RBS Reclaim Enquiry

dunstonh wrote: »

Didnt look at post 1.



No it wasnt.

For some reason, you received a payout now but that does not mean the information here was incorrect. A FOS rejection is the end of it normally.

We are only able to respond to the information you give us. Based on what you have said, the complaint ended when the FOS rejected it. That is the end of it.

Getting lucky through no action from you does not make the information incorrect.

Not sure how you can say when the FOS rejected it, it was the end of it. It clearly wasn't. And it was nothing to do with 'luck', it was to do with perseverance, and hours spent righting a wrong. Had i listened to you, i wouldn't have got a refund. Still though just goes to show that even the 'experts' can be wrong. Even in all of this correspondence, let's see if you can bring yourself to say, "hey well done, you got a win!":rotfl:

dunstonh wrote: »

Because when the FOS reject it, that is game over.
Jeez! It clearly wasn't!!


See, you are adding new information after the event. We can only respond on the information given. Nowhere in this thread did you say that you felt the decision was wrong and the reasons why you thought it was wrong. As I said, we can only go on what you say.

You should be in politics. I said it was unfair. The tone of all of your advice in this thread has been basically 'give up'. Well I didn't. How about using my example in future similar examples. You know using empirical evidence, instead of digging your heels in. :rotfl:

dunstonh wrote: »

And it still would be based on the information available.

You didnt say that you felt their decision was wrong or that you had information to counter their decision. We can only go by what is said.

If you only give us a snippet of information and hold back on info, then any discussion is going to be limited. The fact is that when the FOS say no, that is the end of the game unless the decision is based on incorrect or incomplete information. If that information is available to change the decision then they will but that is extremely rare as usually, by the time it has got to that stage, that information has been supplied.

No you are wrong, the FOS got the same information I provided from the get go. It was RBS who decided to review the initial complaint after I persevered. So it not indeed a 'fact' and it wasn't 'game over'. Also check out the arrogant tone in posting you did earlier: "Timebars exist to prevent businesses or individuals being subject to complaints/actions that would be difficult to support due to time passed. It also protects them from frivolous or try-it-on complaints. Such as having a product that you never complained about or had issues with until a website told you that you could get some money back by making a complaint."
You can't seem to accept the FACT that have gone !!!! over tit in this one. When in fact you could use this an example as to someone who fought on, and got their just reward.