Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

P-G_2

FOS cost consumers nothing ?

Hmmm... I think its just possible that when the FOS runs short of cash, it puts up the charges to the firms. The firms then pass this on to the customers in dozens of subtle ways. Interest rate on your current account 0.1% rather than 0.2% perhaps

I think the consumer pays in the end.
Better watch out, Natalie is busy appointing 3 new Senior Managers on 6 figure salaries, is currently advertising for Ombudsmen (no financial experience required at about £60k) and FOS recruited 600 staff last year...

I like your style, by the way Magpie, your comments on this forum are good sense, judging by my experience of FOS

But the forum needs to suggest questions that Martin can ask the FOS when he meets them later this week...With your knowledge and experience, you may be able to suggest a few ?

Alistair_Darling

It's also the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme). I agree with lots of the comments here, about the FSA AND The FSCS, they appear to be totally biased towards the Financial companies, even to the point of looking for loopholes to escape payment.

I lost money in the Split Capital Fiasco. If I had invested via a financial advisor I would have got my money back, but because I had gone direct (so I could put it into a Self select ISA) the FOS decided for the company. The main person at the company was eventually banned from working in Financial Services for a year, and the company went bust.
Everyone knew that these items were mis-sold, quote "as safe as a building society" all the press knew, the Treasury Select Committee knew and the FOS knew. My company refused to join the scheme set up by the FOS to repay what they could to investors who got scammed, so my only chance was if they went into receivership.

After some effort on my part, they eventually went into administration, and finally the FSCS (The Last Resort), looked at my case, and turned it down, in an extremely offhand and dismissive manner. Throughout my dealings with the FOS, the FSCS and the receivers (Grant Thornton), it was like dealing with the company that had lost my money. Their attitude was that I was the one in the wrong and the company (which had been singled out as one of the worst) had done nothing wrong. I am absolutely disgusted by the way I have been treated throughout.

All I can say is that if any of you are relying on the FSCS to bail you out if a financial company you invest with goes into administration, then I would start worrying now.

Lots of people who lost a fortune in Split Caps never received any compensation - and no-one seems to care.

Personally I will never, ever invest into anything within a million miles of the stockmarket again.
If you want to sleep at night - I would do the same!

p.s. Before anyone says that you deserve all you get for investing in the stockmarket, I would point out that Split Cap Zero's had a fixed price redemption figure in the future. They were marketed "as safe as a Volvo", "Same as a building society" and "Sleep soundly".

magpiecottage

Impala wrote: »

They will not take into account or recommend the payment of any form of compensation except a standard 'simple' 8% (not I think even at the Courts' Statutory Interest level, therefore?)

Yes it is the rate used by the Courts and at present probably better than the AER of an annually compounded deposit account.

Impala wrote: »

the only problem was that they weren't paying out on it, and thus we went to the FOS to hurry it up!

Oh dear - that took it out of the provider's queue and put it to the back of the FOS one (which is almost certainly longer).

Impala wrote: »

Yes, they are free to the user: but somewhere along the line I'm sure that we the consumer or taxpapyer are financing them, and we are not getting anywhere near value for money.

It is paid for by the industry through levies and case fees.

Unfortunately the fact that those levies and case fees are ultimately passed on to the consumer, as are the costs of firms own staff.

This includes the cost of all those stupid complaints which some people put in because there is no risk to them in trying it on.

magpiecottage

Friday_Girl wrote: »

Who does one take it to - other than the FSO themselves, what other choice is there?

The generally accepted abbreviation for the Financial Ombudsman Service is FOS, not FSO.

If you disagree with the adjudicator's decision you can take it to an Ombudsman. If you disagree with an Ombudsman's decision you can go to court.

That is a big advantage to you over the firm because the only way they can challenge an Ombudsman's decision is a judicial review which is very expensive.

If you are complaining about the behaviour of the FOS or its staff, then you complain internally first but there is also an independent assessor (the independence is limited, though, because FOS appointed her and is not legally obliged to follow her decisions!)

magpiecottage

Oldbiggles wrote: »

Another alternative for the FSO to consider, would be that all financial institutions would have to offer an ISA rate equivalent to the best saving rate on offer by them. Regardless of whether its a childrens saving account, an over 50 account, a 1 year or 2 year etc account. Their ISA rate should always be equal to their top interest account. Banks and Building Societies have been allowed to manipulate the original rules of the ISA to suit their own ends, remember 'CAT Standard ISA's'? I dont think anybody is offering one as it was originally intended.

