Financial ombudsman service - leave it alone and go directly to court

Darias

I think that the FOS can be compared to a chocolate teapot.

I am a director of a property company which rents out houses. In September 2011 I had a notification from the police that one of our houses had been used to cultivate cannabis. I inspected the house, the front door had been bashed in by the police, there was paint on the front elevation including plastic windows, there was a hole in a ceiling where ventilation had been provided for the plants with all the paraphernalia of cannabis cultivation.

There had been other damage caused by the dogs that had been kept in the house. All in all to make good cost around £8,000 but some of that cost was for improvement and not related to damage. At that time we insured with Axa insurance and they contacted the loss adjuster Crawfords. I met the LA on site in October. I wrote in November and December but did not receive a reply. I wrote a letter of complaint in January to Axa but did not get a reply.

I then sought advice via the internet and noted that any letter of complaint should be headed COMPLAINT. Following this advice I wrote a letter headed as such with the threat of reporting the matter to the FOS. I got a reply saying that Crawfords would be making and offer "in due course". In May when no offer had been made I made a complaint to the FOS. This was "resolved" in September by the adjudication officer with the comment that my complaint was about delay and not about any offer.

I wrote back requesting that the matter be referred to the ombudsman but the AO actually broke their own procedures by saying he "would look at the matter again". If there is a procedure why does the office not follow it. I pointed out that as they had compartmentalised the complaint between delay and an actual offer and they were investigating delay I felt that I was able to go to the small claims court to claim compensation. I gave Axa 28 days to make an offer.

Finally on the 27th day an acceptable offer was made over a year since the claim was made. It has reinforced my view that the FOS is a waste of space and I recommend anybody with concerns over a claim to go directly to the small claims court.

FlameCloud

You miss the point though that the FOS is far more consumer friendly than the courts. Going straight to court will alot of the time result in the insurers winning where the FOS would probably rule against them.

scooby75

I don't know. I have a case with the FOS at the moment, the entire case has been brought down to one issue: Whether I received a notification from the bank (which I didn't) about something.

The FOS say that the bank has my correct address, that the bank has stated they sent the letter to me, and therefore it is more than likely I have received the letter. It is now on appeal to them and I expect the appeal to fail.

I have spoken to a solicitor who laughed, and suggested a court would do the same thing.

dacouch

Flamecloud is correct, a court of law will look at what the contracts say, case histories etc etc and make a decision on the balance of probabilities but will not take into account what is fair, their decision is based on the law.

The ombudsman will also look at what the contracts say and case histories, however they may also take into account that joe public have a limited understanding of insurance and also what is fair.

The Ombudsman is not perfect and can take along time, however they are more likely to side with the consumer, in addition if you use the Ombudsman you can then go onto pursue the matter through the courts if your not happy. If you go straight to the court you cannot then use the ombudsman after a court has made a ruling.

You only have to look at a few of the Ombudsmans case histories to see some of the rulings they side with the customer which you would not always expect the customer to win, simply because the Ombudsman uses a whats fair basis

Quentin

Darias wrote: »

I felt that I was able to go to the small claims court to claim compensation. I gave Axa 28 days to make an offer.

Finally on the 27th day an acceptable offer was made over a year since the claim was made. It has reinforced my view that the FOS is a waste of space and I recommend anybody with concerns over a claim to go directly to the small claims court.

Your problem was solved, but not by going to court!

You threatened the insurer with court, which is quite different!

Your thread title is misleading and poor advice.

The FOS is free for the consumer, and their rulings are only binding on the company, thus after using the FOS you can still use the court if you feel despite the FOS you will win.

Darias

I do not threaten I promise I will go to court.

I have successfully sued experian when they said there was a county court judgement against me which prevented me getting a loan from my bank.

I have successfully sued for possession without a solicitor.

I was able to get a claim settled for my mother by using the small claims procedure. I tried the FOS and found it time consuming and in the end the judgement was wrong and they did not follow procedures. In court procedure is everything.

I have been in court many times.

You do not need a solicitor for a small claim and I had a letter where AXA stated they would make an offer. I think I had a 75% chance of success. In any event it cost AXA £500 to go through the ombudsman procedure it would have cost them a lot more to try to defend a small claim. If you dont want my advice dont take it but I will not use the FOS (which is paid for by the insurance companies) again. I am still waiting on judgement for the delays by AXA my complaint with the FOS is still not settled.

I have failed once when I took a solicitor to court for an unpaid bill. I have since revised my procedures to ensure that I dont fail again.

huckster

You are not alone in your views. The Community Action Group site thinks the FOS is most often a waste of time. I have heard of people who had gone through a long process with the FOS, which had not succeeded and then they won in court. I suppose it depends on the nature of the case you wish to bring and whether you go about it in the right way or not.

Darias

The insurance companies would be better off having their own complaints procedure rather than going to an outside ombudsman. If they had a complaints procedure and were open in their investigations then matters would be easier to be resolved. Their procedures would change to the benefit of the consumer as complaints are investigated. The position of an ombudsman is merely to place a barrier between the consumer US and the supplier THEM.

dunstonh

It has reinforced my view that the FOS is a waste of space and I recommend anybody with concerns over a claim to go directly to the small claims court.

You didnt go to court though. You blackmailed them into paying you.

JuicyJesus

Darias wrote: »

The insurance companies would be better off having their own complaints procedure rather than going to an outside ombudsman. If they had a complaints procedure and were open in their investigations then matters would be easier to be resolved. Their procedures would change to the benefit of the consumer as complaints are investigated. The position of an ombudsman is merely to place a barrier between the consumer US and the supplier THEM.

The purpose of the ombudsman is to act as a dispute resolution service once the firm's internal complaints procedure has failed, either because the consumer does not accept their decision (deadlock) or because they have taken more than the maximum allowable time to deal with the complaint as set by the FSA. It isn't a barrier at all - nothing about its existence prevents you from taking a complaint to a firm. Indeed, the opposite is true - you can't go to the Ombudsman without going through the firm's procedure first.

What you are saying is that companies should have effective complaints procedures. That's fair enough. But the FOS doesn't change that one bit, and it doesn't stop them doing so. Indeed, the existence of the FOS is an incentive to handle complaints properly and fairly.

I'm not even sure what the FOS has done wrong here - they are entirely right, your complaint wasn't about the outcome of a claim (they hadn't declined it or settled it wrongly) but about the delay, which was unreasonable. They wouldn't have it as "resolved" without a good reason - exactly what was the adjudication, and why was what was done to put it right unsatisfactory?

And as to this:

All in all to make good cost around £8,000 but some of that cost was for improvement and not related to damage.

I trust you didn't try and claim the amount for improvements, which probably would be declined and might be why the loss adjusters took a while?

Quentin

Darias wrote: »

I do not threaten I promise I will go to court.

Your "promise" is irrelevant.

Just because you "promise" to sue someone doesn't mean you will win!

You didn't take Axa to court, yet you advise us all to do so!

(And were you to have proceeded with court action, then Axa submitting a defence would not have cost them anything (as opposed to your advice that a defence would have cost "a lot more" than £500!)

You would have had to pay all the court costs right up to judgement, and only been able to recoup these had you won!