Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

tifo

wampots wrote: »

i dread to think how much of our taxes this shambles costs

£113.7 million. Amazing how they've matched their income and expenditure!

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/pb10/pb10-5.html

lobbylud

Hi

I had an income protection policy with (now) Aviva which I successfully claimed on 12 years ago following a diagnosis of M.S. Two years ago, after a a drawn-out process, Aviva ceased my claim. I went to the Ombudsman who found in Aviva's favour. I was saddened & shocked & tired of the battle. However I appealed to the Ombudsman & recently received a provisional finding in my favour. I receive the final decision in August so am keeping my finger's crossed!

The whole process has been exhausting & disheartening. I'd become so despondent that when my recent (provisional finding) letter arrived, I could barely summon up the energy & courage to open it. I think that there must be few people who will take on an appeal to the Ombudsman as, like me, they assume that they must reconcile themself to the inevitability of it all. I also assumed that a senior Ombudsman would concur with a junior's decision. Hopefully, my situation will be resolved with the correct outcome - but how many others would have just given up the fight?

P-G_2

The FOS has a lot of problems, its massive, under stress and the staff may be under-qualified in a complex financial world. My dealings with them have been very unsatisfactory, but I have learned a lot about what goes on when an ordinary person goes to FOS for help. I have tried to keep these questions general and of interest to everyone who uses the FOS, but they are, of course, influenced by my own experience

Questions to ask the FOS

1. Why are Adjudicators and Ombudsmen not required to have financial services qualifications ? (latest FOS advert)

2. What qualifications and experience are actually required to be an Adjudicator ?

3. 1000+ Adjudicators and Ombudsmen reached 163,000 decisions last year. There must have been some mistakes. Why is there no appeals process at FOS ? ( Referring a case from Adjudicator to Ombudsman is not an independent appeal, especially if the reference was made because the Adjudicator was incompetent)

4. Why does FOS not publish its guidelines so that consumers can be aware of what they ?

5. Why does FOS not check a firm's compensation calculations, (generally speaking these are not specifically checked) ordinary consumers have no way to check them ? Getting these confirmed as reasonable is why some people go to the FOS

6. If the FOS accepts a firm's compensation without checking the calculations, how can he be sure it is fair and reasonable ?

7. Why does " The FOS take the view that there is a fundamental distinction between a situation where the firm has made a settlement offer, and one where no offer has been made and the FOS award compensation". (quotation from a letter from the Independent Assessor dated 21/11/2007). This means a firm which makes an offer can sneak though paying less compensation than FOS guidelines would require if imposed.

8. Why is the FOS allowed to simply ignore the Independent Assessor when he is concerned about an issue and asks for an explanation ?

9. Why is the Independent Assessor's address, phone, fax and email kept secret ? She has to be contacted by a PO BOX number. The recent job advert tells us she is based at FOS HQ and uses FOS staff.

10. All Banks and firms use highly qualified and experienced professionals to handle their side of customer disputes. Probably more knowledgeable than many FOS staff. Why does the FOS expect a consumer to put their case "in their own words" and discourage the consumer from using a professional adviser, even in a complex financial dispute ? Is this not bias in favour of the Banks ?

11. The FOS Annual Review tells us that 5 out of 6 potential disputes (760,000 last year) never reach an Adjudicator or Ombudsman because they are handled by FOS Customer Service staff using call centre technology. What qualifications do these junior staff have to decide if a complaint warrants proper investigation or not ? What audit is made of these 760,000 cases to ensure no mistakes have been made, so that these can be corrected ?

12. IFA's have professional qualifications which take years of training and examinations to achieve. These must be kept up to date to maintain the qualification. How can FOS staff make decisions about these professionals unless they have the same knowledge ?

13. Why is the burden of proof different for the consumer and the firm ? To win the argument the consumer must show that he is more likely to be correct, not just as likely. So if the arguments are equally balanced FOS finds for the firm. (letter from Adjudicator explaining this, and my thanks to magpiecottage for reminding me of it)

14. Is it true that Adjudicators are only paid their bonus if they resolve a certain number of cases every week or month ? Surely this must pressurise them to rush their work ?

