Alliance Trust Savings massive fee hike

naedanger

SnowMan wrote: »

I have to say I have no confidence in the Financial Ombudsman Service at all at the moment as a route to ensuring fair treatment.

This is my view too. Clearly there is little to lose by taking a case to FOS (other than time and effort) so it is worth using the service.

However I had another case where I put forward two arguments over unfair treatment. The FOS ruled against me on the first argument (which is where the real unfairness was) but ruled in my favour on the second (which concerned the lack of a cooling off period). Therefore while I won my case (on the second argument) I lost confidence in their ability to make sound judgments. His argument ignored my points and was long, technical and unsound. Not only that but he put forward the second argument as his own in his summary.

Again the case in this thread is worrying. Superficially the judgement looks well reasoned because it quotes technical points in detail. However it is apparent if you read the full texts from which he is quoting that he does not understand them, one instance being where he implies the customer was "free to exit" when that was not the case and is based on a clear error.

It is very disappointing that while the OFT have drafted very clear guidance we end up with confused technical judgments made manifestly at odds with that guidance. (The fact the FSA's guidance it not as clear as the OFT's does not help.)

I would be curious to note the name of the Ombudsman since their backgrounds are given on their website. Of course bad decisions can be made by people with any background but I am still curious.

SnowMan

naedanger wrote: »

It is very disappointing that while the OFT have drafted very clear guidance we end up with confused technical judgments made manifestly at odds with that guidance. (The fact the FSA's guidance it not as clear as the OFT's does not help.)

Couldn't agree more.

And yes the FSA (now FCA) guidance contradicts itself and isn't at all clear, whereas the OFT311 guidance is very clear as you say.

juliamarsh

naedanger wrote: »

However I had another case where I put forward two arguments over unfair treatment. The FOS ruled against me on the first argument (which is where the real unfairness was) but ruled in my favour on the second (which concerned the lack of a cooling off period). Therefore while I won my case (on the second argument) I lost confidence in their ability to make sound judgments. His argument ignored my points and was long, technical and unsound.

That is exactly what happened with my case. In the first instance I didn't even complain about AT's poor service, just the levying of the fees. After I had made my initial complaint their closing down of my accounts was such a fiasco that as an afterthought I argued that if they were going to charge for a service then they should at least provide a semblance of one! It took 6 months and a catalogue of errors before my accounts were finally closed down. I didn't ask for any money for stress and inconvenience but that is what he ruled in my favour on. Just as well I added that afterthought!!

I agree with you that their judgments seem ill reasoned and unsound. I think they took on loads of new personnel to handle the PPI misselling and they haven't been properly trained. Reckon we could do a much better job!

SnowMan

One possibility is to make a complaint to the independent assessor at the FOS about the Ombudsman's handling of the case.

They won't look at the decision, but I think you could complain that the Ombudsman has failed to follow proper procedures by failing to address the points you made about 1 (l) after he changed his decision. It is clear the Ombudsman didn't look at your points with an open mind. The full process is set out here.

I can understand you probably won't want to go that route.

I am considering making a complaint to the Independent Assessor about my adjudicator's handling of my case.

naedanger

SnowMan wrote: »

I am considering making a complaint to the Independent Assessor about my adjudicator's handling of my case.

Tempting as that might be I would not do that for now. Wait until after you have appealed the adjudicator's assessment to the Ombudsman and had the Ombudsman's formal decision.

However you may wish to make clear to the Ombudsman that you are very unhappy with the adjudicator's handling of the case and the basis on which they made their decision as well as the decision itself.

If you complain now, what if the Independent Assessor upholds the adjudicator's decision? It will then be unlikely the Ombudsman will reach a different decision. Whereas if you wait I would hope there is a good chance the Ombudsman will reverse the decision, and if they don't you can still complain to the Independent Assessor.

Another option to consider if the Ombudsman uphold's the adjudicator's decision is to take your case to the small claims court. I have never done this myself but I gather it is fairly easy and fairly inexpensive. I would also have more confidence in the courts than FOS. (You would need to check what the courts take into account e.g. is it just the actual regulations and the facts or do they also consider FSA guidance.)

juliamarsh

SnowMan wrote: »

One possibility is to make a complaint to the independent assessor at the FOS about the Ombudsman's handling of the case.

They won't look at the decision, but I think you could complain that the Ombudsman has failed to follow proper procedures by failing to address the points you made about 1 (l) after he changed his decision. It is clear the Ombudsman didn't look at your points with an open mind.

Thanks, I will consider that option but in all honesty I think I will probably call it a day now. It is annoying but at least I was awarded something so it was worthwhile submitting the complaint, even if the result wasn't quite what I had hoped for. Probably exactly what one might expect from a quality assurance manager, sadly a complete misnomer in this instance!! :rotfl: