Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

Friday_Girl

magpiecottage wrote: »

Friday_Girl wrote: »

Who does one take it to - other than the FSO themselves, what other choice is there? /QUOTE]

The generally accepted abbreviation for the Financial Ombudsman Service is FOS, not FSO.

If you disagree with the adjudicator's decision you can take it to an Ombudsman. If you disagree with an Ombudsman's decision you can go to court.

That is a big advantage to you over the firm because the only way they can challenge an Ombudsman's decision is a judicial review which is very expensive.

If you are complaining about the behaviour of the FOS or its staff, then you complain internally first but there is also an independent assessor (the independence is limited, though, because FOS appointed her and is not legally obliged to follow her decisions!)

Thank you for pulling me up on an accidentally incorrect arrangement of letters.

If you had read my posting, you would have seen that I did take the Nationwide to court despite their continuous intimidation. When I refused their 11th hour settlement two days before the court hearing, they sent me an email laying out all their solicitors costs, amounting to well over £5,000, threatening that they would get these costs from me. The judge laughed the poorly prepared barrister out of court.

As for complaining about the Adjudicator, I did that in the first few months of dealing with him (and that was before I received all the communications and proof of what had actually taken place), nothing happened. I also complained about the Ombudsman herself, and the manner in which the whole case had been dealt with. I received a letter giving full backing to the way the whole case had been dealt with and the Ombudsman's final decision.

On a personal level, I came out laughing; I got back the £3,000 Nationwide had allowed to be removed from my account due to their mistake, plus interest over the 3 years, all the court costs I had paid, and the £500 inconvenience money awarded by the Ombudsman.

I do not want the corruption taking place inside the FOS looked into on my behalf, but for the thousands of other people who are being put through additional misery, because of it.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but there appears to be a certain element of touting for business, at the bottom of all your posts.

magpiecottage

Friday_Girl wrote: »

whilst there is undoubtedly incompetence, there is also corruption inside the FOS

I have not seen any evidence of corruption. The adjudicators are small fry.

I have concerns that some may be moonlighting as claims chasers - which would be corrupt, but again I have no evidence.

Friday_Girl

magpiecottage wrote: »

I have not seen any evidence of corruption. The adjudicators are small fry.

I have concerns that some may be moonlighting as claims chasers - which would be corrupt, but again I have no evidence.

I find it surprising with what appears to be your mass of experience of dealing with the FOS, that you have not seen any evidence of corruption, whilst I, with just one dealing, have evidence of it in writing.

As to your statement about adjudicators being small fry, I can only speak from my own personal case, and this was certainly not true.

For starters, it was the adjudicator who replied to my initial contact, stating that having considered both sides of the case, it was not something the ombudsman would consider. How many people stop at this first hurdle?

When I persued it, it was the same adjudicator who 'gathered the information' that was eventually put to the Ombudsman for her final verdict.

I would say that someone in this position is certainly not small fry.

I don't know how many sets of complete correspondence between the FOS and the institution concerned you have seen, personally I have just seen my own, which was evidence enough in my case, not only of collusion, but also that the adjudicator had lied to me, confirmation of which, I later received from him via email.

I did not, however, receive this correspondence until I requested it from the FOS, at the judges recommendation, when taking the Nationwide to court a year later, despite having asked the adjudicator for copies of what was taking place at the time.

magpiecottage

Friday_Girl wrote: »

also that the adjudicator had lied to me, confirmation of which, I later received from him via email.

I did not, however, receive this correspondence until I requested it from the FOS, at the judges recommendation, when taking the Nationwide to court a year later, despite having asked the adjudicator for copies of what was taking place at the time.

If you have evidence of this then you can make a complaint against FOS - write to the Service Manager. If you are dissatisfied then take it to the Independent Adjudicator.

You can also write to your MP, of course. This may be an opportune time as the FSA is being replaced - although not FOS.

However, my experience indicates that they are slapdash rather than corrupt. This is because they are under resourced both in terms of quantity (numbers) and quality (capability). Some adjudicators are very well qualified but there is a high turnover and of course the better you are the more likely you will find something better and move on.

shortchanged_2

magpiecottage wrote: »

If you have evidence of this then you can make a complaint against FOS - write to the Service Manager. If you are dissatisfied then take it to the Independent Adjudicator.

That will acheive diddly squat.

shortchanged_2

magpiecottage wrote: »

You can also write to your MP, of course. This may be an opportune time as the FSA is being replaced - although not FOS.

Shame really, as in the words of the Sales of Goods and Services Act the FOS "is not fit for purpose."

magpiecottage

shortchanged wrote: »

That will acheive diddly squat.

Do you have evidence to support this?

If there is clear proof that an adjudicator lied then it will be taken seriously - although it may not be as clear as Friday Girl thinks.

Unfortunately this does sometimes happen - you only have to look at some of the posts on MSE to realise some people are attempting to place blame where it does not belong.

(I am not passing judgement on Friday Girl, simply saying that it is a possibility because I have not seen the evidence).

There IS scope for an adjudicator to be corrupt but it is not in simply finding in favour of a firm because there is no benefit to them in doing so.

Rather, they work in a very pressurised environment and are set high targets with bonuses and so on.

That is not conducive to fair decisions because there is a disincentive to investigate properly.

Given that we could be talking of amounts up to £100,000 - which sometimes will have to come out of the pocket of a retired adviser - I do not think it is a satisfactory way to administer justice.

P-G_2

shortchanged wrote: »

That will achieve diddly squat.

I have evidence that appealing to the Independent Assessor can be a waste of time. I complained to (the previous) IA about the Ombudsman's service standards as he had not followed FOS guidelines on interest rates used for compensation.

The IA thought I had a point and asked FOS to review the issue.

They refused to do so. Here is direct quotation from the IA's letter to me explaining the response as best he could.

" I was initally optimistic that the FOS might have been prepared to settle the matter to your satisfaction. However the response I have received from the Principal Ombudsman has left me in no doubt that FOS would not have accepted any recommendation that I might have made on the interest rate issue "

The matter stopped there so my concerns and the IA's remain unanswered.

I regret to say that the IA has no authority to compel FOS to do anything. If FOS want to ignore the IA they will do so. This means that as well as having little authority, the IA also has little credibility.

There is a new IA now, but with unchanged terms of reference I cannot see much change occuring.

Friday_Girl

shortchanged wrote: »

That will acheive diddly squat.

You are quite right, of course, and see the reality of it that some obviously find difficult to grasp!

I complained while I was dealing with them, and after the Ombudsman's verdict, all ranks close.

Having evidence only makes things worse. To have internal corruption investigated in any organisation, one has to ensure communication takes place, from the outset, with the right person, and one soon finds out that there is no right person. Going to the top is futile and frustrating, and achieves absolutely nothing. The last thing any big organisation wants is for word getting out of any possible internal corruption, anyone naive enough to think otherwise should try it, and witness just how quickly ranks close for all round protection.

As for contacting an MP, that doesn't even warrant an answer.

I don't know how adjudicators are paid by the FOS, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that whatever they get, could easily be beaten by a financial institutions incentive to decrease the claim against them or quash the case altogether. How about just 1% of any saving they made? The adjudicator in my case did his dealings with the Nationwide over the phone, leaving no paper trail his end, but the Nationwide were stupid enough to reply in writing; "As you said ..."

magpiecottage

Friday_Girl wrote: »

I don't know how adjudicators are paid by the FOS, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that whatever they get, could easily be beaten by a financial institutions incentive to decrease the claim against them or quash the case altogether. How about just 1% of any saving they made?

Sorry - I think you have lost the plot here. If caught they would never work again (after getting out of prison!)