Ombusman response

tifo

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

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

The author of that post was writing as if I am in a certain position with evidence. There is no 'my' position in this thread.

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

[Deleted User]

tifo wrote: »

The author of that post was writing as if I am in a certain position with evidence. There is no 'my' position in this thread.

Yes, he clearly mistook you for the OP.
I just found the wording of your response amusing....

tifo

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I just found the wording of your response amusing....

My experiences with the FOS are that when it comes to applying the law they're happy to do it for the firm but when it helps the consumer they can "depart" from it. I've had this many times in the past and again recently. It's always the 'poor' bank who are suffering.

Though they are also obliged to look at FSA regulations, some of which are statutory for the firm, they ignore these and say the bank has made an 'error' and 'corrects' their position, in other words, the bank says "we were misleading the consumer but since we're caught it was an 'error' which we will now 'correct'"

I have not yet had an Adjudicator decision, which was clearly wrong by either not looking at relevant information/evidence/law, overturned by an Ombudsman. The only times my complaints have been successful is when the bank makes an offer otherwise the FOS is unlikely to rule against them. It may be different for others but that's my experience.

roonaldo

tifo wrote: »

My experiences with the FOS are that when it comes to applying the law they're happy to do it for the firm but when it helps the consumer they can "depart" from it. I've had this many times in the past and again recently. It's always the 'poor' bank who are suffering.

Though they are also obliged to look at FSA regulations, some of which are statutory for the firm, they ignore these and say the bank has made an 'error' and 'corrects' their position, in other words, the bank says "we were misleading the consumer but since we're caught it was an 'error' which we will now 'correct'"

I have not yet had an Adjudicator decision, which was clearly wrong by either not looking at relevant information/evidence/law, overturned by an Ombudsman. The only times my complaints have been successful is when the bank makes an offer otherwise the FOS is unlikely to rule against them. It may be different for others but that's my experience.

In 2nd half of 2011, FOS upheld 72% of ALL complaints in the consumers favour.

If many dont make frivilous complaints based on nothing, that rate would be even higher.

tifo

roonaldo wrote: »

If many dont make frivilous complaints based on nothing, that rate would be even higher.

My complaints are never frivolous ... most concern unfair and excessive default charges based on legal principles. I'm sure you're fully aware why such charges, which are disproportionate to costs, can be unfair.