Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

dalc87

After 9 months of complaining to my bank about them mis-selling me PPI and waiting for weeks on end for letters telling me to wait weeks on end for more letters telling me to wait weeks on end for a letter with a final decision which I knew was going to reject my claim and then going through the whole process again, twice, I decided to put my case to the Financial Ombudsman service.

It took them about a week to assign my case, one 5 minute phone call and about 2 hours before they posted a letter telling me that they agreed with my bank! :mad::(

My complaint was thus: My bank mis-sold me PPI on the basis that they would not allow me to obtain a personal loan from them without taking the PPI.
The Financial Ombudsman service agreed with my bank because I had signed the form saying 'I wish to purchase a personal loan protection plan'.
Of course I signed it! The bank told me that I had to! If I could have changed the wording I would have done and it would have read 'I am being forced to purchase a personal loan protection plan'.

I've been fighting for this for a long time and believe I am in the right, with so many successful cases around I cannot see why I am being turned down (I'm waiting from a final decision from an ombudsman and have to write a final letter). I remember being told by my bank that I had to take the insurance otherwise I couldn't have a personal loan and that should be saved on their call recordings.

Has anyone got any ideas over what I can write to the ombudsman to help change their minds?

amersall

Hi there, you could request the recording from the bank. Ask the fos if they can get this for you. Is it possible that the fos have listened to this recording?.

dunstonh

Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

You are right. It is generally regarded as having a slight consumer bias as it doesn't just take into account law but also fairness to the consumer.

My complaint was thus: My bank mis-sold me PPI on the basis that they would not allow me to obtain a personal loan from them without taking the PPI.

What evidence did you have to back up your accusation?

The Financial Ombudsman service agreed with my bank because I had signed the form saying 'I wish to purchase a personal loan protection plan'.
Of course I signed it! The bank told me that I had to! If I could have changed the wording I would have done and it would have read 'I am being forced to purchase a personal loan protection plan'.

You put your signature to something and documentary evidence is king. You could have written you were forced to have it if you wanted to.

with so many successful cases around I cannot see why I am being turned down

Most cases are upheld as they lack supporting documentary evidence. Where evidence does exist, it tends to go with the party supplying it (i.e. if you have proof and they dont you tend to win (or vice versa).

I remember being told by my bank that I had to take the insurance otherwise I couldn't have a personal loan and that should be saved on their call recordings.

If it was on the phone, then why were you forced to sign something?

Has anyone got any ideas over what I can write to the ombudsman to help change their minds?

Like any accusation of a crime, you supply your evidence to support your claim. What have you got?

dalc87

Thanks for the responses so far. I have requested the recording from the bank on numerous occasions but they said that because they considered my complaint and decided it not be upheld that they so no point in locating a 4 year old conversation and that it may have been deleted by now! When I asked for it as evidence to hand to the ombudsman they said that the ombudsman had to ask for it and again it may have been deleted by now.

@DunstonH

I was forced to sign something even though it was on the phone because that is what you do when you take out a personal loan. You apply then sign.
With regards to signing the paperwork, it was all put under my nose by an adviser who had conveniently put an 'x' next to every thing I needed to sign before I arrived and rushed me in and out in 5 mins flat. As far as I was concerned (being only 19 at the time) everything had been explained to me properly and that I had to have the PPI.

When I say if I could have changed it, I don't mean at the time, because at the time I didn't know it was wrong of them to force me into buying the PPI. They offered it to me at first, I considered it and decided that I didn't need it and did not want it. I told this to my bank and then they changed their tune and said that I had to take it, it was internal policy that someone with my 'means of repayment should I fall ill or out of work' is required to have PPI included in their loan.

What was I supposed to do, take indepenent financial advise, call the FSA, ombudsman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask "is this right?" ? I did what all good little customers do and trusted the 'adviser' to advise me on the best option for my requirements. Whilst I appreciate that they are a business and need to act in their best interests I believe in this case they did not act in their best interests because as soon as I found out that they had forced a product on me that I didn't need or want and was not "required" to have and gave them the chance to rectify the situation which they declined I cancelled all other products with them and transferred them to another bank. So effectively they have lost my business, my fiancees business and my businesses business.

The only other evidence that I can present is in the hands of the accused. So I'm screwed I guess!?!

dmg24

You were not forced to take the loan, you chose to do so.

dunstonh

What was I supposed to do, take indepenent financial advise, call the FSA, ombudsman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask "is this right?"

You shouldnt need to. You are putting your signature to a document and that means something in all walks of life.

I did what all good little customers do and trusted the 'adviser' to advise me on the best option for my requirements.

You didnt use an adviser. You used a clerk with a sales target working for a retail sales business. Had you sought advice you would have found an iFA could have given you standalone protection at a fraction of the cost. So, maybe it wouldnt have been a bad idea getting advice!

The only other evidence that I can present is in the hands of the accused. So I'm screwed I guess!?!

Think of the complaints process with the ombudsman as how a court would act. They look at your accusation. They look at your evidence. They look at the response and the evidence the other side give. They then make a decision based on that. Signatures are not an excuse for getting away with things that are wrong (like incorrect product) but in things like this, it is very strong evidence and if you have nothing you would have to be really convincing to the FOS to get them side with you.

dalc87

dmg24 wrote: »

You were not forced to take the loan, you chose to do so.

Not helpful!

I chose to take the PPI because I couldn't have the loan without it. If you really need bread and the only shop in town says "you cannot have bread without buying our butter" you only have two choices, buy the butter also or not have any bread.... Not really much of a choice is it if your family is hungry and bread is the only thing you can eat. Nevermind if you are lactose intolerant and will never use the butter, it's okay because you CHOSE to buy the butter right.

I asked for advice not opinion.

dmg24

dalc87 wrote: »

Not helpful!

I chose to take the PPI because I couldn't have the loan without it. If you really need bread and the only shop in town says you cannot have bread without buying our butter you only have two choices, buy the butter also or not have any bread.... Not really much of a choice is it if your family is hungry and bread is the only thing you can eat. Nevermind if you are lactose intolerant and will never use the butter, it's okay because you CHOSE to buy the butter right.

I asked for advice not opinion.

Don't be so silly. If you are that desperate the state provides for you. No one is obliged to take out credit. Stop blaming other people and take responsibility.

dalc87

dmg24 wrote: »

Don't be so silly. If you are that desperate the state provides for you. No one is obliged to take out credit. Stop blaming other people and take responsibility.

What bunkum. It's that sort of attitude that has created the benefit state we live in.

I used bread/butter as an analogy! You are right, no one is obliged to take out credit but then again no one is obliged to take out PPI hence why I believe it was mis-sold. Are you a banker, did you sell me the PPI is that why you are wasting my time posting rubbish that isn't helpful?

Stop posting unless you have something constructive to say about my thread/issue NOT your own personal opinions on how other people should take responsibility etc. How about everyone who the state provides for bar pensioners and disabled people 'take responsibility' and stop taking money from the states coffers?!

PPI_Technichal_Expert

dunstonh wrote: »

You are right. It is generally regarded as having a slight consumer bias as it doesn't just take into account law but also fairness to the consumer.



What evidence did you have to back up your accusation?



You put your signature to something and documentary evidence is king. You could have written you were forced to have it if you wanted to.



Most cases are upheld as they lack supporting documentary evidence. Where evidence does exist, it tends to go with the party supplying it (i.e. if you have proof and they dont you tend to win (or vice versa).



If it was on the phone, then why were you forced to sign something?



Like any accusation of a crime, you supply your evidence to support your claim. What have you got?

Coulnd t agree more dustonh. Well put sir.

PPI_Technichal_Expert

dalc87 wrote: »

What bunkum. It's that sort of attitude that has created the benefit state we live in.

I used bread/butter as an analogy! You are right, no one is obliged to take out credit but then again no one is obliged to take out PPI hence why I believe it was mis-sold. Are you a banker, did you sell me the PPI is that why you are wasting my time posting rubbish that isn't helpful?

Stop posting unless you have something constructive to say about my thread/issue NOT your own personal opinions on how other people should take responsibility etc. How about everyone who the state provides for bar pensioners and disabled people 'take responsibility' and stop taking money from the states coffers?!

I understand your point about feeling that you had to tick the box to get the loan, but did u read what it said? By ticking and signing to that effect saying you wanted to take out ppi is documentary evidence that u knew you didn't have to have it as you could have left it blank, and also that u wanted to take it. What evidence have you got to go against this? pretty much nothing. When the fos make decisions they do it based on the evidence. If you say u wernt aware it was optional but the document u signed says you did, and this is the only evidence, then there is only one outcome I'm afriad! Ge ur adjudicator to chase them for a phone recording, but if u said it was sold over the phone then I imagine the adjudicator wud havr requested it! If not, ask him to get a call script. Even then, I doubt a call script is going to have anything onerous on it. So basically, ur not going to win, I know it sucks, but its the reality. Sorry cudnt be of more help!