Financial Ombudsman-please help!

Milarky

It's not just the funding model for the FOS we need to be concerned about though - their Regulator is being accused of being deeply conflicted over its duty to the consumer.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5372618.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/richardfletcher/3852899/FSAs-lecture-to-consumers-should-start-with-reminder-of-its-own-duties.html

(Self-regulation (cup of tea and a quiet chat) that's the British way... These attitudes are worthy of old Empire!)

dunstonh

The FSA is different to the FOS though. It is not uncommon for the FSA and FOS to disagree or at least have different opinions on these things. That is something that comes into play with advice cases sometimes. The FSA say they want the recommendation report to be short and focus on the recommendation with key points. The FOS on the other hand expect the suitability report to contain risk warnings and reasons why not other things were considered. The general view being that if it isnt documented, it didnt happen.

Recently, the FSA was accused of spending too much time on financial advisers where there isnt much of a problem nowadays (historically yes, but not so much now) and not focusing on the real problems that can result in massive losses. The FSA have admitted this to some extent by confirming that they believe that IFAs pay too much in levies for the level of issues they create and the cost of sorting out. Looking back, the only real decent thing the FSA has done at adviser/consumer level is to introduce the mortgage KFI. The rest of it is muddling, confusing and expensive with no real benefit to anyone.

dougz_2

I have found the FOS very heavily biased against the consumer when dealing with a complaint. They were most unhelpful and discouraging from the start, and then ruled in the firms favor despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Only after we employed a solicitor did they suddenly do a U-turn and upheld the complaint, and even then they refused to award the full minimum compensation in line with the very clear FSA guidelines, and would give no reason for that decision.

I was left with the impression that the secret purpose of the FOS' existance is to save the financial firms money, primarily by avoiding them the costs of a proper court case.

dunstonh

I was left with the impression that the secret purpose of the FOS' existance is to save the financial firms money, primarily by avoiding them the costs of a proper court case.

Many firms have said they would prefer court. The awards would be less and there would be more requirements on the consumer. There would also be less try-it-on complaints as well.

Mrs_Ryan

The FOS will still take on the case where compensation has already been awarded - they did with me.

I complained to A&L and their response (even in the words of the FOS) was completely unacceptable - they had already given me £30 compensation, and I complained to the FOS who upheld the complaint and I got £50 compensation. But, however, a word of warning - I had clear cut evidence A&L had messed up, including filing false information on my credit file which prevented me taking my business elsewhere. Since the decision, they have since just threatened me with my account being barred because I went overdrawn through no fault of my own - I believe this is a direct consequence of the complaint, so be careful with them.

Organic12

I have finally settled with A&L via the FOS.

The FOS did find in my favour and awarded me further compensation. The FOS were willing to consider further details of my case but to increase the compensation further still, quite fairly, required documentation from me. These I do not easily have to hand and would require some digging around.

Having taken from September 2008 to May 2009, I decided this palava had taken up enough of my energy and to settle.

IMHO the FOS did deal with me fairly. However, it was quite apparent that my letters were not always read properly, which I found frustrating. For example, they thought I was pursuing for the entire loss, though I had already expressly stated otherwise in my letters. When I pointed such errors out, they were good enough to apologise.

Even after all this time, A&L have failed to answer all my concerns, choosing instead to answer the more simple ones. The FOS did not ask A&L why this was, which I guess would have been something for an obudsman not an ajudicator to investigate.

Anyhow, life is too short and other (more fruitful) matters are demanding my attention, so I signed the settlement. I really did not think any further compensation would make up for the additional time and effort involved.

An enormous thank you to everyone who has taken the time to post, I really appreciate it. For those who need to approach the FOS in the future, the one thing I learned, regardless of the frustrations, was that being utterly charming on the phone pays hugely! For those with cases still outstanding, I wish you the very best luck.:beer:

JoKay_2

Glad things have finally be resolved!!

Sol00

Well done.