Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

esmereldaellen

We took out an endownment policy in 1984 which has performed miserably. However because it was 1984 we are not entitled to any compensation help from the FSA or the Ombundsman. Neither of these agencies seem bothered - just shrugging their shoulders and saying that's the rules.

glyn_s

What happens to the money when it gets paid in? Why does it take 3 days to get through to an account? Who benefits from that?

humberstone

The banks are giving less interest on ISA savings than ordinary accounts and thereby taking the tax.

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

It doesn't just help with 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.

[/QUOTE]

Theypicktheeasytargets

magpiecottage wrote: »

1. There is only a Chief Ombudsman, who happens to be a lady. The term "Ombudswoman" is not recognised.
2. The Chief Ombudsman would not normally look at individual cases
3. Even if she did, it would first have to be considered by an adjudicator
4. The adjudicator would not be handed the case to look at because you have not given the firm concerned a chance to look at the complaint first
5. You cannot ask the firm to look at the complaint because it is not a specific complaint against a specific insurer but a campaigning point
6. Even if it was against a specific complaint against one insurer, the decision about the premium they charge would be deemed the legitimate exercise of the insurer's commercial judgement - and therefore outside the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

So I am afraid you have wasted your time.

Lighten up.

magpiecottage

thelicencee wrote: »

This department is supposed to deal with mis-sold endowments with shortfalls

That depends what you mean by "deal with mis-sold endowments".

thelicencee wrote: »

when we contacted them with a 100% mis-sold policy

I have NEVER seen a case where I was 100% certain of a missale. There are cases where the evidence doesn't stack up but you never know for certain that the evidence has not simply been lost or, for older cases such as yours, that warnings were not simply given verbally as there was no regulatory requirement to put them in writing.

thelicencee wrote: »

they were 'bullied' into NOT taking on our complaint by the company that has now taken over our endowment policy.

I have seen the FOS do some pretty incomprehensible things in my time but one thing I will say in its favour is that it cannot be bullied!

thelicencee wrote: »

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.

Do you have evidence that you were provided with a guarantee? The first thing an adjudicator will do with a mortgage endowment is look for evidence of a guarantee. If he finds one the it is a "quick win" because he can simply tell the firm to honour it.

He cannot just take your word for it, so you need to provide evidence to corroborate your claim.

thelicencee wrote: »

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.

It is not a Government department and it does not have any taxpayers money.

magpiecottage

shortchanged wrote: »

.
We had nothing but grief and bully boy tactics from the finance company who were totally unethical throughout yet the FOS thought nothing of this.

The FOS is supposed to have regard to what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and the Office of FAIR Trading has issued guidance for DCAs on what is and is not fair.

The failure of adjudicators to take account of the OFT Guidance on what is and is not fair is a concern.

It would be good for this to be raised with FOS as there seems to be an inconsistency and suggests the adjudicators concerned do not have sufficient knowledge on this issue.

magpiecottage

esmereldaellen wrote: »

We took out an endownment policy in 1984 which has performed miserably. However because it was 1984 we are not entitled to any compensation help from the FSA or the Ombundsman. Neither of these agencies seem bothered - just shrugging their shoulders and saying that's the rules.

It is not a case of not being bothered - they are powerless to look at complaints relating to events that long ago unless the firm was a member of the Insurance, Building Societies or Banking Ombudsman schemes at the time.

If you took it out through an independent adviser, they can't. It is not their fault and no matter how sympathetic they (or I) might be, there is nothing they can do.

Aytoun27

I was very disappointed and annoyed by the attitude of the adjudicator who dealt with our case two years ago. In brief we asked Capital One to provide a copy of my partner's CCA after they made major changes to the terms & conditions of his account. We wanted to check that the changes were in line with the original agreement, but we had lost our copy, so we made a CCA request to Capitial One.

They didn't respond and our complaint eventually went to the FOS. We explained in the documents that we only wanted the CCA to check the terms and conditions of the account. The adjudicator was prejudiced again us from the start. My partner was even told on the phone by the adjudicator that he (the adjudicator) knew that he was trying to get out of paying back what he owed. Needless to say that was never put in writing. The FOS found against us and we never did establish whether or not Capital One were within their legal rights when they made the changes they did.

scarlet-pimpernel

I'm not sure if I am dismayed or comforted to find that others have suffered th esame way I have when dealing with a problem for my 88 year old mother which was not settled until she was 91.

The adjudicator's judgement was apparently biased against us, the RSA was shown our letters but we did not know what they were saying, we had to respond within days or have the case closed, they took months.

We asked for a public hearing which was turned down.

We went through the FOS complaints service which got us nowhere, just slowed the process down. Got it referred to a proper ombudsman who was minded to find against us until we submitted photgraphic proof of what we had ben saying all along and showing the RSA.

In the end we were travelling up to their offices in Canary Wharf to make sure they got the important letters.

It felt like a court case where we have our evidence for all to hear, then the other side went off into a side rom to talk to the judge in private, who then came back and let us know their decision. No opportunity to have any come back.


They are paid by the industries we want to complain about with predictable results. They need to be independant.

We eventually won but would not like to repeat the experience of dealing with this outfit.

clairemp

Have had a number of dealings with FOS: in my experience, they always assume that the financial institution did what it should have done if it is the institution's word against an individual (if they haven't kept records, can't find them, or their notes from a telephone call as opposed to an individual's own notes). So an institution doesn't have to prove they did do what they should at all - when surely in the main most individuals wouldn't be complaining to FOS if the institution had done what it should and treated the consumer fairly. The burden of proof should be on the institution and if they can't prove that they acted as they should, it should be assumed that they did not act as they should: otherwise, it's not in their interests to release documents, but to claim no evidence exists as they'll benefit from that.

One such instance recently - one bank claims to have no record of PPI being sold with a loan, and the FOS assumes that I therefore took out a loan for an odd amount on which I was charged interest, rather than the round figure I actually took out! Because it's common sense that an individual would take out a loan for an odd figure in pounds and pence???

Also, the institutions seem to have no onus to cooperate with the FOS - it takes months for the FOS to get any response at all, and I've had letters where the FOS has repeatedly said it can't make a decision because the institution hasn't responded. Even in a court case, if they don't respond within a reasonable time and by deadline, it defaults in your favour.

I could go on...