Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Catpuss66
    • By Catpuss66 16th Jul 15, 1:03 AM
    • 36Posts
    • 33Thanks
    Catpuss66
    Financial ombudsman...who regulates them?
    • #1
    • 16th Jul 15, 1:03 AM
    Financial ombudsman...who regulates them? 16th Jul 15 at 1:03 AM
    Ok cut a long story short, tried to reclaim packaged bank account unsuccessful,( after seeing it on the site) but the process of using the financial ombudsman service, they were rude , called me a liar, very stressful. Made complaint x2 about the service which they agreed that their service was well below the standard they expected and offered me a bunch of flowers or money which I politely declined. Who regulates this service who are they answerable too or is it just self regulation (which means they can do what they want) would Martin get involved ? Any thoughts? anybody had similar experiences?
Page 2
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 29th Oct 16, 10:50 AM
    • 4,179 Posts
    • 2,322 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    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.
    Originally posted by OceanSound
    The majority of cases with PPI, for example, are upheld against the banks

    The FOS is laughable consumer biased, as above, refusing to call the complainer a liar even when their evidence is so obviously false (like people who don't have PPI and yet send off a ream of complaints about how they were forced to take out PPI etc)

    Look at the actual FOS decisions in favour of consumers over banks, quote them on here then apologise

    1.6m complaints in 2015-16
    75% of people rated the FOS positively and 57% of people who LOST at the FOS still rated them positively

    2015-16

    66% of PPI complaints were upheld, an average 51% were upheld

    Only 14% of complaints about packaged accounts were upheld - given the PPI uphold rate, do you not think even for a second that it might be that the account complaints are simply bandwagon jumpers?

    http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/annual-review-2016/ar16.pdf
    • OceanSound
    • By OceanSound 29th Oct 16, 11:59 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    OceanSound
    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!
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 29th Oct 16, 12:03 PM
    • 88,341 Posts
    • 53,558 Thanks
    dunstonh
    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). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 29th Oct 16, 12:47 PM
    • 4,179 Posts
    • 2,322 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    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!:
    Originally posted by OceanSound
    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.
    • Alpine Star
    • By Alpine Star 31st Oct 16, 5:09 AM
    • 1,243 Posts
    • 604 Thanks
    Alpine Star
    OK to be brief

    Bank charges ARE fair, categorically, 100% as ruled in the UK Supreme Court
    Originally posted by Nasqueron

    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
    Last edited by Alpine Star; 31-10-2016 at 5:22 AM.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 31st Oct 16, 9:09 AM
    • 4,179 Posts
    • 2,322 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    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
    Originally posted by Alpine Star
    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 properly
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 31st Oct 16, 10:48 AM
    • 88,341 Posts
    • 53,558 Thanks
    dunstonh
    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). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 31st Oct 16, 2:50 PM
    • 9,129 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    The financial ombudsman service (FOS) is answerable to no one.
    Originally posted by OceanSound
    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".

    Both are not fit for purpose.
    Originally posted by OceanSound
    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.



    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.
    Originally posted by OceanSound
    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.

    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.
    • Alpine Star
    • By Alpine Star 31st Oct 16, 6:40 PM
    • 1,243 Posts
    • 604 Thanks
    Alpine Star
    The courts ruled that no action could be taken over "unfair charges" as part of the class action
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    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.
    • OceanSound
    • By OceanSound 12th Nov 16, 6:20 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    OceanSound
    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.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    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://bit.ly/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://bit.ly/fos-adj-changed
    Last edited by OceanSound; 12-11-2016 at 8:12 AM.
    • OceanSound
    • By OceanSound 12th Nov 16, 7:46 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    OceanSound
    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.
    Originally posted by magpiecottage
    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.
    Last edited by OceanSound; 12-11-2016 at 8:31 AM. Reason: typos, added 'edit' part
    • WatchMan
    • By WatchMan 12th Nov 16, 12:24 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    WatchMan
    However, if the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator, customer and business do not get any opportunity to make further comments.
    Originally posted by OceanSound
    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.

    If you take the business to Court, the Court will not look at how the Ombudsman came up with the decision.
    Originally posted by OceanSound
    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.
    Last edited by WatchMan; 12-11-2016 at 12:28 PM.
    • OceanSound
    • By OceanSound 13th Nov 16, 6:46 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    OceanSound
    ..If the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator, then nothing has changed since the adjudicator issued their assessment.
    Originally posted by WatchMan
    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.
    • WatchMan
    • By WatchMan 13th Nov 16, 2:11 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    WatchMan
    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.
    Originally posted by OceanSound
    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?
    • OceanSound
    • By OceanSound 18th Mar 17, 3:45 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    OceanSound
    Is all this being rude and calling you a liar in print or over the phone?
    Originally posted by -taff
    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).

    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.
    • OceanSound
    • By OceanSound 18th Mar 17, 6:51 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    OceanSound
    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.
    Last edited by OceanSound; 18-03-2017 at 7:55 AM.
    • Agricolae
    • By Agricolae 19th Mar 17, 5:31 AM
    • 362 Posts
    • 189 Thanks
    Agricolae
    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.
    • OceanSound
    • By OceanSound 20th Mar 17, 3:52 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    OceanSound
    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.
    Originally posted by Agricolae
    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.
    Last edited by OceanSound; 20-03-2017 at 4:12 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

118Posts Today

1,865Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin