Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

Oldbiggles

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

Well as you are so knowledgeable about such matters, (illustrated by your numerous comments here), and as there are so many Financial Governing Bodies, Committees, Organisations, Jobs for the Boys etc. that might be interested in the Posts on this site. Perhaps we could all ask you to redirect our frustrated comments.. ‘To whom it may concern’?

Oldbiggles

magpiecottage wrote: »

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

Again..Ditto

Laitty

Whilst I realise that the FOS is not a court and doesn't follow the same procedures, I would like to see an element of disclosure in complaints (yes, a SAR would cover this but why should the consumer have to pay for these documents which can affect a complaint).

I had a PPI case go through the FOS which was resolved in favour of the company a few weeks ago. The basis of the FOS decision was on a Demands and Needs statement that a) had no signature on it and b) had no date on it. This document however, formed the basis of the a decision that they 'probably' asked a few irrelevant questions. However, it was only when the decision was made were we made aware that this document existed - and only after requesting a copy that we were able to determine how genuine it was.

So, if a consumer makes a complaint against a company, both sides should be able to see ALL the documentation involved, and have an opportunity to question/respond to it.

Finally, our actual complaint form to the FOS gave specific reasons why we felt the PPI was mis-sold (such as querying the qualifications of the sales rep and whether they were qualified to sell a financial package). In her decision, no reference was made regarding this. Therefore, the FOS should answer all parts of the complaint, not just cherry pick the one's they think are necessary.

shortchanged_2

Thing is if you look at the FOS lists of the board of directors over the past few years and see what jobs they hold it really does make you wonder about their impartiality, as many of them are from institutions that probably are the companies that many claims are being made about.
Many of them are current employees of banks and building socities etc.

Conflicts of interests springs to mind.

insurancebod

I work as a customer relations officer for an insurance company. In doing so, my job is to issue final decisions on behalf of the chief executive. The FOS require these in order to consider a complaint further. I have a lot of dealing with the FOS.

In my opinion, the following issues should be raised:

1. Are adjudicators themselves rewarded for upholding complaints? It appears to me that, in order to uphold a complaint, an adjudicator would ask a company to pay compensation (a nominal sum) or ask for already paid compensation to be increased minimally. This makes the company's figures look bad as the decisions are then deemed as changes in favour, despite there being little change. A cynic might think these decisions are made solely for the purpose of upholding a complaint.

2. Could complainants be charged a nominal fee to approach the FOS - say £50? A minority are wise to the fact that companies have to pay fees for the FOS to handle cases and may escalate a complaint to the FOS which has no chance of succeeding. This wastes the company's and the service's time. A fee (refunded if the complaint is upheld) may deter such activity.

On the whole, I think the FOS provide fair decisions. It's quite likely that most decisions will go in the favour of the business as a number of people, working for the business, have already investigated the complaint, so it's unlikely that anything has been missed and the business' final decision will more often than not be correct.

One final point - if you complain to the FOS before you complain to the business, you will wait longer for a response and the response will be the same. The FOS take a fairly long time in notifying the business of your complaint, which then will be handled by the business in exactly the same way as if you had raised it with the business directly. (I say this obviously from my own work experience, it may not apply to all businesses). I assume the FOS would rather complainants contact the business as a first port o' call?

magpiecottage

Oldbiggles wrote: »

Well as you are so knowledgeable about such matters, (illustrated by your numerous comments here), and as there are so many Financial Governing Bodies, Committees, Organisations, Jobs for the Boys etc. that might be interested in the Posts on this site. Perhaps we could all ask you to redirect our frustrated comments.. ‘To whom it may concern’?

So NOW is the time to do something about it because the Government is currently consulting on the matter.

So if you want it changed write to your MP.

magpiecottage

clairemp wrote: »

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.

I'm afraid it has ALWAYS been the case that "he who asserts must prove". It is exactly the same with a Court.

However, you only have to show it is more likely than not and not beyond all reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial.

Lack of documentation can actually be seen a evidence that a sale was not completed properly and cases do get upheld on that basis.

On the other hand the mere absence of documentation does not mean the case should be upheld because there may be other evidence that shows that it was satisfactory or it is possible that the there was no requirement for such a document at the time (even if there is now).

clairemp wrote: »

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.

They do have to - they WILL allow more time if they think it is reasonable but firms normally have to ask for it and explain why.

There is the issue of whether they have the resource to but that is a different matter.

They will also allow complainants more time to gather evidence if they have a reasonable need for it too but generally it is firms that have to search archives and so on.

Equaliser123

FOS is dire in my opinion. Take far too long, "customer" service is non-existent, decisions are rough and ready.

Used to be a very good institution. I think they gave up after the onslaught of the bank charges complaints.

magpiecottage

shortchanged wrote: »

Thing is if you look at the FOS lists of the board of directors over the past few years and see what jobs they hold it really does make you wonder about their impartiality, as many of them are from institutions that probably are the companies that many claims are being made about.
Many of them are current employees of banks and building socities etc.

Which directors were you thinking of?

Natalie Ceaney, the current Chief Ombudsman and CEO came from the National Archive, her predecessor, Walter Merricks is a lawyer,

Sir Christopher Kelly, former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, and worked for the Department of Social Security and the Treasury. His predecessor was Sue Slipman who was previously at Chair of the Gas Consumers' Council and before that President of the National Union of Students

The only one who is a "current employee" of a bank or building society is John Howard who is a non-executive director of National Counties Building Society which is so small most people have never heard of it.

If you want to see the list it's here.

magpiecottage

insurancebod wrote: »

1. Are adjudicators themselves rewarded for upholding complaints? It appears to me that, in order to uphold a complaint, an adjudicator would ask a company to pay compensation (a nominal sum) or ask for already paid compensation to be increased minimally. This makes the company's figures look bad as the decisions are then deemed as changes in favour, despite there being little change. A cynic might think these decisions are made solely for the purpose of upholding a complaint.

No they are not rewarded for upholding complaints but my understanding is that there are targets and incentives for meeting them (or disincentives for not meeting them, which amounts to the same thing). So getting a small change in favour of a complainant to produce a "quick win" would seem to be to the adjudicator's advantage.

insurancebod wrote: »

2. Could complainants be charged a nominal fee to approach the FOS - say £50? A minority are wise to the fact that companies have to pay fees for the FOS to handle cases and may escalate a complaint to the FOS which has no chance of succeeding. This wastes the company's and the service's time. A fee (refunded if the complaint is upheld) may deter such activity.

This cannot be changed by FOS (or for that matter the FSA) because it is set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

FOS is entitled to dismiss a complaint without considering its merits if it is frivolous, vexatious or has no realistic prospect of succeeding but seems to lack the political will to ever exercise that entitlement.

This in turn wastes everybody's time and, because there is no risk to the consumer, encourages complaints even when they know they are not entitled to it. This is fraud and therefore contrary to the statutory aims of the FSA which include the reduction of financial crime.

insurancebod wrote: »

It's quite likely that most decisions will go in the favour of the business as a number of people, working for the business, have already investigated the complaint, so it's unlikely that anything has been missed and the business' final decision will more often than not be correct.

In fortunately that does rather depend on the business - as figures out today show (81% of PPI cases in the last three months in favour of the consumer)

insurancebod wrote: »

One final point - if you complain to the FOS before you complain to the business, you will wait longer for a response and the response will be the same. The FOS take a fairly long time in notifying the business of your complaint, which then will be handled by the business in exactly the same way as if you had raised it with the business directly. (I say this obviously from my own work experience, it may not apply to all businesses). I assume the FOS would rather complainants contact the business as a first port o' call?

I agree. It is also worth considering whether to allow a firm a little more time before going to FOS if it asks. Otherwise you will end up moving from near the front of the firm's queue to the back of the one at the FOS.

But once a final response is issued you only have six months to get the complaint to FOS.