FOS rewards the mis-selling wrong-doers etc.

Garry_Anderson

This is to continue the thread that got hi-jacked (sorry Limpecunious).

As we know - the FOS only puts the people in situation they would be had they not been mis-sold endowment - the FOS let the crooks keep all the profits from the crime - money they used to pay their wages, commision etc.

The FOS are part of the cover-up i.e. it is not access to justice - merely mediation for criminal actions.

Nobody has yet explained how this analysis is wrong.

Astaroth

You are talking about the difference in roles between the FSA and the FOS.

The FOS is there as remedial action on behalf of private customers of regulated companies. They are intended to make sure the company has acted fairly and enforce repayment to customers where they have not been. In addition to this the company the complaint is made about is forced to pay a fix admin fee (typically £250-750 depending on a number of criteria) irrespective if the FOS finds in favour of the customer or the company (which I think is unfair)

The FSA are the ones with the power to fine/ suspend/ shut down companies where there are whole scale problems and not individual cases.

The 2 agencies obviously work closely together (the FOS gets its authority from the FSA after all) but there roles are distinct and seperate.

nadnad

conspiracy theorise much? :rolleyes:

edited - wasnt meant to have garry's post in there sorry.

homer_j_3

Garry,

Sorry if you answered this already but what do you think would have happened if the FOS did not exist?

MortgageMamma

yes definately. another newbie moneysaver created in may to stimluate debate, yet only suspicion is stimulated

nadnad

so many newbies in may - so many with sub prime lender problems.......... and Emma and friends can help them all............... :rolleyes2

dreamylittledream

nadnad wrote:

conspiracy theorise much? :rolleyes:

I'd be careful rattling Garry's cage with the conspiracy theoriest tag - so far I've been likened to Alistair Campbell, Blair, a person of 'lower intellingence'

Oh and I'm repeatedly disingenuous apparantly...

The truth is out there etc....

Garry_Anderson

Astaroth wrote:

You are talking about the difference in roles between the FSA and the FOS.

The FOS is there as remedial action on behalf of private customers of regulated companies. They are intended to make sure the company has acted fairly and enforce repayment to customers where they have not been. In addition to this the company the complaint is made about is forced to pay a fix admin fee (typically £250-750 depending on a number of criteria) irrespective if the FOS finds in favour of the customer or the company (which I think is unfair)

The FSA are the ones with the power to fine/ suspend/ shut down companies where there are whole scale problems and not individual cases.

The 2 agencies obviously work closely together (the FOS gets its authority from the FSA after all) but there roles are distinct and seperate.

YES - I think you nearly get it - now carry this logical thinking just a tiny bit further.

How do you get from there to - "The FOS are part of the cover-up i.e. it is not access to justice - merely mediation for criminal actions".

I know you can do it Astaroth

dreamylittledream

Garry_Anderson wrote:

This is to continue the thread that got hi-jacked (sorry Limpecunious).

As we know - the FOS only puts the people in situation they would be had they not been mis-sold endowment - the FOS let the crooks keep all the profits from the crime - money they used to pay their wages, commision etc.

The FOS are part of the cover-up i.e. it is not access to justice - merely mediation for criminal actions.

Nobody has yet explained how this analysis is wrong.

But to return to the topic in hand.

If redress puts the borrower back in the position they would have been if they had been given correct advice (redress + surrender value = amount repaid on a capital and interest mortgage by the date of the calculation)
how exactly has anyone profited?

Or lost out for that matter?

Or put it another way, why should anyone benefit from the mis-selling area...life companies, adviser or consumers.

The purpose of the FOS is to make good the wrong done - unless you can prove malice aforethought then why should punitive damages be awarded?

This is of course a different issue to where the FOS decline cases where the redress offered is not in keeping with the spirit of putting the consumer back in the position they should have been in (retirement cases, non consecutive terms on multiple policies, oversales etc).

I would certainly not argue the FOS are truly always ensuring 'customers are treated fairly' but to argue that the whole priciples of financial redress (which are set by the FSA in the DISP manual, not the FOS) seems a little flawed to say the least!

Garry_Anderson

nadnad wrote:

conspiracy theorise much? :rolleyes:

What have I said that is so wacko and way-out nads?

Just give one thing that you thing is illogical - I bet you cannot.

MortgageMamma

We were not getting at you garry. We were getting at roy/emma. We think the have people entering new usernames and posing sub prime questions to the board to stimulate "debate".

Sorry if you took it the wrong way.