Should I go to the Ombudsman?

uk1

opinions4u wrote: »

I'd challenge you to prove you're £350 down.

(because I think the FOS would).

The FOS wouldn't need to.

It is already common ground with bank as they have already accepted (a) they didn't send the cash in time (b) the loss has been made and (c) an interim offer has been made.

uk1

somethingcorporate wrote: »

And the fact that it would not have been mitigated by your better planning (i.e. transferring the money earlier).

You are missing the point. He would have made alternative arrangements if the bank had indicated that they wouldn't have sent it by the following morning. What is so difficult to understand?

dunstonh

The FOS wouldn't need to.

It may well do. They wont necessarily believe that someone is out of pocket by £350 by just one days delay on a transaction. Plus, the banks and building societies do tend to have a clause in their T&C that they are not liable for actions of third parties. So, if the third party was not willing to wait an extra day, that is not their fault. So, there are potential issues with the FOS position.

It is already common ground with bank as they have already accepted (a) they didn't send the cash in time (b) the loss has been made and (c) an interim offer has been made.

There is no indication that the transaction took any longer than it should have done. Just that the person may have given a quicker time than they should have.

At the end of the day, none of us can call what the outcome would be on this one. We can highlight pros and cons but we dont have access to the information or thinking of an adjudicator (where you may find one agrees and another doesnt).

uk1

As long as the OP can show that there was a loss of £350 he will probably be awarded that amount by the ombudsman - but it won't come to that.

You need to understand that the omudsman ignores unfair terms and conditions.

The bank is responsible if a member of staff states that an amount of cash will be in the account and available. Whether they should have said that or not is not the problem for the OP but for the bank.

opinions4u

uk1 wrote: »

The FOS wouldn't need to.

But they will, most likely, choose to.

As stated above, the bank have admitted blame (or accepted there is nothing to gain from arguing otherwise). You are haggling over the amount. If the bank has accepted that you have lost £350 they would offer you £350.

It is already common ground with bank as they have already accepted (a) they didn't send the cash in time (b) the loss has been made and (c) an interim offer has been made.

Haggling. £150 is the top end of what I'd expect a bank to pay without further proof of loss. Unless you were a particularly valuable customer (which 98% of us are not).

Go back to the bank, ask for more. See what happens. If you don't like the outcome you are within your rights to use the FOS. Again, they will probably side with you on rights and wrongs. But if they are to order a bank to pay you more than a previous offer I think they'll want proof of your loss.

Too many people try to take the urine and, as we all pay for the FOS indirectly through the cost of banking services, I support any efforts they make to ensure payouts are fair and reasonable.

uk1

You may find the facts useful ......

When we look at banking disputes involving contracts, we take into account the firm’s duties under the Banking Codes. We consider relevant statutes, such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. We also consider the Financial Services Authority’s Statement of Practice, Fairness of Terms in Consumer Contracts (published in May 2005). This gives firms an indication of how they can avoid using terms that could be regarded as unfair. It is particularly relevant when we look at terms to do with interest rate variation.

In addition, and very importantly, we are required to decide what is ‘fair and reasonable’ in a given case. This may mean deviating from the ordinary or strict legal position where that is necessary to ensure a fair outcome.

Among the more common issues we come across are the following.

unusual or onerous terms

There is a legal rule that a term which is particularly unusual or onerous – and would not be generally known to the customer – is only binding on the customer if the firm has brought it fairly and reasonably to their attention before the contract is made.

We often need to consider this rule in the context of early repayment charges on mortgages. But it also applies to any unusual or onerous contract terms, including those in business banking contracts.

unfair contract terms

Sometimes the law simply provides that a contract term is unfair.

Examples are terms that
unreasonably try to exclude or limit a firm’s liability for breach of contract; or
unfairly tilt the balance of a consumer contract too far in the firm’s favour.

real consent

Customers will not be bound by a contract if they did not freely agree to enter into it and the firm was on notice of this.

Examples include situations where
the customer lacks the mental capacity to understand the nature of the contract and the firm knows that; or
the firm knows that a customer is being pressured or unfairly influenced into agreeing to be responsible for another person’s debts.

terms that do not form part of the contract

To be enforceable under the contract, a term must first be properly incorporated into it. We sometimes find that firms try to add terms after the contract has been finalised, or to infer terms that could not reasonably be inferred from what the contract says. It may be that, with hindsight, a firm wishes it had included a particular term. But unless that term was properly incorporated into the contract we will not apply it.

bigadaj

Which bit specifically?

Ifts

opinions4u wrote: »

Haggling. £150 is the top end of what I'd expect a bank to pay without further proof of loss. Unless you were a particularly valuable customer (which 98% of us are not).

I set up a FP via Tesco's Telephone Banking last year, it did not go through when I was told it would (even though they phoned me back at the time of setting it up to confirm all had been set up).

After a couple of days of me asking them why the money had not left my account with them, they found out that they had not followed through with my withdrawal request when they said they had.

They put it right by re-sending the money via Chaps (FOC) straight away and also gave me £300 for the inconvenience.

uk1

A few weeks back i had an issue with Halifax when they promised me (and my wife) that we had opened an account in time to receive 4.25%. Once opened it only showed 4%. I received all of the standard excuses with respect to the terms and conditions. The request to comply with the promise was turned down and £50 was offered to assauge our "dissapointment". I indicated dissatisfaction and that the issue should go without any delay to the ombudsman. 15 minutes later I had a more sensible discussion and the full rate was promised plus £350 for the inconvenience of having to complain.

As long as you are reasonable, understand the rules better than they do, are friendly, polite, non-confrontational and not easilly fobbed off then you will be fine.

Ifts wrote: »

I set up a FP via Tesco's Telephone Banking last year, it did not go through when I was told it would (even though they phoned me back at the time of setting it up to confirm all had been set up).

After a couple of days of me asking them why the money had not left my account with them, they found out that they had not followed through with my withdrawal request when they said they had.

They put it right by re-sending the money via Chaps (FOC) straight away and also gave me £300 for the inconvenience.

YorkshireBoy

uk1 wrote: »

Each complaint to the ombudsman costs the bank £500 as a fee.

No it doesn't.

Only cases which can't be dealt with by their frontline staff, and so have to be passed up the chain to a FOS adjudicator, are chargeable.

Currently fewer than 1 in 6 complaints received are passed to an adjudicator...

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/QG1.pdf (page 1, top right)

You may find the facts useful

See above.