Third time lucky with LloydsTSB? Impossible to deal with

Insider101

dave8299s wrote: »

Indeed, am not going to question one guys response vs your 80k+ posts and experience.

But, do you think it is really fair that the Ombudsman won't look into it again? They didn't do any work last time, and just said if it's outside of 6 months tough.

There comes a point where the stress I have dealt with on dealing with this 3 times becomes disproportional to the refund amount. I'm generally ok with dealing with conflict and complaints, but Lloyds have really made things difficult over time.

At the end of the day I finished a loan years early and wasn't given a proper refund for the remainder of the term. By not following up a complaint due to my circumstances plus dealing with a hard faced bank shouldn't mean I am penalised!

Unfortunately, I concur with Dunstonh. The FOS call centre are notorious for telling people what they want to hear, especially when they don't have any understanding of the technicalities of the situation.

What you need to understand is that it's not a case of the FOS "won't look at it again" and how much work they did last time is fundamentally irrelevant. The law prevents them from looking at a complaint when it has been more than 6 months since the final decision, unless there are "exceptional circumstances", which mean that the complainant could not have referred the complaint in time (e.g. serious ill health). Whilst it is up to FOS itself to determine what constitutes exceptional circumstances, FOS is generally fair in its interpretation. Becoming demotivated to pursue the matter is not an exceptional circumstance, it is ultimately your own decision.

Keep the board updated on your progress anyhow.

dunstonh

Indeed, am not going to question one guys response vs your 80k+ posts and experience.

As mentioned above, the FOS telephone line is very accommodating. When you hang around this forum a long time you start to see a trend with people posting what the FOS told them and its almost script like in consistency.

But, do you think it is really fair that the Ombudsman won't look into it again? They didn't do any work last time, and just said if it's outside of 6 months tough.

The system has rules. Rules that are similar to law (for other areas). If you draw a line in the sand but allow it to be moved then there will always be someone that falls the wrong side and feel it is unfair.

The rules work to provide a sufficient window of appeal whilst at the same time giving the business certainty that a complaint wont drag on for years or decades.

There is an irony in your case. If Lloyds keep the same decision, you dont get right of access to the FOS. However, if they change the decision, you do then get right of access. However, if they change the decision, it will only be in your favour. So, you wouldnt need the FOS.

addedvaluebob

dunstonh wrote: »

and your factual evidence they do is where?

The point is not that I am asserting that they do, your point was that they actually harm your chances without any evidence.

I notice you also did not respond to my point about financial advisers probably harming your wealth, because it has no more or less validity than your original assertion

dunstonh

The point is not that I am asserting that they do, your point was that they actually harm your chances without any evidence.

Template letters harm chances and many CMCs use template letters.

I notice you also did not respond to my point about financial advisers probably harming your wealth, because it has no more or less validity than your original assertion

Because it was a stupid comment that has nothing to do with the topic and you were just trolling.

addedvaluebob

Template letters harm chances and many CMCs use template letters.

and many financial advisers do nothing more than follow the firm guidelines when choosing investments. Did'n't sesame get fined/censured for that?

Because it was a stupid comment that has nothing to do with the topic and you were just trolling

I don't troll I merely counterpoint that your comment had no more validity than mine that you have no evidence to actually support the statement.

dunstonh

Did'n't sesame get fined/censured for that?

no.

I don't troll

Pull the other one. That is all you do on this board now. You dont help anyone any more. You just post off topic rubbish to try and generate a response.

addedvaluebob

For years you have given people duff advice about their chances of success in regard to PPI complaints and anything else they want to complain about the financial advice they have received

and this quote from the FCA website

'FCA fines investment firm Sesame £6m for failing to ensure advice given to customers was suitable and for poor systems and controls'

and this from an older article

The FSA fined Sesame this week for serious failings in the supervision of one of its network of IFA firms and for poor record keeping. The IFA firm was advising consumers to release cash early from their pensions

The FSA said the advice given potentially affected 3,205 consumers between August 1999 and May 2001. During this time Sesame was known as Kestrel Financial Management Limited and was renamed Sesame Limited on 1 August 2003. Sesame is responsible for the advice and regulatory compliance of its IFA network.

dunstonh

addedvaluebob wrote: »

For years you have given people duff advice about their chances of success in regard to PPI complaints and anything else they want to complain about the financial advice they have received

and this quote from the FCA website

'FCA fines investment firm Sesame £6m for failing to ensure advice given to customers was suitable and for poor systems and controls'

and this from an older article

The FSA fined Sesame this week for serious failings in the supervision of one of its network of IFA firms and for poor record keeping. The IFA firm was advising consumers to release cash early from their pensions

The FSA said the advice given potentially affected 3,205 consumers between August 1999 and May 2001. During this time Sesame was known as Kestrel Financial Management Limited and was renamed Sesame Limited on 1 August 2003. Sesame is responsible for the advice and regulatory compliance of its IFA network.

And that has to do with this topic how?

Plus, it is different to what you said in the earlier post. So, well done on correcting your mistake.

-taff

addedvaluebob wrote: »

For years you have given people duff advice about their chances of success in regard to PPI complaints and anything else they want to complain about the financial advice they have received

and this quote from the FCA website

'FCA fines investment firm Sesame £6m for failing to ensure advice given to customers was suitable and for poor systems and controls'

and this from an older article

The FSA fined Sesame this week for serious failings in the supervision of one of its network of IFA firms and for poor record keeping. The IFA firm was advising consumers to release cash early from their pensions

The FSA said the advice given potentially affected 3,205 consumers between August 1999 and May 2001. During this time Sesame was known as Kestrel Financial Management Limited and was renamed Sesame Limited on 1 August 2003. Sesame is responsible for the advice and regulatory compliance of its IFA network.

Has absolutely nothing to do wih the original post or any relevance...

Troll.