Rejected by FOS, where next?

davewithamac

In 2000 I took out a loan to pay off credit cards. This was done as a business loan as I worked for my own limited company and was done in person at my local LloydsTSB branch with whom I banked. The person who arranged this for me insisted that I took out PPI and so nearly £1,800 was added to the loan to pay for it. The loan ran it's course and was eventually paid off.

As a result of all of the information about mis-sold PPI I realised that I had been mis-sold it, so I made use of all the help from this fantastic website and wrote my initial letter to the bank asking for a refund plus interest. Of course LTSB refused and I went through all of the usual steps eventually writing to the FOS and opening a case.

In January 2010 the FOS got in touch with me and discussed the details over the phone and I was optimistic of a successful outcome after so long. However, in February 2010 the FOS found against me saying that I ticked the box for PPI (which I didn't) and they said that it was more likely than not that LTSB explained that it was optional. I remember the meeting very clearly and this was not the case. I wrote to ask them to reconsider and so my case was put to the back of the queue again and it has since gone quiet.

With the recent announcements from LTSB I decided to write to them again asking for settlement but the have told me that as the FOS found against me then their previous decision still stands and they will not be reviewing my case at this time.

My question is what do I do next?...
1. Give up and write off £1,800 which I calculate should be more than £3,000 with interest.
2. Get in touch with the FOS for advice on my case.
3. Get professional help from a reclaiming firm (which I've avoided up to now).

Apologies for the long post. I will be very grateful for any advice/encouragement offered!

magpiecottage

Assuming it was an Ombudsman, rather than an adjudicator that made the decision, it is really the end of the road as far as FOS is concerned.

However, from what you say, it sounds as though it was an adjudicator and it is now awaiting a decision from an Ombudsman - so you could contact FOS to check it is still in the queue.

That said, I would not bank on the adjudicator's decision being overturned. If there is a ticked box then that would suggest you did so.

amersall

Are FOS still reconsidering this? if they are just hang fire.

marshallka

Blimey, seems like a complete change of stance now for FOS also. It makes me wonder with the backing down of the review and things just what went on to make it happen?

src007

This doesn't surprise me. It's got to be remembered that the FOS aren't on the consumers side. I've seen some decisions that were very harsh on consumers (and some very favourable).

Sometimes its the luck of the draw with the FOS, as there's always going to be a percentage of borderline cases which will depend on the adjudicators judgement.

FOS PPI decisions on loans usually hang on wheather early settlement was forseeable. This is because the PPI rebate on early settlement is unfair.

As you were consolidating debt and if it was a longer term loan I would say a 'upfront' product was unsuitable. However the adjudicator has decided in your case that it was more than likely that your loan would last the full term.

Certainly prepare for all eventualities however I would say you have a borderline complaint and I wouldn't rule out success.

Also prepare for a very long wait if its heading for an Ombudsman. I was recently told that even the 'fast track' queue for an Ombudsman has 5000 in it!!!

marshallka

src007 wrote: »

This doesn't suprise me. It's got to be remembered that the FOS aren't on the consumers side. I've seen some decisions that were very harsh on consumers (and some very favourable).

Sometimes its the luck of the draw with the FOS, as there's always going to be a percentage of borderline cases which will depend on the adjudicators judgement.

FOS PPI decisions on loans usually hang on wheather early settlement was forseeable. This is because the PPI rebate on early settlement is unfair.

As you were consolidating debt and if it was a longer term loan I would say a 'upfront' product was unsuitable. However the adjudicator has decided in your case that it was more than likely that your loan would last the full term.

Certainly prepare for all eventualities however I would say you have a borderline complaint and I wouldn't rule out success.

Also prepare for a very long wait if its heading for an Ombudsman. I was recently told that even the 'fast track' queue for an Ombudsman has 5000 in it!!!

FOS are supposedly impartial. My own personal view is they are not.

I wonder what happened and "made" the banks give in to the JR. What sort of "things/talks" went on the background for all those months.

Have you seen how the banks seem to be holding back data now?

Where you state the figure for the fast track of the Ombudsman then that goes to show that consumers are still not feeling they are having fair treatment from FOS. Is it that the adjudicators are not completely qualified to adjudicate and often the consumers know more themselves. If the queue is such a long one for the Ombudsman its often then too late to take the case to court (3 years from when you are aware) so again this is not helpful to consumers. Its all working out just nicely really for the banks/finance firms. Who is working with who here or "for" who?????

src007

I've found that the banks have always been bad at responding to SARs.

Sometimes they write back to say they can't process that SAR without the loan number when getting the loan number was the whole point of sending the SAR! :rotfl:

My view is that the FOS have a mix of adjudicators some of which are fantastic and do an excellent job. Other adjudicators seem to lean towards the business or the consumer unfairly and come to weird conclusions. On a number of complaints they change their mind on a decision (I've seen this even when they have the telephone sale in question - surely there's no 'judgement call' needed when they have the recording, so how can they change their mind?!).

I suspect the banks ended the JR because they didn't have any chance of winning. I don't think anything else would stop them!

marshallka

src007 wrote: »

I suspect the banks ended the JR because they didn't have any chance of winning. I don't think anything else would stop them!

I suspect they already knew when they started it they would not win. I suspect there was something went on in the background during the time of the JR and if you note the banks are taking a different stance (and I think FOS too) to complaints handling (or not as the case may be as they are not even giving consumers of closed loans a "chance" to complain now). Its working wonders too for them.

Just read that some seem to think that "financial advisors and brokers" are going to come off better since the JR. It was stated in this article that now that consumers have little faith in banks they will no doubt turn to "brokers" for insurance. I don't know how they can say that. I would not trust any of them myself, regulated or not. Most of the pre regulation complaints for sales of PPI were made against brokers. I have my own view there.

dunstonh

FOS are supposedly impartial. My own personal view is they are not.

You are right. They are ever so slightly consumer biased.

You have to put yourself in their shoes though. You get consumers telling one story, the banks telling another, the documents suggesting something else and in reality probably none of it actually shows what accurately happened.

A lot of the time, decisions based on probability have to be made and these very often go with the most credible party. If you have had someone using a template letter listing all sorts of reasons and some of those are easily rejected and can be shown to be wrong then that person is less credible. Also, if people change their story and give new information that wasnt asked for then it can make them less credible. It does work the other way though if the bank say one thing and proof exists that is wrong.

Some areas of complaint that are frequently used by try-it-on complaints can actually be recognised by the FOS and that can damage genuine complaints. So, whilst early complaints get upheld in a weak area, once it becomes recognised that its become a useful lie for consumers to use, the chances of success on that front reduce as complaints handlers realise that its more likely to be a lie than the truth. Also, complaints handlers can also identify trends from lenders as well so some things that may have been rejected at first may start to become upheld. This can lead to inconsistency but you have to look at it as more fluid.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

A lot of the time, decisions based on probability have to be made and these very often go with the most credible party.

Even firms with lots of complaints against them, the FOS often goes along on balance of probability as to what the firm states.

To me once a few "lies" have been confirmed against a firm then the balance of probabilty is that most of the firms "stating this and that" would be lies. Balance of probability says that pre regulation complaints about sales of PPI were missold too when a large number that get to FOS are upheld BUT what is being done about them. Jack!!! The system is not biased to the consumer. They are still only doing what they "have" to do and nothing more. Morals and banks/finance firms and brokers etc do not go together. Surely all sales of insurance should be made in good faith.

magpiecottage

src007 wrote: »

My view is that the FOS have a mix of adjudicators some of which are fantastic and do an excellent job. Other adjudicators seem to lean towards the business or the consumer unfairly and come to weird conclusions.

There is something we very much agree on. FOS does not help itself by insisting that adjudicators and Ombudsmen do not need financial services qualifications to do their job properly. If they are not qualified to give advice I do not see how they can tell if it is right or wrong.

Sir Anthony Holland, who was one of the predecessor Ombudsmen actually took the trouble to pass the Financial Planning Certificate - despite his undoubted legal expertise.

That makes the stance of his successors seem foolish and arrogant.