Rejected by FOS, where next?

dunstonh

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

What do you class as a firm. I am an IFA. However, I use a compliance company along with thousands of other IFAs. If a complaint is made, the relationship with the FOS is with the compliance company. So, if one IFA gets a complaint upheld by an adjudicator would it be fair that other unrelated IFAs get penalised by that individual because they use the same compliance?

At a bank, you could have one individual that is as bent as they come whilst another in the same branch could be 100% perfect.

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.

What if the "lies" are not lies from the firm but the individual.

The system is not biased to the consumer.

Yes it is. You may not like the fact it is but if you didnt have the FOS and law was the only option (as it is in most other areas) then you wouldnt get anywhere near the same volume of people getting redress. it is a lot easier for a consumer to make a complaint and get it upheld than it is a firm to show no wrong doing.

marshallka

No, its not fair for one IFA to get tarred with the same brush much the same as its not fair (without documented evidence) to assume that a consumer is "trying it on". (which is what happens frequently on here!).

davewithamac

Thanks for the advice, I will get in touch with the FOS to see whether an adjudicator or ombudsman made the decision and also if it's still in the system.

I remember the original meeting at LTSB very well and I don't remember ticking the box myself, rather I simply signed and dated what was already completed. But even if I had ticked the box myself does that really mean that it wasn't mis-sold? I was told during that meeting that they insisted that I take out the insurance so surely that in itself is mis-selling?

davewithamac

amersall wrote: »

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

Thanks amersall, I'll try and find out tomorrow and post an update.

davewithamac

src007 wrote: »

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!!!

Thanks src007,

I thought I had a fairly straightforward case as I employed myself (although not strictly self-employed) and I was not given the option at the time to decline the insurance as they insisted on me taking it out. It was only when all of the information about mis-selling was made public that I realised how mis-sold it was. Apart from the employment status there was no discussion about medical history, the option to purchase PPI elsewhere, the option to take a chance and not have it at all or the fact that it was paid up front with interest added from day 1.

I'm not anticipating success but I honestly feel cheated by the bank, I am not just trying to get something for nothing. The banks have behaved badly in my opinion. I guess this has been a learning experience as I would never be so naive if I were in the same position again.

davewithamac

marshallka wrote: »

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?

I must admit that I've not been impressed with the FOS, they've been very slow and in arriving at their decision it sounds like they felt I was less credible than the bank which doesn't make me feel too good!

marshallka

davewithamac wrote: »

I must admit that I've not been impressed with the FOS, they've been very slow and in arriving at their decision it sounds like they felt I was less credible than the bank which doesn't make me feel too good!

I know the feeling. You are not alone.

I have had 4 complaints in total. One they said they would not look into (jurisdiction issues), one was actually sent to FOS BUT just after the firm made a "goodwill offer" (full amounts) giving me 30 days to accept and the adjudicator who had been passed it went sick and it was only cause I rang them that they found the offer. I would have then missed out. No help there.

Another was an insurance complaint well within jurisdiction (unfair rebate) and I ended up settling outside of FOS by writing again to the firm after receiving their final response and they accepted my complaint and paid up straight away so no help there. Then my "over insured complaint" (which they really could not argue) has been found in favour of the firm (their word against mine up to yet) twice!!!

4 complaints and not any help whatsoever.

They must think some consumers are the scum of the earth.

dunstonh

davewithamac wrote: »

I must admit that I've not been impressed with the FOS, they've been very slow and in arriving at their decision it sounds like they felt I was less credible than the bank which doesn't make me feel too good!

Did you use a template complaint or make a personalised complaint? There is a bit more cynicism if you have used a one size fits all template and if it includes irrelevant areas, it can make you less credible as the other side can easily show that was not the case there so in areas of no proof they can use the fact you were wrong in one or two other areas against you.

The FOS do say they prefer to have complaints in your own words.

davewithamac

dunstonh wrote: »

Did you use a template complaint or make a personalised complaint? There is a bit more cynicism if you have used a one size fits all template and if it includes irrelevant areas, it can make you less credible as the other side can easily show that was not the case there so in areas of no proof they can use the fact you were wrong in one or two other areas against you.

The FOS do say they prefer to have complaints in your own words.

I did use the template letters and followed the procedures as detailed. I tried to make the letters look personal but I guess it must have been obvious that they were from templates.

davewithamac

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

I phoned the FOS today and asked this question and they said that it was an adjudicator's decision so there is apparently one more stage for my complaint to go through and it is still in the system. I will have to sit tight and keep my finger's crossed. Thanks for this advice.