Financial ombudsman service

dillthedog

Today, I had a response from The financial Ombudsman service in relation to a catalog of errors made by a bank when I remortgaged. These errors comprised - giving changing advice constantly as one person at the bank would say one thing and another would say different, demanding a valuation ( at a sum of nearly £300) when it had been agreed one was not required, stringing out the remortgage process for several months, then when I did sign the papers for the agreed amount., it appeared that the bank had "forgot " to inform me that they had made a mistake and were only prepared to offer 2/3 rds of the amount that had been agreed. ( this being 3 months down the line). Then when I made it clear that I would have declined this at the outset, before the bank made a credit search, the bank decided to put that money into my account without informing me- oh! and as a final insult charged me the interest rate for the higher amount for the whole time period of the remortgage - 2yrs. The bank admitted that errors had been made - and it was simply a case of agreeing a remedy.

We could not agree so I took the matter to the Fos.
The adjudicator did not bother to read my information and instead chose to speak to the bank- and his decision was full of "in fairness to the bank". There was not a single mention of fairness to me as the customer.
A paltry sum was offered- and no mention of the various errors, accept that that my complaint was upheld- and please can I return the money.
I then took the matter to an Obudsman.
I wrote detailed a chronological list of events showing what had happened and to be honest I might as well have penned a lot of baby talk as when I got the response today, it was clear that the Ombudsman had only given my case a cursory glance if that.
The ombudsmans' summary of the situation had blatant errors, did not even attempt to address the errors made- completely glossed over them ( guess it must be ok for banks to charge way above the correct interest rates- because no one takes them to task) and decided that a punary dinky bit of compensation is ok.

I am disgusted. I have no faith in this service if an Ombudsman cannot even interpret written evidence or grasp time frames ( by the way, my mortgage deal ends this month, so fat lot of good a "waiving " of early repayment fees are if I move to another mortgage provider- as if this will be possible after this).
I have no doubt whatsoever, the FOS are there for lip service only, they have no interest whatsoever in the ordinary person. For a bank to be allowed to make blatant errors and recieve not even a tiny reprimand is wrong.
By the way, I genuinely had no input in the errors the bank made.
This was a horrible, horrible situation not of my making, but it has left me shattered, worn out, disallusioned and in a state of despair.

To find that the Ombudsman doesn't even bother to take the time to read or understand a situation is the final demoralisation.
An unhappy experience all round.

It took over a full year for this service to make a decision

mrginge

How much compensation was offered and how much do you think would be reasonable?

Thrugelmir

There's obviously the banks side of the story in relation to your application. So I assume the matter to be far more complex than the bank simply being at fault for everything.

dunstonh

UK law puts the onus on the complainant providing proof. The FOS is a little fairer as it will use bank documents in your favour if they indicate a wrong doing.

The FOS is not about awarding compensation. It is about making sure things are put right. It may award a small inconvenience amount as well though.

The bank admitted that errors had been made - and it was simply a case of agreeing a remedy.

This would suggest you were after something of a greater amount than the FOS is reasonably able to offer.

For a bank to be allowed to make blatant errors and recieve not even a tiny reprimand is wrong.

The FOS is not there to do that. This is perhaps where you are having a problem. ie. expecting something that is not within remit.

I have no doubt whatsoever, the FOS are there for lip service only, they have no interest whatsoever in the ordinary person.

They do a good job within their remit. i.e. make sure you are not financially worse off.

kingstreet

Funny that.

I would imagine most of us who work in the industry see the FOS as more customer-leaning, than sympathetic to the institutions.

Thrugelmir

kingstreet wrote: »

Funny that.

I would imagine most of us who work in the industry see the FOS as more customer-leaning, than sympathetic to the institutions.

These days the FOS seems to be used as an arbitrater where people don't like a banks decision. The FOS will not rule on commercial decisions made by a bank. As that would amount to interference.