But the Financial Ombudsman Service is there to deal with individual disputes, not to implement policy - that is the remit of the Financial Services Authority.

likkleangelhj

My main problem is SANTANDER and all the companies they own. They are so bad Ive had to abandon 3 accounts now. Two with what used to be known as Abbey and one with Alliance & Leicester which they also own.
Ive had serious financial problems since I suffered a serious assault a couple of years ago. I informed Abbey of the probs I was having and the fact that I was under my overdraft and the charges were keeping me under. Abbeys answer....... YOU QUALIFY FOR A £15,000 LOAN SO OUR ADVICE IS THAT YOU HAVE THIS LOAN WITH US TO SORT YOUR FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OUT - Magic.....of course, now why didn't I think of that......NOT! Only a self interested and money grabbing bank would offer something like that. It was totally the wrong thing to offer and was encouraging me to get into further trouble. When I refused the loan, they refused to help me by waivering any charges......so I did one!
Alliance and Leicester have really changed their attitude since Santander got their mitts on them. In Jan this year I was in a car accident and am now unable to work. Again I was experiencing the charges roundabout. When I told Alliance and Leicester of my position, they didnt offer me a loan this time, they offered to force closure on my account! What good is a closed account to me???
Neither of them had any intention of helping me, they were both only self interested. I have contacted the FOS about this.
Martin, if you would like an analogy of how Santander treat their customers in trouble, here is one for you......

You are drowning in a pool and barely able to keep your head above water ..... then you spot someone with a life belt in their hands and they are coming towards you ..... thank God, you are going to be saved. They come to the edge of the pool and you look up, full of hope and thanks for what they are about to do as you take yet another gulp of water and fight your way to the surface yet again. They lean down and look at you, life belt in hands, just out of your reach ....... then just as you think they are going to throw you that life belt ....... they sit on the edge and firmly place their foot on top of your head ..... keeping you just below the surface of the water and ensuring that you drown.....

How's that for the Ombudsmen Martin! Santander are absolutely horrendous when it comes to saving people, infact you could call them murderers as they purposely refuse to help victims of financial hardship.

magpiecottage

Oldbiggles wrote: »

For those people who are competently willing to look after their own finances, the FSO needs to re-establish a cheap and easy route back to the now frowned on service of obtaining and looking after our own Share Certs.

Again the FOS has no jurisdiction over this because this is nothing to do with individual disputes.

magpiecottage

helen1991 wrote: »

Took out mortgage in 1996, wanted repayment, financial advisor advised to get endowment. Read on this site a year ago that we could recliam for mis selling, took it to ombudsman but they ruled against us as the time limit had run out but my argument was that we didn't know there was a time limit because nobody advised us of this in the first place.

It would depend on when you received a letter telling you there was a high risk of a shortfall but if you did not get one before 1 June 2001 then there would have been one giving a deadline to complain at some point. Otherwise it would have simply been three years from receiving the first letter.

However, the fact that you were aware of the option of a repayment mortgage and that, by 1996, you would have been given a "Key Features" document with a pretty explicit warning that a shortfall might occur means the sale is likely to have been defensible anyway - particularly if it was a With Profits policy.

magpiecottage

liverpoollad75 wrote: »

Funny how the former adjudicators say this but this forum is contradictory and the mortgage endownment complaint are clearly defined in a test case that was won so more evidence please?

I am not about to betray confidentiality but I subscribe to IFA forums where the sentiment contradicts this one.

It is also a fact of life that the satisfied tend not to post.

magpiecottage

scouselad1974 wrote: »

Hi

Thank you for that, I wish I would of asked for your advice before I sent my reply to The Adjudicators findings, I pointed out The OFT guidlines but never asked why do you disagree with the Oft ?
Do you think I could send an additional letter just saying that ?

Yes - a "It has been suggested that I should ask you" type letter should do.