Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

magpiecottage

glyn_s wrote: »

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?

Again, the Financial Ombudsman Service has no control over this although changes are afoot elsewhere to speed up the time for payments made electronically.

Cheque credits are already able to be drawn after 4 working days although you cannot assume the money is "yours" for six working days. This is simply a reflection of the time it takes to physically move the cheque between banks.

magpiecottage

Equaliser123 wrote: »

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.

I think you are pretty close to the mark although the rot set in before then.

A combination of increasing scope, more complaints and a de-skilling of the work has resulted in service that is inferior to those provided by its various predecessors.

magpiecottage

crush wrote: »

clydesdale bank morgage mess up, 18000 people effected can they make a ruling to stop everyone having to negotiate seperatly with the bank. I received statements for many years informing I only had a few years left and now out of the blue due to a bank error have to pay £530 a month more because of an old bank error or add 3 years to the term, can FOS be proactive for once?

Coincidentally, the latest edition of Ombudsman News came out yesterday. That dealt with the issue of banks applying credits in error. Not taking money they should have taken has roughly the same outcome - you have more money in your account than you are entitled to. You can read about it here.

With that in mind, I think you are entitled to make a complaint to Clydesdale citing Ombudsman News Case Study 87/01 and explaining that you had no reason to realise they had not taken what they should have done and so you have spent it. You will not get future payments kept as low but I think you stand a good chance of getting the past shortfall written off.

It would also be consistent with the FOS practice of generally allowing those who paid less to date for an endowment mortgage to keep any "saving" as well as getting the difference between the surrender value of the policy and the amount that would have been paid off.

FOS cannot be proactive, though. Only the FSA can order a proactive review.

So, letter to Clydesdale complaining. Get proof of posting (free from Post Office), no need for recorded delivery.

Send it today and they will be deemed to have got it on about Tuesday. They then have 8 weeks to get a satisfactory response into the post. Another couple of days in the post so give them nine weeks.

If the have not responded by then, or they have not agreed to write off the past shortfall, off to FOS you go.

fuzzer

When will the FOS admit that Endowment Plans are not fit for purpose. They were sold stating that not only would it pay off your mortgage, but there'd be a nice lump-sum at the end aswell. Not only are there no lump-sums, but in over 90% of the cases they don't have enough in them to pay off the mortgage at the end of the term!

Policy holders have been given a pittance in compensation, most of these don't come close to paying off the shortfalls.

Insurance companies should have been fined for selling policies not fit for purpose.

magpiecottage

fuzzer wrote: »

When will the FOS admit that Endowment Plans are not fit for purpose.

Because they only look at individual complaints.

It is also the case that if somebody understood and was willing to accept the risk of a shortfall in the hope of getting a surplus then it WAS suitable for that person at the time.

fuzzer wrote: »

They were sold stating that not only would it pay off your mortgage, but there'd be a nice lump-sum at the end aswell.

Although this is invariably claimed, since July 1988, everybody taking out an endowment mortgage would have been issued with an illustration showing at least two and usually three rates of return. I have seen an illustration where even the lowest rate was more than the mortgage amount but I can count them on the fingers of one hand (in fact I can count them on the fingers of one finger!)

fuzzer wrote: »

Not only are there no lump-sums, but in over 90% of the cases they don't have enough in them to pay off the mortgage at the end of the term!

It is true that most do not pay enough - but that was the risk you took.

fuzzer wrote: »

Policy holders have been given a pittance in compensation, most of these don't come close to paying off the shortfalls.

FOS will only order a firm to meet the shortfall if the evidence shows that it really did guarantee to pay at least the mortgage amount.

What it cannot do, though, is simply take your word for it and allow an "Oh yes you did"-"Oh no we didn't" argument.

What it will do, though, is decide whether it believes you were aware of and accepted the risk (a shortfall) in the hope of the benefit (a surplus). It will not always get it right as it can never be certain of what happened, so it will work on the basis of what it concludes is most likely.

