Financial Fight Back Guide discussion

mo_rag

Deleted_User said:

oh dear

Resolver is a third party that mines your data to sell onto third parties after anonymising it, it absolutely could be the cause, always complain directly, never use third parties

FOS decisions are based on case precedents and their staff judge cases based on merits. Of course people who complained about PPI they never had because they thought they would get loads of free money will bad mouth the FOS, that is the nature of a review system. If you were not miss-sold or your complaint was time barred and you thought you were getting a free beach holiday, giving a bad review is boringly predictable

They don't need to publish every decision, it would take forever and loads of them are the same

FOS don't erode anything, once your complaint is made that stops the clock ticking on any time bar laws

Although you might be correct about Resolver (I'll wait to hear what MSE themselves have to say about that) I'm afraid you are very wrong about the rest. I also would have recommended complaining to the FOS directly, but now that it is in via Resolver, there is a real risk of duplication if that route is followed now, and the FOS is extremely prickly about such things. Please bear in mind that the FOS is extremely lacking in transparency about the rules that ombudsmen follow, so a procedural complaint is virtually impossible, and there are thousands of decisions where the ombudsman quite proudly states they are not subject to any law or precedent, and says "every case is different" without explaining why two decisions which match in every material respect somehow get a very different decision. The first chief ombudsman, Walter Merrick, actually proudly stated "we unashamedly make new law".

You are absolutely wrong that "FOS decisions are based on case precedents". Your comment about people badmouthing because they didn't get "free money" for their PPI is sadly misled - The FOS published uphold rate for non-PPI complaints is only 40% - but when you start reading those, you find that many really aren't truly "upheld" complaints, maybe we could call them "barely upheld" or "nominally upheld." The FOS did publish statistics for their uphold rates for non-published complaints at one time, but they've now removed that nod to transparency from their site.

Your comment "They don't need to publish every decision, it would take forever and loads of them are the same" is also ill-founded, even the FOS doesn't claim that. You'll find they publish a huge amount of similar complaints.

And, finally, your comment "FOS don't erode anything, once your complaint is made that stops the clock ticking on any time bar laws" is also ill-founded. If the FOS takes two years looking at your case, that's two of your six years (or three in some cases) eroded, and you'll have to get a move-on if you want to go to court. If you waited four years to go to the FOS, and they use up two years, that's your time gone. If you don't agree, please provide some sort of reference! I would be very happy to be proved wrong.

I'm not picking a fight, but I do want to counter the general impression the FOS universally acts to provide any kind of consumer protection. It's just not true.

mo_rag

We unashamedly make new law: moneymarketing co uk website, /opinion/who-holds-the-fos-to-account/

Thrugelmir

mo_rag said:

slopemaster said:

Hello, could anyone tell me please whether I can expect an acknowledgement from FOS?

I sent my complaint in a wek ago via Resolver but haven't had an acknowledgement so I don't know if it's been received....

These days i would expect most organisations to send either an instant autoreply, or an acknowledgement within 24 hours

I'm wondering whether I should resubmit it direct to FOS

Have a look at Trustpilot for more stories of misery caused by the FOS: [trustpilot website] review/www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk. A rating of 90% bad is hardly to be proud of - especially when you understand that a number of the most negative complaints are given 5 stars in the hope of being read, and one can't give less than 1 star!

To state the obvious. Any complaint that isn't upheld is likely to considered in a negative light by the beholder. Levels of understanding of finance, law etc are progressively deteriorating. In addition to which compensation is almost expected as a right. Makes you wonder how many people are actually good at their own jobs!  

mo_rag

Thrugelmir said:

mo_rag said:

Have a look at Trustpilot for more stories of misery caused by the FOS: [trustpilot website] review/www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk. A rating of 90% bad is hardly to be proud of - especially when you understand that a number of the most negative complaints are given 5 stars in the hope of being read, and one can't give less than 1 star!

To state the obvious. Any complaint that isn't upheld is likely to considered in a negative light by the beholder. Levels of understanding of finance, law etc are progressively deteriorating. In addition to which compensation is almost expected as a right. Makes you wonder how many people are actually good at their own jobs!  

 As you say, you're stating the obvious. Here's something else that should be obvious. It is pretty rare to have a 90% negative reputation, even taking that into account. Further, the statistics produced by the FOS are slanted, because as I've explained, and as is obvious from looking at the FOS' own published decisions, "uphold" doesn't mean "upheld". They explain that if a complaint is upheld in any part, however small and meaningless to the complainant, they class that as an "uphold". That's not what any reasonable person would conclude. 

And, here's something else that should be obvious - it's far too easy to blame the victim, and assume they are just complaining or stupid. Even the independent review of the FOS made clear it's far too easy for FOS investigators to just find against the consumer than to take on a powerful financial organization or deal with difficult topics.

Makes you wonder how many people have any compassion anymore.

[Deleted User]

mo_rag said:

Deleted_User said:

oh dear

Resolver is a third party that mines your data to sell onto third parties after anonymising it, it absolutely could be the cause, always complain directly, never use third parties

FOS decisions are based on case precedents and their staff judge cases based on merits. Of course people who complained about PPI they never had because they thought they would get loads of free money will bad mouth the FOS, that is the nature of a review system. If you were not miss-sold or your complaint was time barred and you thought you were getting a free beach holiday, giving a bad review is boringly predictable

They don't need to publish every decision, it would take forever and loads of them are the same

FOS don't erode anything, once your complaint is made that stops the clock ticking on any time bar laws

Although you might be correct about Resolver (I'll wait to hear what MSE themselves have to say about that) I'm afraid you are very wrong about the rest. I also would have recommended complaining to the FOS directly, but now that it is in via Resolver, there is a real risk of duplication if that route is followed now, and the FOS is extremely prickly about such things. Please bear in mind that the FOS is extremely lacking in transparency about the rules that ombudsmen follow, so a procedural complaint is virtually impossible, and there are thousands of decisions where the ombudsman quite proudly states they are not subject to any law or precedent, and says "every case is different" without explaining why two decisions which match in every material respect somehow get a very different decision. The first chief ombudsman, Walter Merrick, actually proudly stated "we unashamedly make new law".

You are absolutely wrong that "FOS decisions are based on case precedents". Your comment about people badmouthing because they didn't get "free money" for their PPI is sadly misled - The FOS published uphold rate for non-PPI complaints is only 40% - but when you start reading those, you find that many really aren't truly "upheld" complaints, maybe we could call them "barely upheld" or "nominally upheld." The FOS did publish statistics for their uphold rates for non-published complaints at one time, but they've now removed that nod to transparency from their site.

Your comment "They don't need to publish every decision, it would take forever and loads of them are the same" is also ill-founded, even the FOS doesn't claim that. You'll find they publish a huge amount of similar complaints.

And, finally, your comment "FOS don't erode anything, once your complaint is made that stops the clock ticking on any time bar laws" is also ill-founded. If the FOS takes two years looking at your case, that's two of your six years (or three in some cases) eroded, and you'll have to get a move-on if you want to go to court. If you waited four years to go to the FOS, and they use up two years, that's your time gone. If you don't agree, please provide some sort of reference! I would be very happy to be proved wrong.

I'm not picking a fight, but I do want to counter the general impression the FOS universally acts to provide any kind of consumer protection. It's just not true.

You definitely don't understand the process and the idea of taking some financial organisation to court to fight a claim after the independent FOS at adjudicator and ombudsman level have rejected it is daft. You have started the complaints process already, going to court after losing at the FOS isn't going to go well.

"If you waited four years to go to the FOS, and they use up two years, that's your time gone"

So you're blaming the FOS because you didn't complain for 4 years?  Now I have heard everything

The FOS is an independent, consumer biased, organisation. Just because they don't give everyone 100% refunds in their decisions doesn't make them wrong. Did you ever consider the fact that given 60% of complaints are not upheld and given that of the ones upheld, some people are not entitled to whatever they were claiming, it might just be because the FOS is correct and it's consumers who thought they were getting free money that might be wrong?

Example - someone complains about a PBA 7 years after they opened it and after the 3 year clock is ticking after the bank sent CCLs out every year. Complaint is time barred. Refer to FOS, FOS rejects it as time barred. Is that the fault of the FOS for correctly rejecting a complaint or the consumer for seeing the £££ in every MSE email and thinking they were entitled to a windfall?