People who huff and Puff and threaten to go to FSO etc

notts_phil

On here i notice lots of people winging about banks etc when in most cases it can easily be resolved.

Yet people keep saying in their first posts, i am going to the ombudsman , or ive contacted them.

I wonder how much of this is just bluster, how many actually know the process and how many are just talking out of their ar**

I bet most of them dont even bother

InsideInsurance

Have you ever tried to phone the ombudsman? Had a 20 minute wait the other day to get through to them (not PPI).

Certainly a lot of people do go to the ombudsman before even talking to their insurer/ broker/ bank/ ifa. A hell of a lot of people threaten the ombudsman. A hell of a lot of people "correctly" escalate complaints to the ombudsman about daft things - in my claims days we had 2 complaints made to the ombudsman about having Elvis Presley as our hold/queue music!

I agree that there is many more however that claim they've spoken to them when they havent and give hollow threats to go to them and not follow through.

KingElvis

Mostly the people who whine about the "ondbudsmanbus" are the people who are least likely to contact them.

That's because their actual compaints are self generated, non existant or just plain drivel.

MonkeyMad

Or they are people who believe the Ombudsman exist to reverse the decision they have already got from the bank i.e to give them what they want

zxspeccy

With the FSO a customer can only go to them after they have received a final response to their "complaint" from the Bank. The FOS may then investigate the matter further independantly, before making a decision whether to uphold, partially uphold or reject the customers referral.

I believe most customer simply threaten the FOS to get a better compensation deal out of the bank. What is interesting is that the bank have to pay for the FOS investigation, the customer does not pay anything. So regardless of the FOS outcome the bank are still left paying the fee (which can be several hundred pounds). Because of this banks sometimes do up their complensation offers for smaller claims just as it is cost effective to do so.

Going forward, especially when PPI blows over, I feel there will be far less referrals to the FOS and far less upholds from them as well. Banks have learnt their lessons to a degree, and have also tightened up their complaints handling procedures so that it is unlikely that these decisions will be overturned by the FOS.

JuicyJesus

The FOS exists as an independent arbitrator of complaints. Unfortunately, thanks to advice from people such as this site (I believe something on the PPI complaints article reads "Complain to your bank and it'll say no/So it's off to the Ombudsman where your chances grow", which puts people in the frame of mind that the Ombudsman is there to give their complaint more mileage, rather than to arbitrate between them and the bank) people now believe they are consumer warriors who will act on behalf of the little people against the big nasty banks.

They then receive a shock when it turns out that the FOS don't exist for that purpose, and that they can and do find in favour of businesses for a multitude of reasons. They are independent. They go by evidence. They don't decide complaints on the basis of the customer being poor and the bank being rich. If the bank hasn't done anything wrong then they won't uphold the complaint. If you read "Ombudsman News" they mention numerous times people who have complained because they thought the FOS' job was to go to bat for them, when actually their role is nothing of the sort.

I really do blame MSE and others for this attitude. The charging structure doesn't help, as others have said - if someone is complaining about £100, but their complaint is obvious b*llocks and the bank is in the right, the bank is left with two choices: 1) pay up and lose £100, consumer is happy but they have received redress that they shouldn't have done or 2) don't uphold the complaint, consumer goes to the FOS who charge them £500 and then find that the bank has done no wrong anyway.

Personally I think there are only a couple of options here. Either charge consumers to bring complaints to the Ombudsman, or charge banks only when a complaint is upheld in the customer's favour. I don't like the first, as that disenfranchises genuine consumers, but the latter (combined with the case fee being increased somewhat) could be a good option.

It won't happen though.

aylithuk

JuicyJesus wrote: »

The FOS exists as an independent arbitrator of complaints. Unfortunately, thanks to advice from people such as this site (I believe something on the PPI complaints article reads "Complain to your bank and it'll say no/So it's off to the Ombudsman where your chances grow", which puts people in the frame of mind that the Ombudsman is there to give their complaint more mileage, rather than to arbitrate between them and the bank) people now believe they are consumer warriors who will act on behalf of the little people against the big nasty banks.

They then receive a shock when it turns out that the FOS don't exist for that purpose, and that they can and do find in favour of businesses for a multitude of reasons. They are independent. They go by evidence. They don't decide complaints on the basis of the customer being poor and the bank being rich. If the bank hasn't done anything wrong then they won't uphold the complaint. If you read "Ombudsman News" they mention numerous times people who have complained because they thought the FOS' job was to go to bat for them, when actually their role is nothing of the sort.

I really do blame MSE and others for this attitude. The charging structure doesn't help, as others have said - if someone is complaining about £100, but their complaint is obvious b*llocks and the bank is in the right, the bank is left with two choices: 1) pay up and lose £100, consumer is happy but they have received redress that they shouldn't have done or 2) don't uphold the complaint, consumer goes to the FOS who charge them £500 and then find that the bank has done no wrong anyway.

Personally I think there are only a couple of options here. Either charge consumers to bring complaints to the Ombudsman, or charge banks only when a complaint is upheld in the customer's favour. I don't like the first, as that disenfranchises genuine consumers, but the latter (combined with the case fee being increased somewhat) could be a good option.

It won't happen though.

I fully agree. I have seen some of the Ombudsman response letters that have been sent to people. If the person is 'wrong' and the Bank is 'right' they don't pull any punches telling them that. They can be very brutal with the responses but I guess that to ensure there no misunderstanding