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.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Financial ombudsman...who regulates them?
Comments
-
Paided for by? The financial company's people complain about
The cost of the FOS is passed to all companies that are FCA regulated. It is in the form of a levy. I have never had a complaint at the FOS but I pay the levy for it every year. So, you are wrong in that respect.so till the day fos are made independent from financial company's they will play the tune for them
They are independent. Financial firms generally complain about the FOS being biased to the consumer.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 -
Paided for by? The financial company's people complain about
FOS is funded by levies and case fees.
Levies are paid regardless of whether the business has a case with FOS or not.
Case fees are payable no matter whether the complaint is upheld or rejected.
So I don't see how the way FOS is funded can demonstrate impartiality.0 -
Do you mean you don't see how the way FOS is funded demonstrates partiality/So I don't see how the way FOS is funded can demonstrate impartiality.Paided for by? The financial company's people complain about
The Financial Ombudsman Service was set up by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 - an Act of Parliament.
Acts of Parliament are passed by Members of Parliament.
Members of Parliament are appointed by the electorate.
The electorate is made up entirely of people who are consumers.
Being a financial services business gives you no Parliamentary electoral rights whatsoever.
So, by your logic, the way in which the Financial Ombudsman Service was set up must make it biased in favour of the consumer.went to my mp and he said no one can overturn an ombudsman ruling
This is not strictly true. You can, if you wish, take the business to court.
In theory a court can overturn an Ombudsmans ruling in exceptional circumstances. As far as I am aware, the case of Cirencester Friendly Society v Parkin in May of this year is the only case where this has happened.
In that instance, the judge said Parkin had told a "load of lies".
That day came on 1 December 2001 - the day FOS opened for business.till the day fos are made independent from financial company's they will play the tune for them0 -
I found fos a very poor service , had a on going complant for over 6 years which was said to have been resolved by two different adjudicators went back to a third , who was rude and looked down his nose at me , found aganst me went for an ombudsman decision , who said as his rights due to time of complant it would not look at it and said that an arrangement could be reported for 18 years , went to my mp and he said no one can overturn an ombudsman ruling , so till the day fos are made independent from financial company's they will play the tune for them
The FOS is independent. It is funded by levies on authorised firms (to pay its overheads) and case fees to pay investigation costs/blatantly profiteer from the PPI saga (*delete as you feel applicable). The firms do not have a choice in whether to pay these fees and cannot withold them if they are not happy with FOS decisions. They are required by law.
If what you mean is "until the day FOS is funded differently" then how would you have it funded?Whichever option you suggest is fraught with difficulties. Having a "loser pays" system (though I staunchly believe that this should be brought in for CMC complaints) would lead to a situation where complainants are potentially denied the opportunity to have their case heard because they can't afford to risk the costs of losing the case. Likewise, funding from the public purse would lead to widespread electorate dissatisfaction from bystanders who are lumbered with the costs of the banks' wrongs and all the bandwagon jumpers.
As has been noted above, FOS is consumer friendly, more so than the courts and in terms of PPI has upheld far more cases than it has rejected. However, everybody whose complaint gets rejected thinks they've been hard done to and it tends to be those people who complain about it on consumer forums. The problem being that we then only get one side of the story from a party with a vested interest, as opposed to FOS who get both and make an impartial decision. It is also absolutely correct that they won't change their decision just because someone goes complaining to their MP, which would be no kind of justice whatsoever. Hard as it may be, if you are one of the minority that FOS reject then it's unfortunately time to just accept that your case wasn't convincing enough and move on.0 -
It's not losing the complant that s hurt the most but the length of time from October 2009 when funds suppose ally not paid went missing but my bank provided details of who cashed the cheques mbna them selfs ,till going to an ombudsman in December 2014 being told that he had excised his right not to look at the case from 2009 due to time that had elapsed but ruled it was okay to display negative markers on my credit file for full 12 years plus 6 was not un fair as I agreed to this by entering an arrangement in July 2008' so for give me for feeling let down by fos when I expected it to be resolved in 2009 not refused to be looked at in 20140
-
The financial ombudsman service (FOS) is answerable to no one. The independent assessor (IA) service is a sham. My complaint about an international money transfer going awry was totally messed-up by FOS. The adjudicator quite blatantly sided with the bank before seeing any evidence, didn't keep me updated on the case, and often spoke over me when I tried to explain the details. A complaint to his Manager, didn't solve anything. However, the senior manager, overuled her and decided to change the adjudicator.
The new adjudicator was no better. Kept missing deadlines, not respecting my communication needs etc. As I had already complained to the senior manager about the previous adjudicator, the executive overseeing the complaint advised me to contact the IA. I did, IA told me to get back to her after the ombudsman decision. I waited patiently for 1 year for the decision, nothing. I then contacted adjudicator 2 via email for an update. She said "it appears you have not received [the decision]" and sent a copy as an attachment.
When I contacted the IA to follow-up + to complaint about their sending the decision by post (to my previous address), the IA first told me to contact the FOS Manager. Then when I sent her proof of the FOS executive's email telling me to contact the IA, they said I had not contacted them promptly once the decision was issued. However, IA failed to take note that FOS failed to send the decision to my correct address or send it via email as per my instruction.
Both the FOS and IA are highly inconsistent, incompetent, inefficient and a total waste. Both are not fit for purpose. FOS will not uphold your complaint unless it's untenable. i.e. A large majority of complaints are fast-tracked in favour of the bank/business without batting an eyelid.
Don't despair, share your experience, write/talk to your MP, sign petitions. Won't be long before a majority will know who the FOS is, then we will see some real action.0 -
OceanSound wrote: »The financial ombudsman service (FOS) is answerable to no one. The independent assessor (IA) service is a sham. My complaint about an international money transfer going awry was totally messed-up by FOS. The adjudicator quite blatantly sided with the bank before seeing any evidence, didn't keep me updated on the case, and often spoke over me when I tried to explain the details. A complaint to his Manager, didn't solve anything. However, the senior manager, overuled her and decided to change the adjudicator.
The new adjudicator was no better. Kept missing deadlines, not respecting my communication needs etc. As I had already complained to the senior manager about the previous adjudicator, the executive overseeing the complaint advised me to contact the IA. I did, IA told me to get back to her after the ombudsman decision. I waited patiently for 1 year for the decision, nothing. I then contacted adjudicator 2 via email for an update. She said "it appears you have not received [the decision]" and sent a copy as an attachment.
When I contacted the IA to follow-up + to complaint about their sending the decision by post (to my previous address), the IA first told me to contact the FOS Manager. Then when I sent her proof of the FOS executive's email telling me to contact the IA, they said I had not contacted them promptly once the decision was issued. However, IA failed to take note that FOS failed to send the decision to my correct address or send it via email as per my instruction.
Both the FOS and IA are highly inconsistent, incompetent, inefficient and a total waste. Both are not fit for purpose. FOS will not uphold your complaint unless it's untenable. i.e. A large majority of complaints are fast-tracked in favour of the bank/business without batting an eyelid.
Don't despair, share your experience, write/talk to your MP, sign petitions. Won't be long before a majority will know who the FOS is, then we will see some real action.
The majority of cases with PPI, for example, are upheld against the banks
The FOS is laughable consumer biased, as above, refusing to call the complainer a liar even when their evidence is so obviously false (like people who don't have PPI and yet send off a ream of complaints about how they were forced to take out PPI etc)
Look at the actual FOS decisions in favour of consumers over banks, quote them on here then apologise
1.6m complaints in 2015-16
75% of people rated the FOS positively and 57% of people who LOST at the FOS still rated them positively
2015-16
66% of PPI complaints were upheld, an average 51% were upheld
Only 14% of complaints about packaged accounts were upheld - given the PPI uphold rate, do you not think even for a second that it might be that the account complaints are simply bandwagon jumpers?
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/annual-review-2016/ar16.pdfSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards