Financial ombudsman...who regulates them?
Options
Comments
-
OceanSound wrote: »However, if the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator, customer and business do not get any opportunity to make further comments.
Which is correct.
If the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator, then nothing has changed since the adjudicator issued their assessment.
Since that assessment was issued, both sides have had two chances to make further comments. Once immediately after the assessment and another chance before the case was passed to an ombudsman.
There'd be no point in offering a third opportunity. That is unless the outcome of the case changes or the ombudsman is going to come a different conclusion to that of the first assessment... and in these scenarios, further opportunities for comment are given.OceanSound wrote: »If you take the business to Court, the Court will not look at how the Ombudsman came up with the decision.
Why should they? You will be going to court and having your case against the business heard by a judge.
The court isn't, and shouldn't, be there as an additional 'appeal' against a FOS decision. You had your chance with the Ombudsman. Now you can try and convince a Judge to agree with you.0 -
..If the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator, then nothing has changed since the adjudicator issued their assessment.
1) Not necessarily. Some complaints are finely balanced, and Ombudsman may overturn an adjudicator's findings. Bear in mind, adjudicators make mistakes. Ombudsman make mistakes. They are people after all. You could argue, judges make mistakes. Yes, but chances are less. Why?. Courts operate under strict rules and procedures. Ombudsman not so. Courts have a clear and well-defined (effective) appeals process. That's how come Courts don't end up with statistics like 89% of the time the upper Court agreed with the lower Courts decision.
Take for example Number of complaints to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) about s.35 of the Freedom of Information Act. 83% of cases were decided in favour of a public authority (Council, Government Agency, Ombudsman etc.). Some of those complaints ended up in the Information Tribunal. Here are the outcome figures:
Public authority decision upheld....................-15 complaints..........- 37.5%
Public authority decision partly upheld..........-13 complaints ...........- 32.5%
Public authority decision overturned........... -12 complaints .......... - 30.0%
Total......................................................... -40 complaints............ -100.0%
Nowhere do we see a figure like 89%.There'd be no point in offering a third opportunity.
you are missing the point. it's not the number of opportunities, but how effective the processes are. FOS says Ombudsman will look at the case from a fresh perspective to the adjudicator, but he/she relies on the evidence that the adjudicator collected. I'm yet to see a complaint where an ombudsman had said in his/her decision "during the ombudsman stage of the investigation I found that the adjudicator had failed to obtain a screen shot from the bank, so I obtained this by contacting the bank". Does this mean an adjudicator has never erred?
Adjudicator prepares the case before it's forwarded on to the Ombudsman, so how "freshly" is the complaint looked at by the Ombudsman?, considering there are hundreds of cases and a few Ombudsman.
If the Ombudsman was really available as a 'proper' appeal method, why do adjudicators try to convince consumers not to appeal to the Ombudsman. Because it's 'unlikely' the ombudsman will overturn the decision?, but then what happened to 'looking at the case from a fresh perspective'?
2)"Why should they? You will be going to court and having your case against the business heard by a judge."
Again, not necessarily. I was actually highlighting the point that (as it stands) taking the Business to Court is different to taking the Ombudsman to Court.
You cannot do both together on the same legal proceeding. However, when taking the business to Court, if the Court were to look at how the Ombudsman arrived at the decision it would make the FOS be more thorough. Hearsay evidence from Businesses will not be accepted. Evidence from consumers will be looked at more carefully, or indeed, looked at period.
3)"The court isn't, and shouldn't, be there as an additional 'appeal' against a FOS decision."
Due to the example quoted in (1) and reasoning given in (1) and (2), a Court or a Tribunal should be an 'additional' appeal to the FOS.
Your welcome...that's fine, no bogus/pity 'thanks' necessary or expected.0 -
OceanSound wrote: »Due to the example quoted in (1) and reasoning given in (1) and (2), a Court or a Tribunal should be an 'additional' appeal to the FOS.
And who will pay for this extra court hearing?
You have two very clear and simple options. You can go to court or you can use the ombudsman service. Even if you use the ombudsman service... you can still go to court as a consumer.
You seem to want the ombudsman service to become more like a court - you've said you want them to adopt the same evidential rules. You somehow think this will help the consumer. It'll do exactly the opposite.Adjudicator prepares the case before it's forwarded on to the Ombudsman, so how "freshly" is the complaint looked at by the Ombudsman?, considering there are hundreds of cases and a few Ombudsman.
There's a few hundred ombudsman.
All cases are looked at again. But the same approach is used - and unless either side gives any new evidence, then the same evidence will be looked at.
Ombudsmen will, and do, seek out new evidence if they think something has been missed. But usually, everything has been covered by the adjudicator.
If you're so confident that a more rigid court-like process would be better - then why don't you just... go to court?0 -
That's silly. They wouldn't call you a liar in print. By the way, if you do telephone the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), do make sure to record the call. That goes for all telephone calls really (except calling family and friends).Is all this being rude and calling you a liar in print or over the phone?
Of course, don't forget you can send in a Subject Access Request (SAR) and get all the call recordings (including the recordings between FOS and the Bank/Business). If they've called you a liar, you'll have it recorded in two places. Your own copy and the SAR copy supplied by the FOS. If they fail to supply you, you can complain to the ICO and quote your evidence. Destroying/defacing info is a serious offence. If the ICO doesn't act on it (which is highly likely because they don't have the resources), take the ICO to court for failing to act.
Just one person needs to do it. The press will have a field day. Enough said.0 -
About post #30, Here is the link to the fos decision as promised:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=57007
Here is the SWIFT message hsbc received from the recipient bank which HSBC didn't tell me about until they issued the final response. (Some two months after they received the SWIFT message)
The beneficiary bank told HSBC they were able to trace the payment and credit the beneficiary's account. However, they had credited one of the beneficiary's disused accounts. After the FOS sent me the SWIFT message, I was able to send a copy of the swift message to the beneficiary, and they refunded the money.
It was my fault for entering the SWIFT code where the account number should have been entered. However, I felt HSBC could have done better conveying the SWIFT message to me swiftly (excuse the pun). Also, considering HSBC has one of the best internet banking websites, the international transfer's section is not so good. Just think, I was able to enter alpha-numeric characters where only numbers should have been accepted.
I think they've revamped the website, don't know if the international money transfer section was also revamped. Anyway, be warned.
It took months (over 6 months) to contact both banks, go through ombudsman, contact beneficiary and get the refund. Be very careful when entering account numbers, sort/BIC codes, SWIFT codes.0 -
I don't see anything wrong with that decision. I mean no offence, but it sounds like you're latching on to a related but not causative mistake made by the bank (giving you some wrong info when the money had already gone), but ultimately you made an error in sending the money twice. If the beneficiary was dishonest then that's not your fault, but it's not the bank's either.
I understand your point that the website shouldn't allow you to make a (clear) mistake. Certainly it would be helpful if banking websites flagged up an obvious payment error. I think it would be quite easy (and is probably already in place) with domestic payments as sort codes and account numbers can be checked for validity. International payments however, are a minefield as different countries have different ways of identifying accounts. More work probably needs to be done in this area, but it's not a requirement.0 -
I don't see anything wrong with that decision. I mean no offence, but it sounds like you're latching on to a related but not causative mistake made by the bank (giving you some wrong info when the money had already gone), but ultimately you made an error in sending the money twice. If the beneficiary was dishonest then that's not your fault, but it's not the bank's either.
I understand your point that the website shouldn't allow you to make a (clear) mistake. Certainly it would be helpful if banking websites flagged up an obvious payment error. I think it would be quite easy (and is probably already in place) with domestic payments as sort codes and account numbers can be checked for validity. International payments however, are a minefield as different countries have different ways of identifying accounts. More work probably needs to be done in this area, but it's not a requirement.
Actually, my issue is not all to do with the FOS decision (at least not on this one). Although, I think the Ombudsman ought to have acknowledged that HSBC could have relayed the SWIFT message sooner. After all, they did receive an immediate response from the beneficiary bank.
The FOS decision just says:HSBC correctly told Mr R the SWIFT message it had received from the beneficiary’s bank: namely, that the beneficiary bank had received the money, and had been able to credit it to the beneficiary’s account. In its response HSBC quoted a different reference from the code Mr R actually used. I can see that this, and the minor delay, was frustrating for Mr R.
