Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

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.

We might be at crossed purposes here. My point is that FOS can simply disregard the law if it chooses to - and in respect of the single premium argument for PPI it almost always does in favour of the consumer.

dillthedog

Sorry, Unfortunately I too believe the FSA to be biased or cetainly for some staff members to be int he pockets of some banks.
I took a very simple, straightforward complaint about a bank who ADMITTED making a series of errors with my mortgage to the FSA- and the adjudicator dealing with it ignored the points I made, ignored all letters I sent, ignored the major errors the bank made ( and admitted!) and actually made side remarks about me.
He also said that the fsa cannot tell a bank how to run their business- (!!!!!!?????). all in all he deemed the bank NOT be at fault despite the bank admitting errors/ negligence.

Bizarre.

roonaldo

dillthedog wrote: »

He also said that the fsa cannot tell a bank how to run their business- (!!!!!!?????). all in all he deemed the bank NOT be at fault despite the bank admitting errors/ negligence.

Bizarre.

You mean FOS.
Your complaint must of been quite weak if FOS didnt uphold it.

dunstonh

Sorry, Unfortunately I too believe the FSA to be biased or cetainly for some staff members to be int he pockets of some banks.

Maybe they have had a bias towards banks. Many in the industry feel the same way. Historically, some of the FSA positions have been very pro bank and anti independent despite independents having a much cleaner record. However, this thread is about the FOS and not the FSA.

I took a very simple, straightforward complaint about a bank who ADMITTED making a series of errors with my mortgage to the FSA- and the adjudicator dealing with it ignored the points I made, ignored all letters I sent, ignored the major errors the bank made ( and admitted!) and actually made side remarks about me.

Perhaps many of those things were not valid complaints.

He also said that the fsa cannot tell a bank how to run their business- (!!!!!!?????).

The FSA does not tell companies how to run their business. There are a set of guidelines to follow and companies have to operate within those but the rest is up to each company.

all in all he deemed the bank NOT be at fault despite the bank admitting errors/ negligence.

Errors in some areas which are not relevant to your complaint do not automatically mean you win by default.

magpiecottage

dillthedog wrote: »

I took a very simple, straightforward complaint about a bank who ADMITTED making a series of errors with my mortgage to the FSA

Which doesn't intervene in consumer complaints

and the adjudicator

It doesn't have adjudicators either.

I think you mean the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). FSA means Financial Services Authority (or Food Standards Agency - who are even less relevant to consumer complaints about PPI).

He also said that the fsa cannot tell a bank how to run their business

If you mean FOS then that is correct. Its purpose is dispute resolution, not regulating.

Even the FSA will not specify how a business is to be run, only establish and enforce the rules which must be followed. It is analogous to the driving a car. The law says you must drive on the road and on the left but does not specify which roads.

all in all he deemed the bank NOT be at fault despite the bank admitting errors/ negligence.

To uphold a complaint, the evidence needs to prove a loss (or material distress or inconvenience) has been (or is likely to be) suffered by you.
It also needs to show a failure on the part of the firm against whom the complaint is made to discharge its obligations to you.
However, there is a third requirement - causality. This means that what you have suffered must have been a consequence of the failure. So a completely different error will not lead to an uphold.

In addition, the case of South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd says that the loss must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the failure. This means that the firm against whom the complaint is made should not be held liable for a loss that it could not have reasonably have supposed might occur when it made it.

There have been a number of cases where, notwithstanding the law as established by that case (which was decided in the House of Lords) FOS has upheld a complaint anyway. To that extent, FOS is demonstrably biased - but in favour of the consumer.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

There have been a number of cases where, notwithstanding the law as established by that case (which was decided in the House of Lords) FOS has upheld a complaint anyway. To that extent, FOS is demonstrably biased - but in favour of the consumer.

The role of the courts is, exclusively, to give effect to the law. The role of the Obudsman is entirely different as it is obliged to determine complaints by reference to what it believes to be fair & reasonable. It doesn't do this because it's biased but because it is required to under FSMA - an act of Parliament.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The role of the courts is, exclusively, to give effect to the law. The role of the Obudsman is entirely different as it is obliged to determine complaints by reference to what it believes to be fair & reasonable. It doesn't do this because it's biased but because it is required to under FSMA - an act of Parliament.

That is incorrect because FSA rule DISP 3.6.4R says

"In considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman will take into account:

(1) relevant:
(a) law and regulations;
(b) regulators' rules, guidance and standards;
(c) (c) codes of practice; and
(2) (where appropriate) what he considers to have been good industry practice at the relevant time."


The case I referred to was decided in the House of Lords and sets a precedent. Therefore it IS law.

In that case, Lord Hoffman specifically said that it was not fair or reasonable to hold somebody responsible for something that was not a reasonable foreseeable consequence of any failure.

So FOS should take that into account - but thus far it does not seem to.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

[QUOTE[/QUOTE

That is incorrect because FSA rule DISP 3.6.4R says

Since when have the FSA made laws?

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

The case I referred to was decided in the House of Lords and sets a precedent. Therefore it IS law.

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Since when have the FSA made laws?

Seems pretty apparent from Magpie's post that the FSA ruling became law....

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Since when have the FSA made laws?

29 April 1988