Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

dalc87

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I'm afraid this is yet another example of you presenting opinion as fact.

A very succinct way of saying what I was saying. Well said. :rotfl:

sandraroffey

i have had a couple of dealing with the FA and found them extremely biased and not very good for the consumer at all. but thats just me.

roonaldo

sandraroffey wrote: »

i have had a couple of dealing with the FA and found them extremely biased and not very good for the consumer at all. but thats just me.

people who have there complaints rejected always say that. FOS do look at things from an impartial point of view and people hate being told they are wrong.

dalc87

roonaldo wrote: »

people who have there complaints rejected always say that. FOS do look at things from an impartial point of view and people hate being told they are wrong.

I think people don't like being told they are wrong when they are in the right the and person telling them they are wrong have only their opinion to base their decision on.

For example, the FOS adjudicator told me that all of the evidence was he said she said and that the only hard piece of evidence was my bank having a copy of my signature on the PPI form. The only hard piece of evidence that I could provide was the telephone recording of the original sales call that proves my bank said "you cannot have the loan without the PPI". Unsurprisingly my bank refused to release the recording, first of all saying that there was no recording and recordings were random, then when I pointed out that they did in fact record the conversation as they were legally bound to do so they claimed that it had been deleted despite the mandatory 3 years they need to keep the recording for not having passed yet. The FOS failed to demand it and I know this for a fact as I was called at 3.30 in the afternoon by the adjudicator saying that she had been assigned my case and the letter from them rejecting my claim was dated for the same day and arrived the next day. She must have typed the letter and printed it within 2 hours to catch the last post for me to receive it the very next day. There is no way that she could have requested the recording from my bank, received it and listened to it and then decided that I was wrong in under 2 hours. Even if she did get the recording she would have heard me say time and time again that I did not want the PPI until my bank changed their tune and said that my loan would be declined without it.

In this case I am totally in the right. I was missold, my bank disagreed as you would expect them to and the FOS adjudicator has said that I am wrong despite not attempting to review all of the evidence. In my opinion her adjudication was just plain lazy and her telling me I am wrong is frankly insulting.

ILW

dalc87 wrote: »

I think people don't like being told they are wrong when they are in the right the and person telling them they are wrong have only their opinion to base their decision on.

For example, the FOS adjudicator told me that all of the evidence was he said she said and that the only hard piece of evidence was my bank having a copy of my signature on the PPI form. The only hard piece of evidence that I could provide was the telephone recording of the original sales call that proves my bank said "you cannot have the loan without the PPI". Unsurprisingly my bank refused to release the recording, first of all saying that there was no recording and recordings were random, then when I pointed out that they did in fact record the conversation as they were legally bound to do so they claimed that it had been deleted despite the mandatory 3 years they need to keep the recording for not having passed yet. The FOS failed to demand it and I know this for a fact as I was called at 3.30 in the afternoon by the adjudicator saying that she had been assigned my case and the letter from them rejecting my claim was dated for the same day and arrived the next day. She must have typed the letter and printed it within 2 hours to catch the last post for me to receive it the very next day. There is no way that she could have requested the recording from my bank, received it and listened to it and then decided that I was wrong in under 2 hours. Even if she did get the recording she would have heard me say time and time again that I did not want the PPI until my bank changed their tune and said that my loan would be declined without it.

In this case I am totally in the right. I was missold, my bank disagreed as you would expect them to and the FOS adjudicator has said that I am wrong despite not attempting to review all of the evidence. In my opinion her adjudication was just plain lazy and her telling me I am wrong is frankly insulting.

You could have said "no thanks" at that point.

dunstonh

have had a couple of dealing with the FA and found them extremely biased and not very good for the consumer at all. but thats just me.

The general consensus is that the FOS is slightly consumer biased. It will actually deny that and say it is impartial. However, unlike law, it will also consider fairness. So, it does put a slightly greater onus on the firm not only to act legally but also fairly. The FOS is not a consumer body. it is an independent arbiter of complaints. It looks at facts and makes an opinion based on those facts. If you lost your case it was because your allegations could not be proven. Not because the FOS was biased against you.

magpiecottage

dalc87 wrote: »

they did in fact record the conversation as they were legally bound to do so

I note that you were saying a year ago that this related to events four years earlier. I cannot find anything in the FSA rules as they stood up to the end of October 2007 that required them to record such conversations.

As far as I can tell, this is still the case. Some firms are required to record conversations but only for investment business and this rule only came into force in March 2009.

they claimed that it had been deleted despite the mandatory 3 years they need to keep the recording for not having passed yet.

FSA Rule ICOB 2.8 required a firm to maintain adequate records to evidence compliance (ICOB 2.8.1G)

However, it also says, "(1) A firm may arrange for records to be kept in such form as it chooses provided the record is readily accessible for inspection by the FSA."

So your assertion that a recording must exist because of a legal obligation seems flawed.