15. FINALLY... If a consumer accepts an Ombudsman's decision, then finds that the Ombudsman withheld information which would have caused the consumer to REJECT the Ombudsman's decision, why can the case not be reviewed, especially when the Independent Assessor has also asked FOS to review it ?

Sorry... Q15 is a personal question about my case, but some MSE readers may be interested to hear the answer, or perhaps be surprised that it is necessary to ask the question !

If MSE readers want to know what can happen when a 90 year old lady takes her case to the FOS, and read the background to why I ask these questions, and why I felt I had to submit evidence to the Lord Hunt Review of the FOS, the full details are available on my special "FOS Problems " web, together with my actual evidence letter to Lord Hunt. It seems as a new user, I am not allowed to post a link here so please google
"financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk"
and you should find my 'financial-ombudsman-problems' website without too much searching. This has details of what happened. If the mods will let me post a link, I will update the message

magpiecottage

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions here so I will try to do some quoting and explaining why.

I apologise in advance if the answers are not what you want to hear but hopefully it will help you to understand.

magpiecottage

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

think the process takes far too long

Yes it does - that is because they are underresourced.

It is also a consequence of it being free and without risk for consumers - they get bogged down with the most stupid complaints.

They do have the right to dismiss complaints without considering their merits if they are considered frivolous or vexatious but never use it because it is politically uncomfortable for them. I think this is wrong because it delays legimate complaints and also forces firms to defend claims which are ridiculous (and pass the cost onto other consumers in charges).

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?

No FOS can't, it an only act on individual cases. It can refer the matter to the FSA or the Courts under something known as a "Wider Implications" process but it is for the FSA, not FOS to make the regulations (until the Government gets round to replacing it).

Rhino666

I was going to complain to the Financial Ombudsman about paypal but having read the posts in this thread it would seem they are totally useless !!

If I have stolen credit/debit card details of cards not currently connected to a paypal account, I can defraud website sellers with impunity. The transaction will be authorised with a partially eligible status as many are, meaning that as a website seller you will be shafted for the full chargeback of an unauthorised transaction as well as paypals £7 fee for disputing the chargeback - never successful.

All I need is the long card number, expiry date, three security digits on back of card and correct billing address for card. With these details I can get paypal to authorise multiple transactions to a false name and address with false/non existent phone number/email address. Paypal authorise when the address is changed at their invitation to the correct card billing address on the website but the seller never gets to see the correct billing address and is advised to send to the false address, still connected to the transaction.

This is a joke - is anyone able to address this ?

magpiecottage

crazyhaggid wrote: »

Also how about some common sense, my OH reveived letters from the BOS about having to pay £0.00 or she'll get a default, obvioulsy a computer error, despite our best efforts BOS went ahead and registered a default for failure to pay £0.00! This happened over a year ago, initally despite me writting to the omb quoting parts of CCA with regards to correctly serving defaults, they intially ruled in BOS's favour! We'll appealling it and are STILL waiting a reply. Meanwhile my OH can't even change bank accounts, take out a mobile phone contract thanks to the default. Its nothing short of ridiculous.

I agree - ask the adjudicator, in writing, why they think it is "fair and reasonable" for the bank to issue a default on a non-existent debt and you should be seeking redress for the "Distress and Inconvenience".

Keep it simple for an adjudicator to understand!

hogweed

amcy wrote: »

The FOS is completely in the pocket of the financial companies and a waste of everyone's money.

Really, that says it all. Everything else we say here is just adding to that!

magpiecottage

liverpoollad75 wrote: »

I do not understand why the FSO is actually around. It is a biased organisation that always rules in favour of the financial industry

Actually, former adjudicators I have spoken to say if anything the bias is in favour of the consumer although strictly they should find in favour of the firm unless the evidence is more likely than not, and not simply equally likely that the firm has caused a loss.

I have seen evidence of this because. A number of teachers have had mortgage endowment complaints upheld despite being given illustrations that showed a possible maturity value below the mortgage amount. The Ombudsman took the view that they would not have realised it was not enough.

The Ombudsman may be right but I don't want those teachers in front of my children - although perhaps the children could teach them some arithmetic!