Just mentions an incorrect reference number HSBC had quoted. Ombudsman is thereby side-stepping any admission that HSBC took too long to convey the SWIFT message to me. See how the Ombudsman operates. Smoke and mirrors. Actually, what may seem like a minor delay to the FOS - I was nearly evicted from my apartment, because the landlord hand't received the payment on time (this is how come I made a second payment - to avoid eviction). So little bit pretentious to talk about "minor delays".
If you read through all my posts, you will see my issue is mainly to do with the service offered by HSBC, FOS and the IA. Not the legal implications arising from the international money transfer. Just putting the word-out or giving a heads-up on that front.International payments however, are a minefield as different countries have different ways of identifying accounts.
Australia (which is where I made the payment to) dosen't use sort-codes, they use something similar called, Bank State Branch (BSB) code. I did provide this. However, in "The beneficiary IBAN / Account number is:" field I put "NATAAU3303M", which was the SWIFT code.
The australian bank managed to trace the Business, presumably because they had the SWIFT code, and BSB code. However, the business had more than one current account. Aus bank must have transferred it to the first one they came across, rather than look at which account was the 'active account'.
Different countries use different Codes. E.g. Australia does not use IBAN. HSBC asks for IBAN/account number, and because the IBAN contains alpha-numberic characters, HSBC couldn't check if I entered a 'valid' numbers only account number.
Just an idea, how about recognizing that AUS does not use IBAN, then presenting a field to enter a numbers only "account Number". if not for keeping a legal obligation, how about doing it for smoother service/banking experience.
Edit: New HSBC website only asks for BSB Code and Account number. Don't know if it checks for a numbers only account number.0 -
[Dear OceanSound, thankyou for your honest factul comments against the fos and IA.
They have refused to provide accessibility and have slammed the phone down for 3, years on a disabled service user who several learning disabilities and struggles to read and write.They said she has to go to an advocate. When Bolton Council has said they would provide one for the last 10 yrs.She is still waiting and Bolton Council have refused and also said.That if she cannot read why does she want paper copies.QUOTE=OceanSound;71526940]The financial ombudsman service (FOS) is answerable to no one. The independent assessor (IA) service is a sham. My complaint about an international money transfer going awry was totally messed-up by FOS. The adjudicator quite blatantly sided with the bank before seeing any evidence, didn't keep me updated on the case, and often spoke over me when I tried to explain the details. A complaint to his Manager, didn't solve anything. However, the senior manager, overuled her and decided to change the adjudicator.
The new adjudicator was no better. Kept missing deadlines, not respecting my communication needs etc. As I had already complained to the senior manager about the previous adjudicator, the executive overseeing the complaint advised me to contact the IA. I did, IA told me to get back to her after the ombudsman decision. I waited patiently for 1 year for the decision, nothing. I then contacted adjudicator 2 via email for an update. She said "it appears you have not received [the decision]" and sent a copy as an attachment.
When I contacted the IA to follow-up + to complaint about their sending the decision by post (to my previous address), the IA first told me to contact the FOS Manager. Then when I sent her proof of the FOS executive's email telling me to contact the IA, they said I had not contacted them promptly once the decision was issued. However, IA failed to take note that FOS failed to send the decision to my correct address or send it via email as per my instruction.
Both the FOS and IA are highly inconsistent, incompetent, inefficient and a total waste. Both are not fit for purpose. FOS will not uphold your complaint unless it's untenable. i.e. A large majority of complaints are fast-tracked in favour of the bank/business without batting an eyelid.
Don't despair, share your experience, write/talk to your MP, sign petitions. Won't be long before a majority will know who the FOS is, then we will see some real action.[/QUOTE]0 -
I am baffled as to how the financial ombudsman has not come under the microscope because to me they are definately not on the side of the consumer. Id a case against myjar payday lender and for £!5 they reversed the decision to favour my jar, when i appealed and included CSA payments of £288 i hadnt included they simple ignored it and stuck to previous decision. This is not just sour grapes on my part anyone looking trust pilot for reviews will see how badly the financial ombudsman is rated by the public.0
-
MartinisTHEWAY wrote: »This is not just sour grapes on my part anyone looking trust pilot for reviews will see how badly the financial ombudsman is rated by the public.
I'm not sure that Trust Pilot has ever been used by a sane person as a gauge for a business' performance.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards