Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

angel_islington

dilbert222 wrote: »

Not strictly true to say it is a free service, as it is financed by the banks who rely on our money. My complaint was straightforward, against Abbey then Santander breaking the terms of my mortgage contract. Santander actively encouraged me to go to the FOS and after 15 months I have a pile of letters sent at two monthly intervals telling me my case is still in the process of being prepared for the ombudsman. I have had about six different adjudicators so far and the last one asked me (yet again) if I had any more information for them and also to advise them if I was seriously ill as a result of the hardship endured by the time taken for the case to have made no progress whatsoever. Unless I was, I would receive another holding letter two months hence.

One adjudicator actually wrote to me to say that paying off extra on my mortgage would not save me any money!

Rats.

I've just had a complaint response from Santander, well I say response, it was completely pathetic and that's being polite. However, interestingly, it states at the bottom of the letter that if I am not happy I can complain to the Financial Ombudsman. They have helpfully included a leaflet from the FO as well. Hmm, it almost seems like they want me to take my complaint to the FO. Is that because they are confident it will rule in their favour?

Cynic, moi?

Equaliser123

angel_islington wrote: »

I've just had a complaint response from Santander, well I say response, it was completely pathetic and that's being polite. However, interestingly, it states at the bottom of the letter that if I am not happy I can complain to the Financial Ombudsman. They have helpfully included a leaflet from the FO as well. Hmm, it almost seems like they want me to take my complaint to the FO. Is that because they are confident it will rule in their favour?

Cynic, moi?

Totally agree about Santander. Had a complaint about an A&L problem. They chuck £20 at it and hope you go away without actually explaining what went wrong. 4 months chasing a response and you receive a letter saying "We have nothign further to add". Eh?

I've been with Cahoot since they started. Absolutely no issues. Santander take over Abbey and Cahoot changes its systems. 3 mistakes or issues in the last 6 months after years and years of faultless service.

FOS needs to be able to take corrective action - whether recommending fines, punitive damages or otherwise. At the moment it is regarded as toothless and not particularly clever or potent.

shortchanged_2

angel_islington wrote: »

I've just had a complaint response from Santander, well I say response, it was completely pathetic and that's being polite. However, interestingly, it states at the bottom of the letter that if I am not happy I can complain to the Financial Ombudsman. They have helpfully included a leaflet from the FO as well. Hmm, it almost seems like they want me to take my complaint to the FO. Is that because they are confident it will rule in their favour?

Cynic, moi?

I think they have to give you details of the FOS as part of their banking code of practice, or financial service code of conduct whatever it is.

This is probably because they are aware anyway that the FOS will back the bank in most disputes you have with them. Personally I think it is all a bit of a farce.

angel_islington

shortchanged wrote: »

I think they have to give you details of the FOS as part of their banking code of practice, or financial service code of conduct whatever it is.

This is probably because they are aware anyway that the FOS will back the bank in most disputes you have with them. Personally I think it is all a bit of a farce.

Agreed, I will still put forward my complaint to the FOS, as well as to the Information Commissioners Office, who I have spoken to, as Santander have breached the Data Protection Act by continuing to send letters to my old address despite being told in writing (twice) that I have moved.

I still think the best way to hit them is to make as much noise to as many people as possible to let them know what a shambolic organisation they are to either prevent people from opening accounts or moving them if they already have them. If they see a sharp downturn in customers, to them that's a sharp downturn in potential money, they will be forced to pay attention. I read one story on here of a lady who went into the branch with a sleeping bag and told them she wasn't leaving until they sorted her problem out. It was a last resort, but it worked!

magpiecottage

dilbert222 wrote: »

Not strictly true to say it is a free service, as it is financed by the banks who rely on our money.

Presumably you are in the "higher charges to pay for it" rather than the "eats into their profits" camp.

I suspect you are probably right. That means, though, that the cost of all those spurious claims are included in the charges we pay too.

dilbert222 wrote: »

I have a pile of letters sent at two monthly intervals telling me my case is still in the process of being prepared for the ombudsman.

Yes - I know!

dilbert222 wrote: »

I have had about six different adjudicators so far

They all keep leaving!

dilbert222 wrote: »

One adjudicator actually wrote to me to say that paying off extra on my mortgage would not save me any money

You just can't get the staff!

kingboyk

thecornflake wrote: »

The fact someone drove into my car while it was parked, my insurance company took 2 years to agree a 50/50 liability and then removed 5 years off my no claims. Apparently they have no jurisdiction over no claims or liability dceisions, but noone else does either so my only choice is private court action :mad:

Somebody drove into the back of your parked car and it's 50% your fault?! How can that be?

Equaliser123

kingboyk wrote: »

Somebody drove into the back of your parked car and it's 50% your fault?! How can that be?

Depends where and how he was parked!

P-G_2

angel_islington wrote: »

I've just had a complaint response from Santander, well I say response, it was completely pathetic and that's being polite. However, interestingly, it states at the bottom of the letter that if I am not happy I can complain to the Financial Ombudsman. They have helpfully included a leaflet from the FO as well. Hmm, it almost seems like they want me to take my complaint to the FO. Is that because they are confident it will rule in their favour?

Cynic, moi?

You may be interested in the last 2 paragraphs of my evidence to the Lord Hunt Review of the FOS.

How financial firms see the FOS
When I received the firm's very first letter in response to my complaint, they concluded with the words that I should take the letter as their final response and could approach the FOS if I wished. I seemed obvious to me that they wanted the matter to go to the FOS. I have the impression that when a claimant tells the firm that they will take the matter to the FOS, the firm breathes a sigh of relief…"We've made it !" They know that the FOS will delay further ( thus delaying redress payments), not make a rigorous examination of the case, probably not check any calculations, not criticise the firm, not publicise any mistakes, however disgraceful. They know the award will not exceed £100,000 and that the claimant can't afford to go to court. Many firms would settle for that.

Bias
The whole FOS process is biased towards firms. I do not suggest this is deliberate, but it is what happens in practice. The Adjudicator's initial assessment of my case was based on the firm's evidence, not mine, she showed my letters to the firm but I was not shown theirs, the firm used professional staff and advisers, but consumers are discouraged from doing this, the firm knew FOS guidelines existed and kept quiet about them, the FOS knew the firm had ignored them but did not tell me about this, FOS accepted the firm's calculations without cross-checking them and don't apply their own guidelines, massive delays at the FOS means the firm retained the compensation funds for years invested at inter-bank rates before paying out with interest at bare base rate. Even when a tax error was finally picked up, FOS paid the money itself rather than instruct the firm to repay the money.

To read the whole evidence, and see how the FOS treated one old lady visit ww.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk

insurancebod

tifo wrote: »

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

I agree. However, I was referring to all complaints rather than those solely related to PPI (misselling in particular).

Friday_Girl

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

Sorry Magpie Cottage, I have to disagree with you, whilst there is undoubtedly incompetence, there is also corruption inside the FOS.

I thought if anyone would have been up for addressing the whole organisation, in an attempt at getting the chaotic situation resolved, it would have been Martin. Sadly, it would appear no one has the interest of doing anything about it.