If it concludes that the most likely position is that you were not able to make a properly informed decision and if you had been you would have chosen a repayment mortgage then the redress is intended to replicate the position you would have been in if you had taken a repayment mortgage in the first place - not to force a firm to honour a guarantee you believe, but cannot prove, you were given.

fuzzer wrote: »

Insurance companies should have been fined for selling policies not fit for purpose.

Again, the FOS has no power to fine, only to order redress on individual cases.

And not all policies were sold by insurance companies. Some sold all theirs through independent advisers who took legal responsibility for ensuring they were suitable.

tifo

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.

Well, good thing all those people claiming charges and PPI back didn't accept the firm's final decision, isn't it?

Cornishmummy

Dear Martin,

Would you be able to initiate an investigation into the possibility of corruptness within the FOS?
We are totally stumped at how the Adjudicator could possibly have ruled in favour of the Bank, in our circumstances, and be so totally rigid in his ruling however much evidence we provide to confirm we are telling the truth and the Bank, allegedly, has "screwed us over". We consider the situation of this Adjudicator's apparent collusion with the Bank to be very questionable (in our eyes) and he refuses to provide us with any proof of HIS claims on behalf of the Bank, saying that the Bank does not have to.
We have asked him to pass the case onto the Ombudsman and are still awaiting a decision from this source. However, we don't hold out much hope since, firstly, we do not even trust the Adjudicator to pass EVERYTHING over the Ombudsman and feel he will be in a position to twist any information he decides to pass on. He "hoped" we would not consider it necessary to take our case to the Ombudsman, however, whilst we have no confidence in the system, we will not give up on something we feel so strongly about. The amount of money we are talking about is laughable to such a huge organisation but does means a lot to us and why should we pay for services NEVER received due to the Bank's incompetence? You wouldn't go into a retail store and say e.g. "let me give you £150 for 5 tops and 3 pairs of trousers but I don't expect you to actually provide me with the items I have paid for".
We are very upset, fatigued, frustrated and disheartened with the FOS and feel it really does need to be investigated by a TOTALLY INDEPENDANT source.
Having read many of the posts in response to your thread on the FOS, (particularly after reading Friday Girl's post from 28 July at 12:53pm where she confirms, and I quote "I actually have proof in writing, that the adjudicator dealing with my case against the Nationwide was working with them, and lying to me."), apart from being dismayed, I don't know whether to be relieved or burst into tears when I think a supposed unbiased mediatory organisation may be getting away with such terrible injustices.

magpiecottage

Cornishmummy wrote: »

Would you be able to initiate an investigation into the possibility of corruptness within the FOS?

It's not corrupt, just incompetent.

Any organisation's competence is inversely proportional to its size.

In other words the bigger it gets, the more useless it gets.

FOS is the biggest organisation of its type there has ever been in the world. So it is the worst.

Simples.

shortchanged_2

Following on from my previous posting, I stated there were currently directors who are working for Financial institutions. What I actually meant to highlight was that this had been an issue over the years.

In 2008 there was a Group general manager of personal finance services at HSBC on the board.

In 2002 there was the Head of Service Quality, Royal Bank of Scotland. and Non-Executive Director, West Bromwich Building Society.

In the past the Vice Chairman of the Skipton Building Society has been on the board.

There has also been I believe the head of Quality from Barclays.

This is just a few of the examples and I'm sure there are more.


Now what happens if there is a big issue with an institution such as that with the Skipton Building Societies mortgage rate increase promise, where there could be potentially thousands of claims against on company.
Yes you guessed it the FOS has no backbone, either that or as I stated earlier there is a conflict of interest.

Oldbiggles

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

I have done this before.
Its a pity more people dont complain to their MP as you suggest. The more the better, then they might take notice.

In case anyone else doesnt say so. Thanks for all the useful advice you have given here.