We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Disgraceful intimidation
EdInvestor
Posts: 15,749 Forumite
The Telegraph's investigator reports:
Upholding the right to make a complaint
So now you know what to do if this happens to you: step one is to walk away from any mortgage broker who tries to make you sign any such agreement, as it is an immediate sign of bad faith.
Upholding the right to make a complaint
Q: The mortgage broker I dealt with, and who I wanted to complain about, tells me I signed an agreement to the effect that any unsuccessful appeal to the Financial Ombudsman will result in a claim for costs of £2,125 based on an hourly rate of £250.Obviously, I am not going to risk a claim for that size for the sake of recovering £485, which is the amount at issue.
A:Sadly, I could not assess whether or not you had a case about the charge at issue as we did not have access to the original documents. You agreed to take the matter to the ombudsman service as a matter of principle. I spoke to the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).Ultimately, your original complaint was not upheld but I understand trying to dissuade customers from taking complaints to the ombudsman is an increasing trend.
The FSA did say: "It is absolutely unacceptable for any regulated firm to deter a consumer from going to the Financial Ombudsman Service."The Financial Ombudsman Service stressed to the broker that your complaint against it was not of a frivolous or vexatious nature and the firm will be in trouble if it tries to charge you for taking it to the ombudsman.
So now you know what to do if this happens to you: step one is to walk away from any mortgage broker who tries to make you sign any such agreement, as it is an immediate sign of bad faith.
Trying to keep it simple...
0
Comments
-
First time I have heard of someone doing that. Still, it is a good story for the media as it only takes on individual to do it and that allows them to give the impression it's common.
That said I have heard of a few trying get an affidavit signed. Whilst that isn't allowed either, I can understand them asking for it given the rise in false claims. The current system of the consumer being able tell lie after lie and get away with it is not fair and a bit of balancing up in the system should apply. That doesn't mean introducing a fee on complaint but a fee if the complaint is not held. Firms currently have to pay the £350 FOS fee even if the complaint is not upheld so passing some of that fee back to the consumer would be fair if the complaint is rejected. It has to be enough to discourage the fraudulent complaints but not enough to discourage the genuine complaints. It's a tough decision either way. At least the Conservatives appear to have taken it on board and are talking about a fee being charged.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
First time I have heard of someone doing that. Still, it is a good story for the media as it only takes on individual to do it and that allows them to give the impression it's common.
That said I have heard of a few trying get an affidavit signed. Whilst that isn't allowed either, I can understand them asking for it given the rise in false claims. The current system of the consumer being able tell lie after lie and get away with it is not fair and a bit of balancing up in the system should apply. That doesn't mean introducing a fee on complaint but a fee if the complaint is not held. Firms currently have to pay the £350 FOS fee even if the complaint is not upheld so passing some of that fee back to the consumer would be fair if the complaint is rejected. It has to be enough to discourage the fraudulent complaints but not enough to discourage the genuine complaints. It's a tough decision either way. At least the Conservatives appear to have taken it on board and are talking about a fee being charged.
A fair comment dunston but a bit of a 50/50 situation when it comes to both IFAs and complainants. I do agree that there are obviously some fraudsters out there as there are in all walks of life. But it may be veiwed as a bit unfair on any genuine complainants who may not have £350 spare. It would, as you say deter these people which is a shame if they are genuine. It would also be unfair to charge the complainant just because the complaint is rejected. Just as it is also unfair to charge firms just because a complaint has been brought against them.
Surely there must be a fairer way for the FOS to recoup their costs rather than charging the innocent parties so readily. And by innocent I mean both customers and advisors.
Is there no way that costs could be gained from advisors/firms who have had complaints upheld agaist them. From what I have read on previous threads, it seems that there are a few firms who do seem to have the monopoly when it comes to complaints against them.If only I knew then what I know now0 -
The Telegraph's investigator reports:
Upholding the right to make a complaint
Quote:
Q: The mortgage broker I dealt with, and who I wanted to complain about, tells me I signed an agreement to the effect that any unsuccessful appeal to the Financial Ombudsman will result in a claim for costs of £2,125 based on an hourly rate of £250.Obviously, I am not going to risk a claim for that size for the sake of recovering £485, which is the amount at issue.
