Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

magpiecottage

P-G wrote: »

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.

That is something that should be drawn to the attention of your MP - preferably with your evidence - because it demonstrates that FOS considers itself above scrutiny.

With the rules currently being changed generally, now is an opportune time.

shortchanged_2

magpiecottage wrote: »

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

Has that stopped people in the past. Not everyone is squeaky clean magpiecottage! MP's included.

dilbert222

Does anyone know if there was any outcome of Martin's meeting then? Agree with other posters there are many layers of corruption in the organisation and we appear to be powerless to do anything about it.

trudij

magpiecottage wrote: »

No I never said that. I simply said they don't do what I want to do. I have not said they are a waste of time but my decision not to take one does not rely on my industry knowledge, simply on reading the information provided, considering whether it would meet the needs of my family if I died some other way, deciding it wouldn't and choosing something else.

I think you are also overlooking the fact that if a death is unnatural, sudden or unexpected (as in the case of Trudig's father) it will be referred to a coroner who represents neither party and whose service is paid by local taxation.

If (s)he decides it was unnatural then there will be an inquest. If at the end of that it is found to have been an accident then the policy will pay out. So it is will not be the insurer but the coroner who decides whether the condition required for a valid claim has been met.

An inquest would reach a verdict of unlawful killing if murder or manslaughter had been committed and lawful killing if it was self-defence.

Technically, if a coroner has decided that the death was not accidental the insurer can argue that FOS has no jurisdiction to consider the complaint at all because the coroner is higher in the judicial pecking order than the FOS and has already found that the requirement for a valid claim has not been made.

apologies for dredging this up a few days on - I never thought my comments would spark debate !!

The definition of accident is written on the letters from the insurers pretty much word for word what is on the wiki definition - and we werent contesting that. What we were contesting is that the paramedics had to unblock dads throat to be able to tube him - they took the lump of meat away with them, and it clearly states this on the form that they have to produce for each shout. of course the coroner wouldnt put that on the death certificate or in his notes - it wasnt there when he did the post mortem the following day (or the day after - whenever it was done!) becuase it had been removed !!

Our beef with the insurers is that there is no way it can be anything other than an accident. it was an external, unforseen circumstance - I really dont believe that choking on a lump of meat is in the top 100 ways to commit suicide....

as for the mis-selling bit - you do have to wonder sometimes. Id love to just forget about it, but ive got my stubborn head on about it now, i genuinely dont caare about the money (not that it wouldnt be useful!!) that wont bring dad back - but the fact that the insurers are affiliated to the credit card company who gave us nothing but abuse,rudeness and hassle after his death (and have just reared their heads again after 2 years without contact) then thats not on.

magpiecottage

shortchanged wrote: »

Has that stopped people in the past. Not everyone is squeaky clean magpiecottage! MP's included.

No it doesn't but look at it another way.

Lets suppose somebody Nationwide HAD offered the adjudicator a bribe. What would be in it for the Nationwide employee personally?

Yet they would be the one prosecuted if the adjudicator reported it. The offence is fraud and they can go to prison for it.

The other way round, an adjudicator might suggest a bribe but again has no idea whether the Nationwide employee (who will not gain personally from it) will take the risk of accepting.

They also know that both Nationwide AND FOS record at least some telephone calls.

And Fridaygirl suggests they would do it for 1% - £35 in her case.

If an adjudicator thought that risk was worth taking then they might be corrupt but it would also prove my point that they were incompetent because, frankly, they would be far too stupid for the job.


By contrast, a consumer can make whatever allegations they like with very little risk of prosecution - even if it is crystal clear that they know their allegations are untrue. The benefits of doing so can also be very high and will be theirs personally.

So you can argue that FOS is corrupt and accepts bribes and I will not deny it is possible but the reality is that it is highly unlikely because the individual perpetrators would have little or no motive a relatively high risk of being caught and catastrophic consequences if they did.

Consequently, using the criteria that FOS is supposed to use, I have to conclude that in the absence of firm evidence, it is more likely than not that no such corruption has occurred.

Please remember, though, that I am NOT a fan of FOS. I do think it is incompetent and, as P-G has demonstrated, arrogant.

But the way that it works (to the extent that it does work) is not really compatible with the sort of corruption you allege.

magpiecottage

trudij wrote: »

apologies for dredging this up a few days on

No worries.

trudij wrote: »

What we were contesting is that the paramedics had to unblock dads throat to be able to tube him - they took the lump of meat away with them, and it clearly states this on the form that they have to produce for each shout. of course the coroner wouldnt put that on the death certificate or in his notes - it wasnt there when he did the post mortem the following day (or the day after - whenever it was done!) becuase it had been removed !!

The Coroner will not normally carry out the post mortem themselves. Generally they are lawyers although my last GP was a Deputy Coroner.

trudij wrote: »

Our beef with the insurers is that there is no way it can be anything other than an accident. it was an external, unforseen circumstance

But the insurers were not there to see it. They can only really go on what the Coroner says. So really the problem is not with the insurer but with the Coroner and/or the doctor who carried out the post mortem.

trudij wrote: »

the credit card company who gave us nothing but abuse,rudeness and hassle after his death (and have just reared their heads again after 2 years without contact) then thats not on.

That IS unacceptable, regardless of the merits of your claim. Try to keep full records of this (possibly a diary for the purpose) and then complain about that if you need to.

trudij

magpiecottage wrote: »

But the insurers were not there to see it. They can only really go on what the Coroner says. So really the problem is not with the insurer but with the Coroner and/or the doctor who carried out the post mortem.

I know that, and im not disputing that they only have the coroners report to go on,and if you knew nothing about the evening,at first look it would appear that its easy - but there were witnesses that were there at the time, and there is official NHS documentation clearly stating that the patient had a large blockage which stopped him breathing - and the insurers have said that this is "irrelivant to the situation". It quite clearly is not irrelivant, if he hadnt choked - he wouldnt be dead !!! (well- he was 82 at the time, he quite possibly would by now - but you know what i mean!!)
Whatever - its almost certainally completely irrelivant these days now anyway - they are convinced that my father choked himself to death deliberately - and thats that !! As i said, the money isnt the issue any more, its their insistance that it was natural causes, when it wasnt!!

That IS unacceptable, regardless of the merits of your claim. Try to keep full records of this (possibly a diary for the purpose) and then complain about that if you need to.

Oh i have. And i complained. Many times. it took them 6 months to finally apologise for (amongst other things)the alternate day phone calls,insisting on speaking to dad(even though we had sent all the certificates and forms off as soon as we got them)and refusing to discuss the account with me or my mother because we werent the account holder.... we even had the same person phone us twice in an hour one of the days...

the irony of the two companies causing the most hassle being related hasnt been lost on any of us....

magpiecottage

trudij wrote: »

there were witnesses that were there at the time, and there is official NHS documentation clearly stating that the patient had a large blockage which stopped him breathing

I do sympathise but from the insurer's point of view, the Coroner is experienced in weighing up all the evidence and forming an opinion. Although I do not agree with those who think that because the firm pays a fee to FOS it is biased, there can be no suggestion of that in this case because the Coroner is paid by the local authority that appoints them.

The Coroner has the power to call witnesses which neither the insurer nor FOS does.

So, whilst the Coroner may have got it wrong, the insurer's position is that he is far more likely than not to have got it right.

For the same reason FOS would find it very difficult to contradict the Coroner. If there was an inquest then that would mean a Court had decided and FOS would have to defer to its decision.

So, if what you are saying is true it, I'm afraid the insurer is acting reasonably in relying on the Coroner's decision and only if there was an inquest and it gave a verdict of accidental death would it become unreasonable to maintain that position.

P-G_2

It does look as though Natalie Ceeney is making significant changes at FOS. A number of senior new appointments on six figure salaries have been advertised and some filled. Equally importantly it seems that the procedure for complaining about FOS service standards has changed. The Service Review Manager is now listed on the FOS website as one of the group of Ombudsmen and complaints which the Service Review Team would have handled in the past are now being handled by the "Heads of Casework". Not sure if this actually means anything, but it is a change.

If Natalie is going to do the job properly, she needs to review the role, purpose,authority and independence of the FOS Independent Assessor. There is little point having this final appeal against FOS standards if the Ombudsmen, Principal Ombudsmen (and perhaps the Heads of Casework too) can just ignore her.

Change may be on the way, and about time too !

magpiecottage

P-G wrote: »

There is little point having this final appeal against FOS standards if the Ombudsmen, Principal Ombudsmen (and perhaps the Heads of Casework too) can just ignore her.

I think you will find many IFAs agree with that. The lack of real accountability of FOS increases the risk it becomes a lottery - which is not fair to either side in a dispute.

P-G wrote: »

Change may be on the way, and about time too

A word of warning - there is a subtle difference between change and progress.