Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

roonaldo

Nothing wrong with FOS. they still uphold a majority of complaints in favour or consumer, so you calling them unbiased is correct for the wrong reason.

People always slate Fos when the complaint doesnt go their way, people think they are meant to be a consumer champion or something, or punish firms, but they are there are middle man to solve complaints.

You cant go to FOS with a load of verbal hearsay and nothing concrete.

tifo

they are definitely biased against the consumer.

i've had two major decisions this year which are clearly wrong.

1. the FOS has decided mortgage arrears fees are fair because the bank has given an estimate, totally ignoring UTCCR and common law on penalty. Time taken - 2 years.

2. the FOS has decided defects/damage are not covered by my building guarantee policy even though the previous 2 adjudicators ruled in my favour but the insurer wanted an Ombudsman decision. The policy clearly states the defect/damage is covered and the insurer accepted this last year, their argument being they're not liable to pay for it. Now the FOS is telling them there is no defects/damage yet it can be seen all around the house. The FOS is also saying building mistakes were made but makes no comment on compensation. Time taken - nearly 4 years.

Totally biased in both cases ............... especially the second one.

roonaldo

tifo wrote: »

they are definitely biased against the consumer.

Factually incorrect!
In 2009/10, they upheld 89% of customers PPI complaints.
In 2010/11 FOS upheld 66% of PPI complaints in customers favour.

source
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/99/third-quarter-statistics.pdf

i've had two major decisions this year which are clearly wrong.

only in your opinion

Your complaint was obviously weak.

tifo

roonaldo wrote: »

Factually incorrect!
In 2009/10, they upheld 89% of customers PPI complaints.
In 2010/11 FOS upheld 66% of PPI complaints in customers favour.

source
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/99/third-quarter-statistics.pdf

only in your opinion

Your complaint was obviously weak.

Yes, in my opinion they are very biased ....

My complaints are factually very strong, the law is clear on penalties and the policy clearly states damage is covered ... the Ombudsman is biased. A new house is meant to be built up to certain standards, some of which the policy covers.

This is why I now have to take matters to court for my complaints.

And a JR each for the FOS (yes, i know about the cost).

I've had biased decisions before but these take the mickey !!

dunstonh

Factually incorrect!
In 2009/10, they upheld 89% of customers PPI complaints.
In 2010/11 FOS upheld 66% of PPI complaints in customers favour.

The drop from 89% to 66% is believed to be attributed to the increase in try-it-on/fraudulent complaints from claims companies. Some of whom automatically go to the FOS when there are no grounds.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

The drop from 89% to 66% is believed to be attributed to the increase in try-it-on/fraudulent complaints from claims companies. Some of whom automatically go to the FOS when there are no grounds.

The FOS said that the drop in upheld complaints (89% to 66%) was due to banks not responding to information about complaints over the period of the Judicial Review. The percentage of upheld complaints is based on the number of complaints received against those that are adjudicated on.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The percentage of upheld complaints is based on the number of complaints received against those that are adjudicated on.

FOS says of its statistics:

"resolved cases
The percentage of resolved cases where the ombudsman service made a change in favour of the consumer. This change could range from £1 to £100,000."

So your assertion seems to be incorrect.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

FOS says of its statistics:

"resolved cases
The percentage of resolved cases where the ombudsman service made a change in favour of the consumer. This change could range from £1 to £100,000."

So your assertion seems to be incorrect.

''During the period of that judicial review, our ability to progress cases against many banks and other financial businesses was seriously hampered, meaning that fewer cases than we had planned were resolved. That had an impact on the ‘uphold rate’, as inevitably it was the cases that we thought should be upheld that proved most difficult to finalise.''

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/95/95.html

''The FOS says the decrease in the uphold rate reflects the delay caused by cases being put on hold until the legal challenge ended in April.''

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2011/09/financial-complaints-up-54-with-lloyds-tsb-scoring-worst

src007

tifo wrote: »

Yes, in my opinion they are very biased ...

Why would FOS be biased against a consumer (or business)? Maybe they've made mistakes but they have absoultely nothing to gain by being biased and they have it all to lose. If an Ombudsman was shown to be biased they would lose their job and stain the reputation of the entire organisation. I think they try very hard to remain impartial because its in their self-interest to do so.

src007

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The FOS said that the drop in upheld complaints (89% to 66%) was due to banks not responding to information about complaints over the period of the Judicial Review. The percentage of upheld complaints is based on the number of complaints received against those that are adjudicated on.

I think this is true.

In practise, what happened during the Judical Review is that all PPI complaints would go to adjudicators.

Those complaints that were upheld or needed more information would be ignored by the banks. Those would automatically then go into the Ombudsman's queue and would remain 'unresolved'.

Complaints that were rejected by an adjudicator would usually be finalised (except if the consumer appealed). The rejected complaints would appear in the stats.

Therfore the statistics were skewed because the upheld complaints weren't being regestered.

This is why PPI complaint uphold rate dropped to 66% (which is still shockingly high). When the Judical Reveiw finished the banks then had to respond to all the complaints they'd fraudulently placed ''on hold''. The banks of course couldn't do this and so had to auto uphold many complaints increasing the uphold rate to the highest ever % of more than 90%.

The banks not responding to complaints was fraud on an industrial scale far beyond the worst excesses of any CMC (well, if the word ''fraud'' is going to be used as liberally as the banks use it, then an eye for an eye).