Financial Ombudsman - Huge delays not related to PPI

Cafelatte1

I was wondering whether anyone had any light to shed on the Financial Ombudsman and why it is taking them so long to correspond on complaints. I sent them all my documentation re a complaint about my medical insurance provider in December and as yet, they keep telling me that no adjudicator has been allocated to my case.

They said that I must expect to wait even longer as this is a "free" service and I must just be patient.

I do find this length of time unacceptable. This is my last port of call against the shoddy tratement that was meeted out to me by my medical insurance company and it does not put any faith in me to believe that the Ombudsman will do anything.

Is there any way that I can get things hurried up?

Any comments/suggestions appreciated?

[Deleted User]

Cafelatte1 wrote: »

Is there any way that I can get things hurried up?

Any comments/suggestions appreciated?

Your thread title is misleading, to be honest, since it quite clearly is because of the PPI scandal that the FOS is experiencing such a huge backlog. The PPI complaints are not treated separately to others and so your case is just one of hundreds of thousands of others. It's not helping that Claims Management Companies are sending large numbers of PPI complaints to FOS with little or no chance of success.

You'll just have to be patient. Good luck for an (eventual) result in your favour.

tifo

The delay is unacceptable. Unfortunately the only other choices are to drop the claim or take it to court, with which many people are not confident.

Your current delay of 3 months is nothing. I have had PPI complaints dealt with in 2.5 years and a home insurance claim is currently nearing 4 years, even though the firm has been told twice to pay up but wants an Ombudsman review, which is taking a very long time. The case has been in 'fast track' for an Ombudsman for 14 months .... which is not 'fast' to me.

dunstonh

The delay is unacceptable. Unfortunately the only other choices are to drop the claim or take it to court, with which many people are not confident.

If they introduced a charge to claims companies for submitting complaints that are rejected then you would probably see the problem go away virtually overnight. The free-of-charge complaints process was never set up and structured to deal with commercial companies generating complaints for profit.

The genuine complainants are suffering because of the actions of the non-genuine ones.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

The genuine complainants are suffering because of the actions of the non-genuine ones.

As are the genuine intermediaries. Ambulance chasers are parasites

magpiecottage

2sides2everystory wrote: »

As are [STRIKE]genuine [/STRIKE]intermediaries who actually have no relationship with their customers beyond that when they identified a target and inserted their sales proboscises.

I would say such an intermediary is not genuine.

By contrast mortgage adviser, for example, who searched the market, obtained the best deal they can get for their client and did not sell PPI at all does not deserve to get a complaint that they missold a non-existent policy and be charged £500 (soon to go up to £850) by FOS to be told they have no case to answer.

magpiecottage

2sides2everystory wrote: »

An awful lot who claim to be "genuine" fall into the other category though, by virtue of their 'another day another dollar/wham bang thank you M'am' mentality, do they not?

Possibly - but the fact that you claim to be genuine does not mean that you are, does it? After all, every ambulance chaser claims to be genuine then persuades you that it is easier to use them. One, Key Financial Claims, actually gets you to type up the FOS form on their website and send it to them so they can put it into the post for you.

Again I'd question if they really were a decent mortgage adviser who had built a meaningful relationship, and whether if that was so, the complainant might have been first expected to pick up the phone to his trusted advisor.

I agree - but you seem to assume that advisers are not trustworthy and consumers are. No doubt that situation does arise but it also happens the other way round.

DunstonH tells of a complaint received by a mortgage adviser about a PPI policy that never existed and earlier this month I dealt with a similar complaint by a policeman.

Mortgages are not one offs they are decades long and need constant review. If mortgage advisers are attracting and accepting business routinely from punters they never really get to know or don't trust, then I'd say if you can't stand the heat ...

There are two flaws in that argument. The first is that most borrowers will choose a fixed or discounted rate at outset and, until that deal ends, they are locked into it and will suffer a penalty if they get out.

The second is that data protection regulations restrict how an adviser can offer to advise them further. For example, the adviser cannot simply ring up and ask if they would like a review. You and I may or may not think that restriction is sensible but our opinion on the matter does not change the regulations.

[Deleted User]

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Not sure what you've constructed there, magpiecottage, but the bit in bold is not mine

Hmmm, seems to indicate only a inability to use the "Quote" function properly.

magpiecottage

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Not sure what you've constructed there, magpiecottage, but the bit in bold is not mine

Mistake in what I was trying to construct - now corrected

I don't have a fixed rate or discounted mortgage and neither does my brother or indeed anyone else I know

I said "most borrowers". This is based on the files I have checked over the years - and I seldom see a borrower choose the SVR if a deal on a lower (or a fixed) rate is available.

except some friends from Europe who do, and who meet their mortgage advisers a whole lot more frequently than might ever occur in the UK.

We are not talking about Europe.

It is also the case that to see an adviser regularly you will take up his time and that needs to be paid for - apart from anything else, he needs funding do deal with fraudulent complaints against him.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

Mistake in what I was trying to construct - now corrected

Still wrongly attributed, I'm afraid. See post #9

tifo

the OP hasn't returned to the thread since they asked for advice and yet we have other posters debating PPI claims ....

does the OP want any advice or not?