Anyone dealt with Financial Ombudsman??

Organic12

I’m looking for some advice in dealing with the Financial Ombudsman following A&L messing up a Chaps payment from my current account.

After A&L messed up, I wrote a letter of complaint to them. All this happened at the end of September 2008. As they were unable to provide me a final response within the eight weeks, I filled in the form for the Financial Ombudsman. A&L’s letter to me clearly stated they had passed the eight week period and I was within my rights to go to the Ombudsman.

I came home tonight to find a letter of reply from the Ombudsman. It says that I have to give the business concerned a chance to put things right first, that they have forwarded my letter to A&L and I should give them eight weeks. The Ombudsman has returned the form and the copy of my letter to A&L.

I am hopping mad :mad: :mad: :mad: . As well as A&L being idiots, the person at the Financial Ombudsman has ignored the details on my form stating I had raised the complaint on 26th September with A&L and also not bothered looking at the copy of the letter I had enclosed, which of course is dated.

I cannot believe anyone seriously looking the five pages (four comprising the Ombudsman’s form) I sent could have missed the blindly obvious but for being lazy and not bothering to do their job.

Has anyone dealt with the Ombudsman?? Are they just a bunch of muppets, potentially worse than those at A&L? I have a mind to phone them tomorrow but know I will find it extremely hard to keep calm.

Coincidently, A&L gave me their final response only yesterday. I am still dissatisfied as they have not bothered to answer some of the more serious points I raised, have put a spin on what happened that would impress Mandelson and nor have they bothered to actually say sorry.

I was drafting a letter to forward to the Ombudsman today explaining why I’m unhappy with A&L’s response. However, receiving the Ombudsman’s letter today suggests I’ll have to do some redrafting as it’s all just too grown up for them.

Sorry for the long post and my thanks in advance to anyone with any advice. I need my sanity back please, life is just too short!!!

honeypop

As far as I'm aware they do have to let A&L know that you've now gone to the financial ombudsman and give them another chance to respond now it's gone that far, regardless of the fact you gave them a chance to respond previously.

I dealt with the FO when I had problems with Halifax, and it was very long winded and drawn out, however it went the right way in the end. In total it took them about 4-5 months going back and forth between me and the Halifax.

Have patience with them, they have procedures they have to follow and it takes time. Their website says they aim to settle disputes within 6-9 months, so be prepared for a wait.

vivatifosi

My dealings with the FO took over a year! It moves very slowly and you can end up dealing with several people. Sometimes those people don't work for the FO as they subcontract out - even more confusing... So stick with it and you should get there in the end. If A&L have behaved like the muppets that you say the have then I'm sure they'll come through for you.

codger

Organic12 wrote: »

. . . After A&L messed up, I wrote a letter of complaint to them. All this happened at the end of September 2008. As they were unable to provide me a final response within the eight weeks, I filled in the form for the Financial Ombudsman. A&L’s letter to me clearly stated they had passed the eight week period and I was within my rights to go to the Ombudsman. . . .

I came home tonight to find a letter of reply from the Ombudsman. It says that I have to give the business concerned a chance to put things right first, that they have forwarded my letter to A&L and I should give them eight weeks. The Ombudsman has returned the form and the copy of my letter to A&L.

I am hopping mad :mad: :mad: :mad: . As well as A&L being idiots, the person at the Financial Ombudsman has ignored the details on my form stating I had raised the complaint on 26th September with A&L and also not bothered looking at the copy of the letter I had enclosed, which of course is dated.

I cannot believe anyone seriously looking the five pages (four comprising the Ombudsman’s form) I sent could have missed the blindly obvious but for being lazy and not bothering to do their job. . .

Organic:


Your experience is not unique.


We recently received an "adjudication" from the FOS that appeared to have been authored by someone who had either not bothered to read the original complaint or to whom English is a seventh language.


The 'adjudication' answered questions which were never asked and ignored questions which were. It raised issues not remotely connected with the complaint and ignored those that were. Having established a premise of the most bizarre falsity, it thus inevitably proceeded to a conclusion of almost comic irrelevance.


The procedures we have followed so far are always best stuck to when dealing with the FOS, albeit unlike you, we were fortunate enough to be in the position to allow the financial services provider we're in dispute with to go off and investigate itself, as required by the FOS.


The financial services provider, after due consideration, acquitted itself on all counts. As it was bound to do.


So having let justice run its course, we complained to the FOS.


The FOS procedure is that a complaint is investigated, the evidence from all parties is carefully considered, and an 'adjudication' is issued.


But the complainant is not bound to accept the adjudication.


As is the case where we're concerned, and an adjudication of well-nigh complete disconnection from reality (by way of illustration, had our complaint been about an umpire's call in a cricket match, the 'adjudication' we have received is in the form of an expression of sympathy with our point of view, an admission that, unfortunately, the FOS cannot do anything about the Football Association, or the width of goal posts, and finally, a statement that our complaint cannot be upheld because whenever it gets dark, flood-lights must be switched on otherwise no-one can see the ball.)


Users of the FOS who unexpectedly discover that its office contains a door to the realm of The Mad Hatter have two recourses, one of them procedural, one of them not.


The procedural route is to dispute an adjudication, refer it back to the adjudicator for his / her reassessment with new, additional evidence, and ask that the complaint be then passed on to an actual 'Ombudsman' (as distinct from an 'adjudicator').


The non-procedural route, which we took, is to take an adjudication apart line-by-line and send it back together with the original complaint, saying that the standard of work is so demonstrably unacceptable as to render the FOS's findings meaningless.


We didn't include any further evidence: the original complaint embodied all the facts, and it's the quality of the FOS's judgment that's at issue anyway, not some new development or other.


As to to the latest state of play, well: all credit to the Financial Ombudsman Service.


It has promptly acknowledged receipt of our letter and confirmed that it is looking into our complaint again -- by whom, I don't know, because that to us is of lesser importance than getting the original 'adjudication' set aside and a fresh start made.


We now await developments.


We haven't telephoned FOS because a verbal exchange isn't worth the paper it's written on (as Goldwyn once said) and because anything relating to our own particular issue needs to be evidential, and therefore in document form.
I'd suggest you desist from reaching for the phone, too.


As to asking, in effect, the FOS to set aside its own 'adjudication', then you must approach things forensically. Though it takes time to demonstrate, beyond any prospect of misapprehension, what the flaws are and where they are, it's vital to do so otherwise you'll have failed to establish just how an adjudication is perverse, and so will very likely not get much further.


As everything you write is for the record, it's essential to be polite.

But it's also essential to be firm: the FOS needs to appreciate that it isn't dealing with an idiot, even if it seems your original complaint was indeed considered by someone at the FOS who wears either a top hat or a tea-pot on his / her head.


Good luck.

debtfreein4years

they were an absolute nightmare when i lodged a complaint against abbey earlier this year and then they ruled in abbeys favour????

wont go into details but wouldnt touch the financial ombudsmen with a barge pole again after my experience, would go the solicitor route and take abbey straight to court.

Organic12

Thank you sooooo much for posting everyone:beer:

So, banks get at least sixteen weeks to respond?? That's not very clearly explained in the literature then is it really! It's true though that it can take months so I shall indeed be patient and try not to loose my temper. As mentioned, hopefully they'll agree with me.

From what Codger says, there must be two levels of hierarchy? That initial response sounds utter rubbish and must be extremely frustrating. I wish you well with the outcome.

I rang the FOS on Friday and the lady I spoke to immediately offered to take my case and apologised. I faxed all the original documents over and she has confirmed receipt and that she has all that is required. I also included A&L's latest response together with my break down of why I deem it unacceptable.

I await a response and will post to let everyone know. Interestingly I had lunch with a friend today and she too had a poor experience of FOS and now thinks she completely wasted her time with them.

Does anyone know how the FOS is funded please?

