Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

dunstonh

Whilst I and I am sure many others appreciate the distinction it is unfair of you to belittle people for calling people who are not FSA registered 'advisors'.

its not belittling anyone. Its making sure you are aware that they use titles that make them sound more authoritive than they are and you need to be careful you don't fall for it.

Get over yourself. Just because you are an IFA doesn't mean you should get so angsty about people calling bank employees 'advisor'. It's just a job title.

A job title that has clearly made some people think they are speaking to someone who they are not.

Generally regarded by who?

It is true that they take into consideration what is fair and reasonable but this applies equally to the seller and there is nothing the FOS have ever said that suggests it doesn't.

Most people. If you had only the courts then they would not consider fairness. The FOS do. So, that gives them the slight consumer bias. Plus, there is no legal timebar. Again, a consumer bias. There FOS also takes the position that the consumer is low IQ unless proven otherwise (often it is distinction made by occupation to decide on their ability to understand).

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

Most people.

The fact is that you won't know the opinion of most people.

dunstonh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The fact is that you won't know the opinion of most people.

Stick to the facts then. Is the FOS more consumer biased than a court. Answer: yes.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

Stick to the facts then.

Well a pretty well know fact is that most people don't go to the ombudsman after their complaint is dismissed.

Odd that, if most of them think the Ombudsman would be biased in their favour.

dunstonh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Well a pretty well know fact is that most people don't go to the ombudsman after their complaint is dismissed.

Odd that, if most of them think the Ombudsman would be biased in their favour.

That has nothing to do with the facts though and you are the one that seems so keen on keeping it factual.

PPI_Technichal_Expert

worldsnooker147 wrote: »

firstly, the woman who deals with all my cases(financial reviews etc) at the banks 'IS' an advisor, as her business card i have says so as well as her name badge, so to me she is an advisor, and if she is really not then she will surely be breaking some kind of law and that will be going on my case

secondly,yes, my NHS sick pay is 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay, but if after that ill health means i cant work then my NHS pension ill health will come into effect as iv looked into it from my employers themselves, so technically they shouldnt have sold me it, as the following kind of websites also state

http://www.nhsonline.net/reclaim/

i just emailed the adjudicator dealing with my case and got a reply instantly saying he has upheld my case based on the evidence but HSBC have disagreed with his decision(suprise suprise!) so they have requested an Ombudsman to review the adjudicators decision, so hopefully alls looking good!!

Whether they were an advisor or not is irrelevant as it doesn't mean that they provided advice. What matters is whether they advised the policy for your needs. This will be evident post 2005 by what is written on your demands and needs document. Just to confirm, 6 months full and 6 months half is not enough to make a recommendation unsuitable. There would have to be another kind of policy or something very substantial in addition to that. Ask your adjudicator why he upheld your complaint this will shed some light on why they felt it was a missale.

PPI_Technichal_Expert

dalc87 wrote: »

You need to stop making the distinction between adviser and clerk. When Joe Public goes/calls somewhere and is greet by an 'Adviser' they do not scrutinise that persons job title. No one is calling them 'Financial Advisers' they are just calling them Adviser, which is how they introduce themselves.

Who calls their bank is greeted by a voice saying "Good Morning/Afternoon Mr/Mrs XYZ, My name is Jenny and I'll be your customer adviser today"?
Who calls their bank and is greeted by a voice saying "Good Morning/Afternoon Mr/Mrs XYZ, My name is Jenny and I am not an adviser I am a bank clerk/telesales agent, sagittarius, 26 years old, Sophie Kinsella fan, rock climbing enthusiast, vegan and I will not be trying to sell you things that you do not want today"?

It's unfair to keep picking on people's definition of adviser. If that is that persons job title then that is what the customer will think they are.

Also I think that a distinction needs to be made surrounding wanting, having and needing PPI.
The banks wants you to have it. It may be a good idea to have it, some may say that you need it but ultimately if you do not WANT it then the banks should not force you to have it.

Worldsnooker and I and many others quite clearly did not want it yet were pushed into buying it. That makes it a mis-sold policy and therefore we deserve to have our money back.
If we didn't take the PPI and we were struggling to make the repayments then more fool us but at least allow us the dignity of making our own decisions!

I just want to point out that if they were told they had to have the policy in branch then that is a mis-sale for theoretical purposes. However, it is what you can prove at the ombudsman. Where you were told this in branch but have signed documents clearly showing that the policy was optional then you will not win.

Hope this helps somewhat

PPI_Technichal_Expert

-BA- wrote: »

I believe the burden of proof is upon the banks. Why are these cases being upheld if that is not the case? Granted, the OPs hasn't but mine has and a number of others I have read, have been.

And if they show documentation that says optional and you have ticked it and signed then that is proof that you knew it wa soptional and you dont have a chance at the ombudsman for the optionality point. I suspect that the other cases that were upheld where this was the case there upholds were based on another factor. But certianly not optionality.

roonaldo

dalc87 wrote: »

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.

From a neutral point of view, this is a very week arguement in your case. Your word vs theres, they have the documentary evidence, you just have an accusation, so you have no chance.

Unfortunetely you cannot prove it, thats your problem.

roonaldo

-BA- wrote: »

I believe the burden of proof is upon the banks. Why are these cases being upheld if that is not the case? Granted, the OPs hasn't but mine has and a number of others I have read, have been.

Each persons circumstances are different and people have different needs, one thing may be suitable for one but not another. There are different ppi's on different types of products paid by different methods in different sales channels, some advised, some non advised.

To suggest because one persons complaint is upheld means the nexts persons will be is just baloney.