Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

3guesses

Have only read the first half a dozen posts, and must say I have to agree with what they're saying.

• The process takes FAR too long.
• The Ombudsman should award compensation when it upholds a complaint in order to deter the banks from acting however they like in the first place.
• All successful complaints should be reported to the FSA for them to fine the bank for their wrongdoing.
• The Ombudsman should use its not insignificant powers to direct the banks as to what they should do to put things right, rather than enter into negotiation with them as to what they're happy to do: that is NOT their purpose.

Until the Ombudsman gets some real teeth AND starts using them, we're very unlikely to see the banks - especially the big ones - start to behave properly.

magpiecottage

3guesses wrote: »

The process takes FAR too long

Agreed

3guesses wrote: »

The Ombudsman should award compensation when it upholds a complaint in order to deter the banks from acting however they like in the first place

The Financial Ombudsman Awards redress to but the complainant back into the position they would have been (as far as possible) - it is not there to act as a deterrent.

3guesses wrote: »

All successful complaints should be reported to the FSA for them to fine the bank for their wrongdoing

This suggestion is flawed for much the same reason.

Furthermore the Financial Ombudsman Service works on the basis of balance of probability and can award redress when there is a 49% chance that in fact acted properly.

By comparison, for a fine to be imposed, the FSA would need to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that its rules had been broken.

3guesses wrote: »

The Ombudsman should use its not insignificant powers to direct the banks as to what they should do to put things right, rather than enter into negotiation with them as to what they're happy to do: that is NOT their purpose.

If they can, adjudicators will try to do things informally because it is quicker and helps to keep the backlog down but in the end an Ombudsman can make a decision which is legally binding on the bank, provided the complainant accepts it.

magpiecottage

Running_Man wrote: »

I'd like to see the marketing of financial products adopting the sort of traffic light symbols etc, used voluntarily on food, to distinguish them from one another. The imposition of APRs was a good step forward, creating a common language which we can use to compare products, but unless you understand APRs, all they do is exactly that, compare products. They don't tell you if they're cheap, reasonable or expensive. The symbols could be benchmarked against the Bank of England rate and using traffic lights, or say the £££ symbols you commonly find in hotel directories for example, as well as the APRs (to distinguish those with the same symbol), would I believe simplify matters for the majority of the population who aren't bank workers or accountants.

The FSA has been working on this and there are moves afoot to change the regulator - so write to your MP about this. It currently has nothing to do with FOS, though.

thelicencee

This department is supposed to deal with mis-sold endowments with shortfalls, yet when we contacted them with a 100% mis-sold policy they were 'bullied' into NOT taking on our complaint by the company that has now taken over our endowment policy.
They are an absolute disgrace and offered us NO support what so ever, I am sure they get 'kick backs' from finance companies NOT to take on cases, how corrupt are they, we will never know as they dont seem to have to answer to anybody.
We are still left with a £34,000 shortfall on a £60,000 endowment policy, which was 'sold' on a 'GUARANTEED £60,000 RETURN' WITH POSSIBLE BONUSES ON MATURITY AFTER THE 30 YEAR TERM.
We will now have paid in over £36,000 to hopefully get a £26,000 return on the endowment maturity.
Lets 'dump' the ombudsman and all its employees and use the money it costs to run this 'USELESS' government department to 'compensate' the policy holders who will undoubtedly lose out.
Paul

moomylawrence

My husband and I were given wrong advice by a FSA which resulted in us losing out financially on both our pensions. The firm concerned ignored us so a case went to FSO. Our adjudicator could not have been more professional and thorough with his mind on the job but everything took so long. He ruled in our favour but the firm challenged his decision. Meaning it had to be reviewed by a Financial Ombudsman.

After yet another long wait the FO ignored the facts, made irrelevant statements and all but threw it out. Why does the adjudicator's decision need to be challenged? Especially by someone probably paid a lot more but not up to the job.

nickyjay21

I have read just a handful of the masses of posts on this thread and really have to agree - the process takes far too long and even when you can justify why you have a case to complain about a financial institue based on gounds of hardship - the case in question i met most of the criteria Martin was kind enough to post elsewhere on this site - i was still told the bank had treated me fairly!

A total of over £500 in bank charges for one year, and it took more than a year for a decision to me made, against me. I even wrote back to complain about it and was again told i had be treated fairly!

I dont know of anyone posting on here that can say they have been treated fairly by a bank.

I think that the process itself needs to be simplified, and the time it takes for decisions to be reached needs to reflect the timescales banks use to charge us these ridiculous fees rather than months on end to receive a letter saying the case is being looked at. I also feel that it should be by an independant party, not one that seems to be so biased towards the banks.

tifo

lobbylud wrote: »

I think that there must be few people who will take on an appeal to the Ombudsman as, like me, they assume that they must reconcile themself to the inevitability of it all.

I've taken several complaints up to the Independent Assessor but to no avail. This is after Ombudsman and then Service Review Team (who cannot look at a decision even if wrong).

Cornishmummy

Our mortgage complaint against one of the Bigest Banks in the UK has just been passed from an Adjudicator to Ombudsman for "consideration". This will be the third person to consider our case since it was submitted OVER A YEAR AGO.

We feel that our case should be very straightforward and REALLY cannot understand how the Adjudicator could even consider let alone try and justify ruling in favour of the Bank. It does not make ANY sense at all.

Our case is a request for the refund of fees paid in 2006 for services NEVER received. We have even been able to provide evidence to verify our claim and STILL the Adjudicator has remaned blinkered in favour of the Bank.

We honestly feel that the FOS does not care at all about us minions but will bend over backwards for the major Financial Institutions.

Therefore, no we don't feel that the FOS is a fair, unbiased service.

I have just read in Liverpoollad75's posting that the "specialists" in the FOS are Bankers if the complaint is about a Financial Institution - did not find this surprising bearing in mind the way we have been so unfairly treated and can now start to understand why we have been treated like this because the Adjudicator was clearly (in our view) biased towards the powerful major Banking Corporation. Although not surprising, surely it is WRONG??

magpiecottage

Cornishmummy wrote: »

I have just read in Liverpoollad75's posting that the "specialists" in the FOS are Bankers if the complaint is about a Financial Institution

I am not sure where he got that information from. Most are either from a life, pensions and investments background and have some qualifications or were only working at relatively junior levels (sub Sergeant Wilson, let alone Captain Mainwaring) and may have no qualifications at all.

Biased - maybe but its competence is overstretched and that is the real problem.

sugarmuffin

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

[title=http://images2.moneysavingexpert.com/images/dp/wtd_underline.gif] What this is all about[/title]
The Financial Ombudsman Service is a free and independent official body for settling disputes between UK based financial companies and their customers.

See the full MSE Your Financial Rights Guide to how it works and what complaints it can help with.

We're meeting it this week, and would love your feedback on what issues it should address.

It doesn't just help with Bank Charges and PPI Reclaiming, although it works a lot on these cases, so try not to focus on these types of complaint.

Have you heard of it? Have you used it? What financial problems are you having you'd like it to help with?

Please report you comments and experiences below.

I'm terribly disappointed with the service I received from the Financial Ombudsman. I waited 3 years for them to look at my PPI case and one adjudicator upheld my complaint, then another one didn't and finally they sided with Abbey National and I lost. Was devastated cos it was SO obvious I was missold the PPI! There's no appeal procedure so I've just got to live with the decision. I think they're getting so many cases they can't cope with them all and I was fobbed off just to get the ques of people waiting down. :mad: