone to his trusted advisor.

I agree - but you seem to assume that advisers are not trustworthy and consumers are. No doubt that situation does arise but it also happens the other way round.

DunstonH tells of a complaint received by a mortgage adviser about a PPI policy that never existed and earlier this month I dealt with a similar complaint by a policeman.

Mortgages are not one offs they are decades long and need constant review. If mortgage advisers are attracting and accepting business routinely from punters they never really get to know or don't trust, then I'd say if you can't stand the heat ...

There are two flaws in that argument. The first is that most borrowers will choose a fixed or discounted rate at outset and, until that deal ends, they are locked into it and will suffer a penalty if they get out.

The second is that data protection regulations restrict how an adviser can offer to advise them further. For example, the adviser cannot simply ring up and ask if they would like a review. You and I may or may not think that restriction is sensible but our opinion on the matter does not change the regulations.

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Not sure what you've constructed there, magpiecottage, but the bit in bold is not mine

Mistake in what I was trying to construct - now corrected

I don't have a fixed rate or discounted mortgage and neither does my brother or indeed anyone else I know

I said "most borrowers". This is based on the files I have checked over the years - and I seldom see a borrower choose the SVR if a deal on a lower (or a fixed) rate is available.

except some friends from Europe who do, and who meet their mortgage advisers a whole lot more frequently than might ever occur in the UK.

We are not talking about Europe.

It is also the case that to see an adviser regularly you will take up his time and that needs to be paid for - apart from anything else, he needs funding do deal with fraudulent complaints against him.