Ombusman response

Sdstew

Hi,

I have just had a response from the ombusman stating that they will not be up holding my claim with the Nationwide. I took a loan out in 2001 and paid PPI. The loan is now paid off. The Nationwide could not provide a telephone call recording so the obsuman was sent the how the call would have gone!? The obusman has said they presume from what they were told by the Nationwide that i was sold the insurance correctly and therefore that is their decision. Has anyone been in a similar situation and appealed and won? or would it be a waste of time?

Thanks

Sdstew

tifo

if this is an Adjudicator decision you can ask for an Ombudsman final decision, but the wait is more than 12 months.

this is another example of the FOS believing everything the banks say .... i've had it many times and it meant losing the refund (total of about 5 claims was many thousands).

magpiecottage

tifo wrote: »

this is another example of the FOS believing everything the banks say.

No - it is an example of the application of the legal principle that he who asserts must prove. This means the evidence must show it is more likely than not, and not merely equally likely, that what you say is true.

You have no evidence to support your assertion. The firm's file has no evidence to support your assertion.

So there is nothing to tip the balance in your favour and your complaint cannot be upheld.

dunstonh

The Nationwide could not provide a telephone call recording so the obsuman was sent the how the call would have gone!?

Which is fair enough. You have made an allegation. So, where is your evidence to say it happened your way?

Evidence is key. If you went to the police and made an allegation you couldnt prove, would they prosecute the other party? No. The same applies to the FOS as it works in a similar manner to the courts other than it also considers fairness as well as law.

tifo

magpiecottage wrote: »

No - it is an example of the application of the legal principle.

The FOS applies legal principle when it wants to and not when it doesn't, I know this from sad experience. They hide under their "can depart from the law" if they think it is fair and reasonable, thus over-ruling both parliament and judges.

tifo

Sdstew wrote: »

The Nationwide could not provide a telephone call recording so the obsuman was sent the how the call would have gone!?

You should send your own statements showing how YOU THINK the call would have gone. Why should they believe the bank rather than you?

roonaldo

tifo wrote: »

You should send your own statements showing how YOU THINK the call would have gone. Why should they believe the bank rather than you?

if there is no evidence, FOS will look at probabilities, at the end of the day if the customer agreed to it, signed for it and paid for it, its more likely then not they wanted it.

documentary evidence rules over allegations.

dunstonh

roonaldo wrote: »

if there is no evidence, FOS will look at probabilities, at the end of the day if the customer agreed to it, signed for it and paid for it, its more likely then not they wanted it.

documentary evidence rules over allegations.

Timescale has to have an impact on balance of probability as well as the wording of the complaint. Plus, statistically, most PPI was not mis-sold.

Someone complaining within months of the sale will be considered more likely to have a case than someone complaining 12 years after the sale (the latter looks opportunistic. The former looks genuine as most people would not be happy paying something they didnt want or agree to and wouldnt take x number of years to complain about it)

magpiecottage

tifo wrote: »

The FOS applies legal principle when it wants to and not when it doesn't, I know this from sad experience. They hide under their "can depart from the law" if they think it is fair and reasonable, thus over-ruling both parliament and judges.

I am aware that it does - this works against firms which are not allowed to timebar complaints (I am currently dealing with one from 1989 where the policy was cancelled in 1996 and a court would have done allowed a timebar).

However your position is different - it is simply lack of evidence.

If I decided to pursue you for a debt which I alleged you owed despite neither of us having any evidence do you think it would be fair that an arbitrator made a legally binding award in my favour?

tifo

magpiecottage wrote: »

However your position is different - it is simply lack of evidence.

If I decided to pursue you for a debt which I alleged you owed despite neither of us having any evidence do you think it would be fair that an arbitrator made a legally binding award in my favour?

This thread has got nothing to do with me ....

But i share my experiences with the FOS.

[Deleted User]

tifo wrote: »

This thread has got nothing to do with me ....

Sorry, but I'm amused you felt obliged to post that!:D