Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

Cornishmummy

3guesses wrote: »

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.

Agree - particularly with points 2 & 3 which would encourage Financial Institutions to solve complaints themselves.

magpiecottage

shortchanged wrote: »

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.

But the board does not get involved in individual complaints.

If, on the other hand, you levelled that complaint against the FSA, you would find you were in the company of very many IFAs!

magpiecottage

Oldbiggles wrote: »

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.

Agreed - but rational arguments, showing an understanding of the respective roles of the FOS, FSA (and its proposed successors) and the OFT will be far more influential referring to personal grievances.

Oldbiggles wrote: »

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

Not a problem. What I am trying to do is help people to understand what FOS can and cannot do and why.

Some of this is because it simply cannot do it because the Law, or its terms of reference do not allow it to go there.

Sometimes, no matter how strongly you feel, there is just not enough evidence to persuade it to uphold a complaint.

And sometimes it is plain incompetent.

If you are looking to make a complaint, follow this guidance:

"You can put complaint in plain English - there is no need for you to use legal language or arguments or the jargon of our industry. You do not necessarily need the spelling, grammar or punctuation to be correct. All you need to do is make sure we understand what you think is wrong, why you think it is wrong and what you think should be done about it."

This is taken from the standard Complaints Procedure used by most IFAs who get me to investigate their complaints.

Don't lose it all in a rant, though. Just tell the truth as you see it.

Whatever you do, don't exaggerate or lie - and if you are going to use a claims management company do not let them lie on your behalf (or you could end up in all sorts of trouble).

shortchanged_2

I know that the board don't handle individual cases but my point is how can you have an 'independent, impartial' service when current board members may well be working for companies that the FOS are sorting out disputes with. This I feel is even more relevent if there are multiple cases against a particular institution, lets say for example that the chairman of Skipton was on the FOS board whilst the complaint against the Skipton was going on. (I know he's not by the way, I'm just using an example)

Also, I bet the FOS were delighted when the supreme court ruled in the favour of banks regarding bank charges.

magpiecottage

shortchanged wrote: »

I know that the board don't handle individual cases but my point is how can you have an 'independent, impartial' service when current board members may well be working for companies that the FOS are sorting out disputes with. This I feel is even more relevent if there are multiple cases against a particular institution, lets say for example that the chairman of Skipton was on the FOS board whilst the complaint against the Skipton was going on. (I know he's not by the way, I'm just using an example)

If you want a service that is impartial then you need not only those representing the views of the consumer but also those of the firms they are complaining about. Otherwise you get a consumer champion.

That is a job for Martin, not FOS.

In reality, there are nine board members.

ONE works for a small Building Society as a non-Executive Director.

ONE is MD of a "Network" of IFAs (a sort of umbrella organisation that provides authorisation for smaller businesses).

ONE was FORMERLY in a senior position at a major insurance company but is not now.

There are SIX other board members, including the CHAIRMAN and the CHIEF EXECUTIVE, who are NOT from a financial services background.

So whilst it MIGHT be possible for the scenario you depict to occur, the reality is that the non-industry board members outnumber those from the industry and could vote them down.

As far as I am aware it has always been the case, so I think your assertions are groundless.

shortchanged wrote: »

Also, I bet the FOS were delighted when the supreme court ruled in the favour of banks regarding bank charges.

The official line is it didn't matter to FOS either way. In reality, I think they would have been glad it was out of the way so they could set about clearing the backlog but have found it easier if the banks had lost.

You may not believe that but the reality is that banks would have then realised they had to concede defeat and been unlikely to waste effort (which means wasting money) pursuing what would then have been a lost cause whereas consumers may still exercise their right to have the case referred to an ombudsman and continue to clog up the system.

Your "bet" illustrates one of my points though. Suppose an IFA had told you that if you took up that bet you might win. If you didn't know that you could also lose then you might be able to claim against him.

But he would not need to demonstrate that he told you of the risk, only that you were aware of it. So he could point to this post and say, "since Shortchanged already knew of the risk, it is unreasonable to suppose that me telling him something he knew anyway would have caused him to make a reasonable decision."

This is a very simplistic example but that is my point.

gazzatt2

why cant you claim against misssold endowment mortgages if they were taken out before 1998 (mine was 1986:mad: )

magpiecottage

gazzatt2 wrote: »

why cant you claim against misssold endowment mortgages if they were taken out before 1998 (mine was 1986:mad: )

You mean 1988 but the reason is that on 29 April 1988 the Law changed and put a requirement on advisers to ensure recommended products were suitable for their clients .

But, like most legislation, it was not retrospective. In other words, the new law is not applied to what happened in the past.

So your case has to be treated in the same way as if the Law had never changed.

That may sound harsh but it is the same principle that says you cannot be prosecuted for driving along a road at 50 mph on 31 July if the speed limit was only imposed on 1 August.

If the firm selling the policy (not necessarily the provider) was a member of the Banking, Building Societies or Insurance Ombudsman schemes at the time, you CAN take the case to FOS but the case will be assessed against the standards applicable at the time.

Again this is normal. The FSA holds copies of its old regulations on its website so this can be done and will make copies of the rules of its predecessors available under the Freedom of Information Act.

shortchanged_2

Oh dear, not a great deal of positivity about the FOS on here.

Stress

It took from August 2001 until June 2006 to get a FOS decision, ALMOST FIVE YEARS is this a record?.

It took a further four years to enforce the decision via County Court.

magpiecottage

What was the case about? If you had to take it to court to enforce the decision, the FSA is likely to want to know about it.