The FOS failed to demand it and I know this for a fact as I was called at 3.30 in the afternoon by the adjudicator saying that she had been assigned my case and the letter from them rejecting my claim was dated for the same day and arrived the next day. She must have typed the letter and printed it within 2 hours to catch the last post for me to receive it the very next day.

I am afraid you are ignorant of the way FOS works. On receiving your complaint, they will have written to the bank asking for its records and any comments it wished to make. The bank would have submitted copies of all its records, including any recordings of telephone conversations.

There is no way that she could have requested the recording from my bank, received it and listened to it and then decided that I was wrong in under 2 hours.

As I say, that is because FOS already held copies of the bank's evidence.

Even if she did get the recording she would have heard me say time and time again that I did not want the PPI until my bank changed their tune and said that my loan would be declined without it.

That is based on the assumption that a recording existed which, it does not seem to have done.

In this case I am totally in the right. I was missold, my bank disagreed as you would expect them to and the FOS adjudicator has said that I am wrong despite not attempting to review all of the evidence.

The adjudicator can only review the evidence they have in front of them.

In my opinion her adjudication was just plain lazy

It might have been dealt with swiftly but that does not make it wrong. If you have made an assertion and there is no evidence to corroborate it then it is a fairly easy decision.

What you have said may, or may not be true but for a complaint to be upheld whoever is looking at it must conclude that your version of events is more likely than not to be true and not merely equally likely. An assertion for which there is no supporting evidence cannot get beyond 50:50 and so it cannot be the sole basis of an upheld complaint.

her telling me I am wrong is frankly insulting.

I do not know what she said but if she told you that there is no evidence then that sounds fair. If she has told you that your assertion that the bank was legally required to record telephone conversations is incorrect then that seems true as well.


You can of course ask an Ombudsman to consider your complaint.

dalc87

magpiecottage wrote: »

I note that you were saying a year ago that this related to events four years earlier. I cannot find anything in the FSA rules as they stood up to the end of October 2007 that required them to record such conversations.

As far as I can tell, this is still the case. Some firms are required to record conversations but only for investment business and this rule only came into force in March 2009.

FSA Rule ICOB 2.8 required a firm to maintain adequate records to evidence compliance (ICOB 2.8.1G)

However, it also says, "(1) A firm may arrange for records to be kept in such form as it chooses provided the record is readily accessible for inspection by the FSA."

So your assertion that a recording must exist because of a legal obligation seems flawed.

Your assertion that you understand the whole of the facts seems flawed. HSBC recorded the call because when I called them they asked me to confirm that I understood that the call was being recorded. A colleagues partner also works for HSBC and confirmed that the call would have been recorded and that HSBC policy is to keep recordings for three years. Internal rules can obviously be changed but I doubt they would change a rule based on my complaint so I have to assume that they still had the recording.

magpiecottage wrote: »

I am afraid you are ignorant of the way FOS works. On receiving your complaint, they will have written to the bank asking for its records and any comments it wished to make. The bank would have submitted copies of all its records, including any recordings of telephone conversations.

Unless they thought it was incriminating. Having rejected my complaint directly they weren’t going to admit they were wrong on purpose with the FOS and risk losing and getting a fine.

magpiecottage wrote: »

As I say, that is because FOS already held copies of the bank's evidence.

‘Evidence’ that two different people at FOS (adjudicators) have admitted is at best circumstantial and doesn’t fall into the category of evidence that would lead them to lean in the banks favour. It was confirmed to me that neither myself or the bank put forward enough evidence to support our cases and I quote “it’s 50/50, no one is right and no one it wrong”. I challenged this because to make a decision they need to favour one party over the other and if they are saying it is impossible to choose sides how can they have chosen the side of the bank?

magpiecottage wrote: »

That is based on the assumption that a recording existed which, it does not seem to have done.

The recording did exist because HSBC had the recording listened to when I first complained to them and they said that they heard nothing in it to suggest that their sales advisor had missold. If that was the case why did they not send the recording to FOS? Maybe they heard that they had missold me but decided to reject my case as so many people just accept their banks decision without going to the FOS. Either way HSBC refused to send me a copy of the recording and did not submit one to FOS.

magpiecottage wrote: »

The adjudicator can only review the evidence they have in front of them.

And they said the evidence could not be split and that we had equal cases so how can they have judged in the favour of the bank?

magpiecottage wrote: »

It might have been dealt with swiftly but that does not make it wrong. If you have made an assertion and there is no evidence to corroborate it then it is a fairly easy decision.

My evidence cancelled out theirs and vice versa. No decision could be made based on the evidence they said. So how was a decision made? Also the average case takes 4 weeks to adjudicate so how have they managed to turn mine around so quickly? The woman called me to say that she had just got my case that morning. I got the decision the NEXT day. Someone else must have been waiting for 60 days for an adjudication for the averages to stack up.

magpiecottage wrote: »

What you have said may, or may not be true but for a complaint to be upheld whoever is looking at it must conclude that your version of events is more likely than not to be true and not merely equally likely. An assertion for which there is no supporting evidence cannot get beyond 50:50 and so it cannot be the sole basis of an upheld complaint.

If they are equally likely why lean in the favour of one party over the other? That is bias is it not?

magpiecottage wrote: »

I do not know what she said but if she told you that there is no evidence then that sounds fair. If she has told you that your assertion that the bank was legally required to record telephone conversations is incorrect then that seems true as well.

She told me that the evidence on either side cancelled each other out and that by the FSA and FOS rules a signature cannot be counted as evidence of proper selling practice so therefore no party had more compelling evidence than the other and it was 50/50.

magpiecottage wrote: »

You can of course ask an Ombudsman to consider your complaint.

I have and I have been waiting for over 15 months. Natalie Ceeney gave an interview in November saying the waiting time for an ombudsman was 6-9 months. I had been waiting 9 months by the time she gave that interview. They have increased that time to 9-12 months. I am still waiting.

roonaldo

the adjudicators make decision based on the guidance the ombudsmans provides. so if the adjudicator rejected the complaint its highly likely the ombudsman will too. from what you have said, your complaint doesnt sound very strong.

magpiecottage

dalc87 wrote: »

Your assertion that you understand the whole of the facts seems flawed. HSBC recorded the call because when I called them they asked me to confirm that I understood that the call was being recorded. A colleagues partner also works for HSBC and confirmed that the call would have been recorded and that HSBC policy is to keep recordings for three years. Internal rules can obviously be changed but I doubt they would change a rule based on my complaint so I have to assume that they still had the recording.

But you said

dalc87 wrote: »

they did in fact record the conversation as they were legally bound to do.

I merely pointed out that this was incorrect there is no such regulation.

As far as your "friend's partner" is concerned, I doubt very much they know the business wide policy on keeping recordings. That would be a senior management decision and a senior manager would know it was commercially sensitive information that they should not mouth off about.

Having rejected my complaint directly they weren’t going to admit they were wrong on purpose with the FOS and risk losing

FOS has the power to force a firm to disclose recordings if they exist - and does use it. The bank will be fully aware of this - so I do not see why it would attempt to say it had recordings if it did not.

and getting a fine

FOS cannot fine the bank. On the other hand, it can report concerns to the FSA, which CAN fine it - heavily.

If it thought the bank had attempted a cover up, it is likely that it would report it. So the risk to the bank of pretending it had no recording when it did would be great.

‘Evidence’ that two different people at FOS (adjudicators) have admitted is at best circumstantial and doesn’t fall into the category of evidence that would lead them to lean in the banks favour. It was confirmed to me that neither myself or the bank put forward enough evidence to support our cases and I quote “it’s 50/50, no one is right and no one it wrong”. I challenged this because to make a decision they need to favour one party over the other and if they are saying it is impossible to choose sides how can they have chosen the side of the bank?

Because of the very old legal principle that "he who asserts must prove". You have asserted that it was missold.

FOS does not expect you to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, nor does expect you to marshall and present your own evidence but it DOES expect all the available evidence to show it is more likely than not, and not merely equally as likely, that your assertion is true.

50:50 is "merely equally as likely" - so your complaint has to fail.

The recording did exist because HSBC had the recording listened to when I first complained to them and they said that they heard nothing in it to suggest that their sales advisor had missold. If that was the case why did they not send the recording to FOS? Maybe they heard that they had missold me but decided to reject my case as so many people just accept their banks decision without going to the FOS. Either way HSBC refused to send me a copy of the recording and did not submit one to FOS.

You can always submit a Data Subject Access Request and ask for it - it will cost you £10.

And they said the evidence could not be split and that we had equal cases so how can they have judged in the favour of the bank?

I refer you to my earlier answer

My evidence cancelled out theirs and vice versa. No decision could be made based on the evidence they said. So how was a decision made?

I refer you to my earlier answer

Also the average case takes 4 weeks to adjudicate so how have they managed to turn mine around so quickly? The woman called me to say that she had just got my case that morning. I got the decision the NEXT day. Someone else must have been waiting for 60 days for an adjudication for the averages to stack up.

The timescale also includes obtaining the relevant information from the bank - which, if the recording really does exist, might include that very recording. Once received, it is allocated to an adjudicator who, if they conclude it should not be upheld, will issue an adjudication fairly quickly.

If they are equally likely why lean in the favour of one party over the other? That is bias is it not?

I refer you to my earlier answer

She told me that the evidence on either side cancelled each other out and that by the FSA and FOS rules a signature cannot be counted as evidence of proper selling practice so therefore no party had more compelling evidence than the other and it was 50/50.

I refer you to my earlier answer

I am not really a fan of FOS - not since it decided an IFA should have advised a Chartered Accountant about a tax issue - but its position seems correct.

You appear to have taken offence at being truthfully told you are incorrect by FOS.

I suspect you will now take offence at this post for much the same reason.