Financial ombudsman...who regulates them?
Comments
-
Sorry. don't have time to reply to individual posts.
But, I think this post sums it up:It's really no wonder that this land is in such a mess with corrupt banks that have made a fortune from trusting customers via unfair charges and PPIicon etc. And now we have the terminally useless fosicon that side with banks in the vast majority of cases.
I have found via long experience that FOS assistance (don't laugh) creates more stress than any sharks, and that is saying something.
FOS is a highly disorganised organisation that is chock full of self-righteous bank puppets that want to pay lip service to our genuine concerns. They usually come over as all knowing experts in matter relating to the CCA, but then politely inform you that they cannot possibly comment on legal issues (such as your genuine claims that your 10 year old 'agreement' with HBOSicon or Barclayshark is as valid as something the cat dragged in).
They are in place to promote the illusion of official fair play for worried consumers - but the truth is something quite different!
They are set in place to preserve the biased establishment, which is traditionally a banker paradise geared up for making huge profit out of the rest of us!
That is the reality!0 -
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 adjudicator decision is allowed to be appealed by either side. If you appeal the decision, a new adjudicator IS NOT appointed. Instead, it is referred to an Ombudsman. The ombudsman are more experienced (although usually without qualifications in the subject). Their decision is final and cannot be appealed.FOS will not uphold your complaint unless it's untenable
The figures and the FOS publications do not support your opinion.i.e. A large majority of complaints are fast-tracked in favour of the bank/business without batting an eyelid.
The FOS has no bias on either side as far as set up goes. They are slightly consumer biased in that they will frequently decide to ignore regulatory guidelines that the firms operate under. Such as the issue of certain compliance documents which contain risk warnings. A court of law would not eliminate those as easily.
Many firms complain that the FOS is biased.
Why don't you give us your FOS case reference. The case is available to read online in the public domain. So, let us independently read it and decide whether we feel you were hard done by or not?I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
OceanSound wrote: »Sorry. don't have time to reply to individual posts.
But, I think this post sums it up
It's really no wonder that this land is in such a mess with corrupt banks that have made a fortune from trusting customers via unfair charges and PPIicon etc. And now we have the terminally useless fosicon that side with banks in the vast majority of cases.
I have found via long experience that FOS assistance (don't laugh) creates more stress than any sharks, and that is saying something.
FOS is a highly disorganised organisation that is chock full of self-righteous bank puppets that want to pay lip service to our genuine concerns. They usually come over as all knowing experts in matter relating to the CCA, but then politely inform you that they cannot possibly comment on legal issues (such as your genuine claims that your 10 year old 'agreement' with HBOSicon or Barclayshark is as valid as something the cat dragged in).
They are in place to promote the illusion of official fair play for worried consumers - but the truth is something quite different!
They are set in place to preserve the biased establishment, which is traditionally a banker paradise geared up for making huge profit out of the rest of us!
That is the reality!:
OK to be brief
Bank charges ARE fair, categorically, 100% as ruled in the UK Supreme Court
The rest is the usual guff, as stated above, the majority (2/3) of PPI cases go in favour of the customer not the bank. How can that be if the FOS is puppet of the banks? There will always be try it on types who lose their case and rant on about the FOS being in hock to the banks. That is called anecdotal evidence and is invalid.0 -
OK to be brief
Bank charges ARE fair, categorically, 100% as ruled in the UK Supreme Court
Groan. You've clearly not even read the first paragraph of either the judgment or accompanying press release.
''The members of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue which we have to decide in this appeal. But many of the general public (who are understandably taking a close interest in the matter) are not so well aware of its limited scope. It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair.''
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0070-judgment.pdf
''This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair.''
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0070-press-summary.pdf0 -
Alpine_Star wrote: »Groan. You've clearly not even read the first paragraph of either the judgment or accompanying press release.
''The members of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue which we have to decide in this appeal. But many of the general public (who are understandably taking a close interest in the matter) are not so well aware of its limited scope. It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair.''
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0070-judgment.pdf
''This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair.''
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0070-press-summary.pdf
Sigh
The courts ruled that no action could be taken over "unfair charges" as part of the class action and all subsequent cases for "unfair charges" result in rejection from the bank (aside from a couple of cases which hinged on unique circumstances). After the case banks lowered all charges.
They are fair and 100% avoidable, move on and manage your finances properly0 -
The courts did not say they were fair. It never got that far as that was not the argument in question. However, they never ruled they were unfair. The banks won and that effectively put an end to it. The banks changed their charging methods in the lead up to the court case to a style that is considered fair (although ironically, many could be charged more on the new methods rather than the old). That was largely to reduce the chances of anyone wiling to spend money to challenge them again. And it worked.
So, as it stands, the charges are not unfair and the banks won the court case. Slightly different nuance to what Nasqueron is saying but the outcome is the same in respect of people making bank charge complaints. Its over.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
This is largley true. Many financial services professionals will tell you how Walter Merricks, the first Chief Ombudsman, proudly proclaimed that he was "unashamedly making new law", for which read "making it up as he goes along".OceanSound wrote: »The financial ombudsman service (FOS) is answerable to no one.
There are plenty of industry professionals who would agree regarding FOS. However, the parameters within which the Independent Assessor must work are so tight as to prevent her from addressing many of the concerns raised.OceanSound wrote: »Both are not fit for purpose.
Actually, I can find a variety of complaints where there is no evidence to support a claim but it has been upheld. I have seen cases where it was left too late for a complaint but FOS has moved the goal posts. I have seen complaints where somebody clearly lied but FOS upheld their complaint anyway.OceanSound wrote: »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.
Then, of course, if you as a consumer disagree with an ombudsman's decision, you are free to try going to court. (Free as in speech, not beer - it is likely to be expensive!).
If the business disagrees, court is not available to it.0 -
The courts ruled that no action could be taken over "unfair charges" as part of the class action
Class action? What class action? If you mean the test case SC didn't say no action could be taken.
''However, the charges might still be open to assessment by the OFT on other grounds under Regulation 5.''
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0070-press-summary.pdf
In the event OFT didn't because of budget restrictions, not that facts are your thing.0 -
The adjudicator decision is allowed to be appealed by either side. If you appeal the decision, a new adjudicator IS NOT appointed. Instead, it is referred to an Ombudsman. The ombudsman are more experienced (although usually without qualifications in the subject). Their decision is final and cannot be appealed.
I was talking about FOS service level complaints. Not the relationship (or lack of one) between the ombudsman and adjudicator. That in itself is highly disputed. Sometimes you will hear/see that Adjudicator's will often seek Ombudsman's advice when handling a complaint and that adjudicators prepare a case summary before passing a complaint to the Ombudman. Then you will read on FOS website or be told by FOS that Ombudsman will come up with a totally fresh decision, independent of the adjudicators decision.The figures and the FOS publications do not support your opinion.
My OPINION was based on the figures published on the http://www.ombudsman-complaints-data.org.uk/ website.
Latest figures, which I've also made avaialble here: http://!!!!!!/fos-resol-cases-01Jan-30Jun16
says those complaining about HSBC had an overall success rate of 49%. However, if it's an HSBC 'Banking and credit' complaint the success rate is 13%.
On the other hand, if you complaint about HSBC PPI the success rate is 61%. So you do the math. If you take PPI out of the overall picture, will that 49% go up or down?. These figures are what FOS use in their annual report. I doubt anyone challenges or scrutinize them, except the media.Many firms complain that the FOS is biased.
I think more consumers complain of bias than firms.Why don't you give us your FOS case reference. The case is available to read online in the public domain. So, let us independently read it and decide whether we feel you were hard done by or not?
Gladly, let me dig out the link and post it so you can peruse it to your hearts delight. Of course I may need to add some commentary to supplement the blatant inaccuracies present in the decision. nevertheless you should be able to figure out if the decision is sound or not. By the way, not all decision are published. Only decisions that make their way to an Ombudsman. considering many complaints are settled before that stage only a small proportion of complaints are actually published.
By the way, the adjudicator was changed in my case (I don't think it happens often). See extract from Senior Manager's email:
http://!!!!!!/fos-adj-changed0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »Actually, I can find a variety of complaints where there is no evidence to support a claim but it has been upheld. I have seen cases where it was left too late for a complaint but FOS has moved the goal posts. I have seen complaints where somebody clearly lied but FOS upheld their complaint anyway.
Did you find these cases on the http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/ website or another site?. Any chance you could post the links here. I'm curious to see them.Then, of course, if you as a consumer disagree with an ombudsman's decision, you are free to try going to court. (Free as in speech, not beer - it is likely to be expensive!).
If the business disagrees, court is not available to it.
True, option is available for customer but very seldom used. Due to costs etc.
However, within the ombudsman procedure, escalation to ombudsman is available for both (customer and business). Upon escalation, if the ombudsman overturns adjudicator decision, Ombudsman will issue a provisional decision so the business and customer has a chance to make further comments.(Of course, if more decisions are in favour of the business this feature is more useful for businesses)
However, if the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator, customer and business do not get any opportunity to make further comments. Read this while looking at the customer success rates (and the number of times ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator - around 90% of the time) and it doesn't make good reading.
Edit: BTW, when you say 'try going to court' I assume you mean take the business to court, not the Ombudsman. If you take the business to Court, the Court will not look at how the Ombudsman came up with the decision. i.e. if there is an error in how the Ombudsman arrived at the decision etc. For that you have to go for a judicial review. They are even rarer. Only one or two cases have gone against the Ombudsman....the parameters within which the Independent Assessor must work are so tight as to prevent her from addressing many of the concerns raised.
sometimes she tends to make it up as she goes along. e.g. there is no defined time limit for complaining to the IA after the ombudsman case has finished. I was not able to complaint to her "promptly" as I didn't receive the final decision. When I did complain, first I was told to complaint to an FOS manager, then when I wrote back and said I've been told by an FOS executive to complain to you, IA said "I'm too late". Anyway, now I've complained to my MP.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