A:Sadly, I could not assess whether or not you had a case about the charge at issue as we did not have access to the original documents. You agreed to take the matter to the ombudsman service as a matter of principle. I spoke to the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).Ultimately, your original complaint was not upheld but I understand trying to dissuade customers from taking complaints to the ombudsman is an increasing trend.
The FSA did say: "It is absolutely unacceptable for any regulated firm to deter a consumer from going to the Financial Ombudsman Service."The Financial Ombudsman Service stressed to the broker that your complaint against it was not of a frivolous or vexatious nature and the firm will be in trouble if it tries to charge you for taking it to the ombudsman.
This is of course a classic newspaper tactic of sensationalism which sells papers. If they reported on someone who went to the Adviser, who then admitted he was at fault and paid compensation they wouldnt have much of a story.
We should remember the Telegraph and other papers are less interested in giving us news but much more interested in selling their papers for profit.I like to give people as many choices as possible to do what I want them to. (Milton H Erickson I think)0 -
Many advisers want the guilty to pay and don't like the way that the innocent advisers end up with the liability. I have said that a number of times in the past. The FSA seem to think that the current system is the best way. To me that doesn't send out the right message.
Something like 12-15 companies represent over half of all complaints to the FOS. Why the FSA isn't looking at those companies closer I don't know.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Since a major selling point of getting regulated "advice" is that you are protected from misselling, it would seem pretty unwise for advisors to start suing clients who make complaints that aren't upheld.
As we can see from the size of the business that Hargreaves Lansdown (for example) has built up, there is already a sizeable chunk of the market that has decided that better returns could come if they go it alone.
And confidence in the existing FOS system is getting wobbly as well - their appalling performance over Equitable Life, where they actively worked to stop victims getting their rightful redress, has seriously dented confidence among the better informed.
You can already also see the complaints handlers on the expansion trail via bank charges cases, and savers themselves getting a lot better at handling court complaints.One wonders how much longer the current system can last.Trying to keep it simple...0 -
it would seem pretty unwise for advisors to start suing clients who make complaints that aren't upheld.
That isnt what is being suggested though.As we can see from the size of the business that Hargreaves Lansdown (for example) has built up, there is already a sizeable chunk of the market that has decided that better returns could come if they go it alone.
Fairweather investors who have never seen a stockmarket crash so think they are a lot better.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Many advisers want the guilty to pay and don't like the way that the innocent advisers end up with the liability. I have said that a number of times in the past. The FSA seem to think that the current system is the best way. To me that doesn't send out the right message.
Something like 12-15 companies represent over half of all complaints to the FOS. Why the FSA isn't looking at those companies closer I don't know.
Are there any records open to the public informing of who these companies are?If only I knew then what I know now0 -
I havent seen anything listing the companies. The FOS just made reference to those figures but didnt say whom. Here are a couple of articles referencing that:
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=137685&d=pnd2&h=pndh2&f=pndf2
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=136420&d=pnd2&h=pndh2&f=pndf2I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Thanks for that dunston
An interesting part quote from MoneymarketingMerricks said: "In a world where schools, hospitals, rail operators and even fertility clinics are ranked in public league tables, I can see commentators arguing that data about the response to complaints by regulated financial firms, which are required to make half-yearly returns of this information to the regulator, should be in the public domain."
Wouldn't that just save everyone so much time, money and stress!!!If only I knew then what I know now0 -
And it would serve as a great incentive.
Cynical hat on. I bet you that most of those 12 are banks. The FSA is pro banks. Many of the rule changes that have come in over the years have favoured or been best suited towards the banks.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.4K Spending & Discounts
- 238.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 614.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.7K Life & Family
- 251.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards