Dunstonh, Moneyinepitude et al

Brokerwise

I think I may have mentioned on another thread that FOS are now actually looking into pre January 2005 compliant's under the basis
of the MCCB (only body to which I subscribed) on the basis of optionality and cost.

I rejected a complaint with a copy of the mortgage illustration that states optional and also a copy of the sales call from 2003 also confirming cost and the fact it was entirely optional. The client obviously had other ideas and has referred to FOS. I have no issue with this as such but FOS are going to make this into a case to investigate the matter and charge me a notional £500 (still within the 35 free cases) This has really got my goat and wondered if this has come up before and do they have the remit to make it a chargeable case ?

Your views would be much appreciated - a bit different and possibly a view from the 'other side'

dunstonh

Maggpiecottage is the ideal person to be involved in this. Although it is his occupation and it may be something he would deal with on a commercial arrangement as there is only so much you can do on a website for free.

My guess is that if the FOS confirm in the end that there is no remit for them to investigate the case then surely they cannot include it on the case count. However, if it is decided that the do have it within their remit then it would be on your case count.

Brokerwise

dunstonh wrote: »

Maggpiecottage is the ideal person to be involved in this. Although it is his occupation and it may be something he would deal with on a commercial arrangement as there is only so much you can do on a website for free.

My guess is that if the FOS confirm in the end that there is no remit for them to investigate the case then surely they cannot include it on the case count. However, if it is decided that the do have it within their remit then it would be on your case count.

Thanks. Just wanted some opinion from others who may have encountered the same. There is another side to this whole fiasco and I do not think it is represented on this site and I think it should be.

Insider101

Brokerwise wrote: »

I think I may have mentioned on another thread that FOS are now actually looking into pre January 2005 compliant's under the basis
of the MCCB (only body to which I subscribed) on the basis of optionality and cost.

I rejected a complaint with a copy of the mortgage illustration that states optional and also a copy of the sales call from 2003 also confirming cost and the fact it was entirely optional. The client obviously had other ideas and has referred to FOS. I have no issue with this as such but FOS are going to make this into a case to investigate the matter and charge me a notional £500 (still within the 35 free cases) This has really got my goat and wondered if this has come up before and do they have the remit to make it a chargeable case ?

Your views would be much appreciated - a bit different and possibly a view from the 'other side'

Unfortunately, FOS as a body really don't like having to tell customers that their case is out of their jurisdiction and do come up with some weird and wonderful ways to try and give themselves the right to consider it. Their call centre are even worse and will just tell customers to complain to them without any consideration of jurisdictional issues.

I would ask them to confirm firstly the basis on which they consider that this case falls within their jurisdiction. If they say that it is because you subscribed to the MCCB and the complaint relates to optionality and cost disclosure, and you have a call recording demonstrating this, I would state that they should dismiss it without counting it on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous/vexatious ( basically, completely unjustified and made solely to inconvenience you as the receiving party). There is provision for FOS to dismiss such cases without consideration, hence no notional case fee.

Was it a customer complaint or a CMC, and if the latter which one?

Brokerwise

Insider101 wrote: »

Unfortunately, FOS as a body really don't like having to tell customers that their case is out of their jurisdiction and do come up with some weird and wonderful ways to try and give themselves the right to consider it. Their call centre are even worse and will just tell customers to complain to them without any consideration of jurisdictional issues.

I would ask them to confirm firstly the basis on which they consider that this case falls within their jurisdiction. If they say that it is because you subscribed to the MCCB and the complaint relates to optionality and cost disclosure, and you have a call recording demonstrating this, I would state that they should dismiss it without counting it on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous/vexatious ( basically, completely unjustified and made solely to inconvenience you as the receiving party). There is provision for FOS to dismiss such cases without consideration, hence no notional case fee.

Was it a customer complaint or a CMC, and if the latter which one?

The one last week was a customer and the one today was a CMC called Challenge.your. Thank you for your comments - much appreciated

Insider101

Brokerwise wrote: »

The one last week was a customer and the one today was a CMC called Challenge.your. Thank you for your comments - much appreciated

For the CMC one, I think the frivolous argument would be stronger still. The type are fairly well known for sending "standard" complaint letters and referring defended cases to FOS without any consideration of the points made. FOS tend to have less sympathy with them than direct customer complaints. I can't remember whether Challenge Your are one of them but you can generally tell a standard letter a mile off.

WatchMan

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately FOS operates a system where adjudicators get a backhander for looking at a case - even if they decide it is not in jurisdiction - and that makes it chargeable.

What do you mean by this? (the part highlighted)

magpiecottage

WatchMan wrote: »

What do you mean by this? (the part highlighted)

The adjudicators get paid an incentive for each case the "close". So they can (and do) look at complaints where there is clearly no case to answer to decide if they have jurisdiction and get their few bob.

If that happened to DunstonH, he would then be presented with a bill of £550 for the privilege of being told he had no case to answer.

Brokerwise

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately FOS operates a system where adjudicators get a backhander for looking at a case - even if they decide it is not in jurisdiction - and that makes it chargeable.

Only if no policy ever existed would that not be the case.

However, if you were an Appointed Representative of somebody else at the time and have never been directly regulated by the FCA/FSA, they have no jurisdiction. If you point that out at outset you may get away with it.

However to deal with something of this nature fully, I would need to see the file - which, I am afraid would mean chargeable time.

Even if it is not against the letter of the rules of MSE, I will not pm somebody seeking to do business with me as it is definitely against the spirit of it.

So if the OP wants to do that I will leave it to them to pm me.

Thanks for your post but there really is nothing to this - it is open and shut. I have been handling complaints for the past four years and all I wanted to see if anyone else was getting the same treatment from FOS. Was DA by the way.

Thank you for your time but I think it also sends a message to the throw at FOS brigade who post on this site if a claim is legitimately turned down just in the vague hope of getting a result (have read countless threads of that nature in my brief time on this site)

Brokerwise

WatchMan wrote: »

What do you mean by this? (the part highlighted)

Basically, a firm like mine gets charged £500 by the FOS for a complaint even if it is nonsense and totally without merit

roonaldo

magpiecottage wrote: »

The adjudicators get paid an incentive for each case the "close". .

this stopped (contractors on a pay per case basis) in 2010 as the system was being abused.