Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

roonaldo

src007 wrote: »

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.

People on this forum always slate FOS when it doesnt got their way.

I've worked at FOS myself as an adjudicator for a year so I know how impartial they are. People forget/dont realise what they are there for and think they are a consumer champion thats going to side with them, but they are there as an arbitrator.

I remember when some bloke was arguing with me for rejecting his complaint as he actually said to me "you're meant to be on my side" "you have got to punish them", which just shows some people dont under what FOS are.

Magrew

I will tell you my tale and you can draw your own conclusions.

A large bank applied a default on me in error. I was unaware that this had occurred until I applied for a mortgage and found that no financial institutions would entertain my application due to my credit score. I enrolled the help of a mortgage advisor to guide me through these difficulties.

The mortgage advisor helped me identify the presence of the default. Unfortunately I could not get it lifted at the time I had to sign up to the mortgage so the only financial institution that would discuss mortgages with me was the one that had applied the default. Effectively monopolising my business and denying me the opportunity of dealing with other mortage suppliers.

A few months after purchasing my new property I discovered paperwork which proved the erroneously applied default. The FI admitted their error and offered some token compensation. I cried foul and pointed out that they had left me in the position where I had to accept a mortgage rate of 4.25% when the market was offering 1.99% at the time I applied for my mortgage therefore the compensation should redress this balance over the two years fixed term of the mortgage. They offered me half the difference. I refused this and placed a complaint with the ombudsman.

I understood from FOS documentation that the principle of their considerations was to place the consumer in a similar position as they would have been had the FI's error not occurred. After 18 months wait the ombudsman came back with a decision that the FI should pay me £300 compensation.

Now considering that the FI had admitted their error and offered £4500 compensation 18 months earlier and the difference in interest over the 2 year fixed term was almost £10,000 then the decision appears unfair.

Or is it just me?

rabthejab

roonaldo wrote: »

People on this forum always slate FOS when it doesnt got their way.

I've worked at FOS myself as an adjudicator for a year so I know how impartial they are. People forget/dont realise what they are there for and think they are a consumer champion thats going to side with them, but they are there as an arbitrator.

I remember when some bloke was arguing with me for rejecting his complaint as he actually said to me "you're meant to be on my side" "you have got to punish them", which just shows some people dont under what FOS are.

with an attitude like that its no wonder you appear biased, in every occupation you have good and bad, the fos just seems to lean towards the financial institutes to the detrement of joe public, some of the decisions that are supposed to be reached at in a fair manner are simply not fair. the fos adjudicators do not respond well to complaints and seem to forget that joe public are there because they cant get anywhere with the financial services such as banks who ignore joe public, trading standards and the FOS. I believe that the fos adjudicator is always on the side of financial institutions thats why the banks get away with ignoring the fos. there should be no FOS it should be closed down it achieves no more than an empty building its all a complete waste of public money and is a farce.

rabthejab

Magrew wrote: »

I will tell you my tale and you can draw your own conclusions.

A large bank applied a default on me in error. I was unaware that this had occurred until I applied for a mortgage and found that no financial institutions would entertain my application due to my credit score. I enrolled the help of a mortgage advisor to guide me through these difficulties.

The mortgage advisor helped me identify the presence of the default. Unfortunately I could not get it lifted at the time I had to sign up to the mortgage so the only financial institution that would discuss mortgages with me was the one that had applied the default. Effectively monopolising my business and denying me the opportunity of dealing with other mortage suppliers.

A few months after purchasing my new property I discovered paperwork which proved the erroneously applied default. The FI admitted their error and offered some token compensation. I cried foul and pointed out that they had left me in the position where I had to accept a mortgage rate of 4.25% when the market was offering 1.99% at the time I applied for my mortgage therefore the compensation should redress this balance over the two years fixed term of the mortgage. They offered me half the difference. I refused this and placed a complaint with the ombudsman.

I understood from FOS documentation that the principle of their considerations was to place the consumer in a similar position as they would have been had the FI's error not occurred. After 18 months wait the ombudsman came back with a decision that the FI should pay me £300 compensation.

Now considering that the FI had admitted their error and offered £4500 compensation 18 months earlier and the difference in interest over the 2 year fixed term was almost £10,000 then the decision appears unfair.

Or is it just me?

the decision is completely unfair but thats the FOS scratching the banks back in case they ever need a job, whats the point of even having a FOS for example access 2trades and advent studends have been ripped off by Barclay's of approx £4495 per student and there are hundreds of students yet the fos has failed all of these students apart form one or two I just wonder what percentage of these student had a 'fair' and 'unbiased' hearing probably 2 out of all the complaints. its a diabolical mis-service geared to help the crooks who go under the name of Bankers who cant lose when the fos is in their pocket. time some-thing was done about the close relationship with the FOS and the banks the fos are frightened of the banks 'they get loans as well wonder if this has some-thing to do with it.

magpiecottage

rabthejab wrote: »

with an attitude like that its no wonder you appear biased, in every occupation you have good and bad, the fos just seems to lean towards the financial institutes to the detrement of joe public

If that were true then it would follow that it would never uphold a complaint about PPI on the grounds that the premium was front-loaded, since that is not actually unlawful and a court will not allow such a claim to succeed.

dunstonh

Just remember that when you are told you have no grounds for complaint by the FOS it usually means you dont. It does not mean they are biased. It just looks like sour grapes on your part.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

since that is not actually unlawful

It is now.

roonaldo

rabthejab wrote: »

with an attitude like that its no wonder you appear biased, in every occupation you have good and bad, the fos just seems to lean towards the financial institutes to the detrement of joe public, some of the decisions that are supposed to be reached at in a fair manner are simply not fair. the fos adjudicators do not respond well to complaints and seem to forget that joe public are there because they cant get anywhere with the financial services such as banks who ignore joe public, trading standards and the FOS. I believe that the fos adjudicator is always on the side of financial institutions thats why the banks get away with ignoring the fos. there should be no FOS it should be closed down it achieves no more than an empty building its all a complete waste of public money and is a farce.

you dont know what your talking about. First of all FOS is funded by the financial services and not public money. And also if you go and look at the stats, you will see statistically FOS uphold more PPI complaints in favour of the consumer and not the banks.

people dont understand what FOS are and what they do. they are an arbitrator not consumer champion. just because you didnt have a complaint go your way doesnt mean FOS are biased.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

It is now.

But it wasn't at the time and that is my point. A court would not apply the law retrospectively but FOS does.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

But it wasn't at the time and that is my point. A court would not apply the law retrospectively but FOS does.

Your point was that it is, not that it wasn't - which was my point.

The FOS only has the power to account for the law in it's decisions and unlike the FOS only a court has the jurisdiction to ''apply'' it.