Have your say on the Financial Ombudsman Service

magpiecottage

dacouch wrote: »

I like that they have previous cases listed so customers / financial organisations can view them, however the search system is not very good which makes finding relevant cases cumbersome. If they changed the system so you could just have returns on either a specific product eg Home Insurance or it you could just have returns on say Insurance it would make it easier to find relevant information

I agree it would be nice - it would certainly make my life easier.

You have to remember, though, that these are not intended to set precedents and they appear in a publication called "Ombudsman News". It is intended as that, a newsletter, not a textbook.

magpiecottage

moneysavingnewbie1 wrote: »

its the fsa that sets what powers fso has. so take it out on the fsa.

That is true but the FOS does a lot of "interpreting" at times!

moneysavingnewbie1 wrote: »

thirdly "adjudicators used to work for them" thats complete pants as i know someone who works there and he said the majority of them are lawyers or educated in law.

That is not true - many adjudicators are contractors who have a financial services background and may or may not have qualifications, depending on what they are doing.

Having said that, there is a danger that a lawyer will not understand the financial services issues unless they specialise in that area.

magpiecottage

hedger44 wrote: »

He says he cannot tell if their case is true, he does not know which of us to believe, us or the institution, so he is siding with them.

That is in accordance with the legal principle that "he who asserts must prove". He has to consider it more likely than not, and not merely equally likely that the assertions are true.

hedger44 wrote: »

Another possible problem is the calibre of person dealing with the complaint. I had to explain something 3 times before he grasped the point which I was making, which was not particularly difficult. Also, he seemed to be starting from the position that I was in the wrong.

Been there!

wightboy

I think the FSA should stop the banks charging so much for mortgages!
I'm on a 5 year fixed rate which is about to end. It is 4.99% whch was set up almost 5 years ago when the base rate was higher BUT when I look around now (with the base rate at 0.5%) I struggle to find a much better rate (without a big up front fee).
Surely ths is the banks acting as a Cartel and should be forced by the FSA to offer fair rates!!!

magpiecottage

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

The test for every case should be.

If you had made £50,0000, would you bring a claim?

Most people would keep the £50,000

I disagree - if you had made £50,000(0) you would have nothing to complain about but if you have lost then you might.

magpiecottage

abtg wrote: »

I would like the Financial Ombudsman to investigate how much money is being made by forcing customers to be on hold on 0845 numbers while trying to bring an issue to the attention of their bank.

That is way outside its jurisdiction - though a complainant could ask for reimbursement of costs incurred if they were unreasonable.

magpiecottage

davidnoble wrote: »

I own an ex local authority flat
Damaged caused to it during council works
Local authority act as agent for their insurer(its an unusual power that LA's have!)

Took 4 months to get them to inspect
They denied damage-despite documented proof incl pictures

They refuse to put finding in writing
Refuse to give their policy details-other than Zurich Municipal

Speaking to Zurich they refuse to consider there is a claim until LA
put anything in writing
LA ombudsmen refers you back to insurers

Financial Ombudsmen needs to address this anomoly and make LA.s act in spirit of law,not, to reduce their premiums!

The Financial Ombudsman Service has no jurisdiction over Zurich Municipal in this matter because it is a third party claim.

In fact, you should claim under your own buildings insurance although if it is a flat and the freehold is held by the council then it will be the council's insurers. If it then turned out that Zurich Municipal was the insurer for that and you were unhappy you would be able to take them to FOS because you would be claiming under a policy that was intended to protect you, rather than one intended to protect the council from a claim against it by you.

magpiecottage

DebraH wrote: »

Change the rules so that under the Financial Services Act customers who were mis-sold endowments prior to 28 August 1988 can be considered for compensation.

Makes me cross that all customers who are likely to incur a shortfall in their endowment payouts are not automatically considered for compensation.

I'm afraid that wouldn't work.

The money for compensation has to come from somewhere and you cannot simply rob Peter to compensate Paul if Peter did not break the rules as they stood at the time.

The date of 28 August 1988 is the effective date of the Financial Services Compensation scheme which pays out on claims that would otherwise have been met by a firm that is no longer in a position to do so - but it has no funds to meet claims in respect of bad advice given prior to that date and those firms still in business have no liability for it either.

liverpoollad75

I dont know about you lot but I am flabber gasted to read all this I thought I was in the minority but it seems I am not.

Although its good to see that I am not the only one it just shows that the FSO is a waste of time, what I would like to know is that why does the FSO/adjudicator send a copy of every letter it sends you to the company your complaining about but does not copy you in every letter it sends to them. Am I being cynical or is there something to hide?

To be honest Martin Lewis, I think you are wasting your time with the FSO, they will be full of broken promises and find some way of supporting the institutions that they work for! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

magpiecottage

cazzacazza wrote: »

My beef is with Ryanair & the fiasco after the volcanic ash cloud.

FOS has no jurisdiction over airlines except perhaps for the sale of travel insurance.

And the volcano operates in a foreign jurisdiction!