A huge thank you to everyone. Really good to know I'm not alone.

codger

Whoops! Just found this info on the FOS website:


Future funding of the Financial Ombudsman Service





FSA/PN044/2006
3 May 2006
The Financial Services Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service today outline, in a joint Discussion Paper, possible options for the future funding of the ombudsman service’s compulsory jurisdiction.

Currently more than 70% of the ombudsman service’s funding comes from the fees which it charges firms for considering complaints (usually £360 – the first two cases per firm per year not being charged for). The remaining funding comes from annual fees payable by all firms, calculated according to their role in the different industry sectors they are involved in.

FSA Director of Retail Themes Vernon Everitt said:

"This is a sensible point at which to have a discussion around funding the ombudsman service since we can look at it in parallel with the exercise already underway to review the funding of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. We have an open mind on the outcome and look forward to hearing the views of all concerned."

The Chief Ombudsman Walter Merricks said:

"The way in which the costs of the ombudsman service are divided amongst financial firms is a subject close to the heart of many in the industry. The "two free cases" concept that we introduced for firms two years ago - in recognition of the fact that 95% of firms have fewer than three disputes referred to the ombudsman each year - has been warmly welcomed, especially by smaller firms. We now look forward to hearing more ideas and feedback on other possible funding options - as part of a broader debate on how firms should pay for the ombudsman service."

Not sure what the present state of play is.

But how nice to see the FOS being so thoughtful to financial service providers.

I didn't see any mention of how thoughtful this wondrously impartial agency is supposed to be towards consumers, but maybe I missed that bit.

ohmsoft

Heres a link to the FOS factsheet on funding

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/QG1.pdf

Here is a link to the Cheif Ombudsman's views on funding in their news letter

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/54/54.htm

I don't work for the FOS but have worked with them in the past and know that funding is a major issue. A levy on firms with no case fee could cause some firms to allow all cases to be presented to the FOS rather than be dealt with fairly. Case Fee only would mean that some firms would be tempted to 'settle' complaints before they get to the FOS which could be unfair on other customers.

Another option would be to charge the consumer if the case is lost - this would appear to be (and in my view) out of the question. Although some firms would argue that this would be the fairest option with the point, why should they pay a fee if they've done nothing wrong (as does often happen).

codger

Thanks ohmsoft.

Of course, quite why an agency engaged in consumer protection should be in any ways funded by parties which consumers are seeking protection from defies all reason.

The Financial Ombudsman Service should be taxpayer funded and a division of central Government.

That it isn't says all there is to say about the "absence of proper financial regulation" which so many have had so much cause to bemoan in recent times.

ohmsoft

codger wrote: »

Thanks ohmsoft.

Of course, quite why an agency engaged in consumer protection should be in any ways funded by parties which consumers are seeking protection from defies all reason.

The Financial Ombudsman Service should be taxpayer funded and a division of central Government.

That it isn't says all there is to say about the "absence of proper financial regulation" which so many have had so much cause to bemoan in recent times.

I do take that point and I left tax out as it's a complex point of funding - but in effect the Ombudsman is appointed by Treasury so some funds and the ultimate buck does stop with the tax payer.

I would say however, it is important to note that the FOS is about independant arbitration and are often incorrectly seen as a consumer protection body. Surely the case fee acts as a deterent to the Firms? Encorages them to get things right first time and try to prevent complaints getting that far by handling them fairly?

The FOS aren't going to be biased towards who pays their fees - they are a not for profit company and as confirmed above overseen by the Treasury.

codger

Thanks for the info, ohmsoft; I can see why the funding situation is complex (though there's a simple way of removing that complexity.);)

I can also see why the notion of financial service product providers acting fairly and responsibly from the get-go so as not to incur FOC charges is of theoretical appeal.

In practice, the sheer scale of maladministration and misconduct in so much of the UK financial sector of late, as well as the profits arising therefrom, perhaps tend to indicate that the prospect of an FOC on-cost, or even an unfavourable FOC finding, has done nothing to discourage such conduct, nor is likely to.