Lloyds Packaged Account SUCCESS after only 4 days - £2,700 !!!

Nasqueron

FOS (and others) accept proof of postage (free from the post office) as proof it was delivered 2 days later (first class) - signed for can be rejected and then the company has proof they didn't get the letter - just for future reference

ChuckMountain

Thanks again.

Just to clarify the case is weak on the basis of not being able to provide proof? On the other points which I didn't go into as much here such as not being told of fee increases and not given alternatives fee free is that a better argument or do I list all and let the Ombudsman decide?

On the FOS Fee that's the fee so regardless of which way the Ombudsman rule presumably each time the banks get a complaint its costing them £550 per complaint that needs to be investigated which is in 1 in 5.

ChuckMountain

Nasqueron wrote: »

FOS (and others) accept proof of postage (free from the post office) as proof it was delivered 2 days later (first class) - signed for can be rejected and then the company has proof they didn't get the letter - just for future reference

Thanks, but presumably not proof of contents though :eek:

dunstonh

Knowing the names of two Bank staff you apparently verbally complained to some time back is not proof that you actually made a complaint, nor a reason why your current complaint should be upheld.

Back in my banking days and not long after starting with the bank, I was approached by another member of staff to tell me that a customer had made a complaint about me. He was very explicit on what was said and done wrong and he named me as the person. Being new and young it caused me a few days of worry. Especially as I didnt do what he said. It turned out that the thing he was complaining about happened before i was employed by the bank and couldnt have been me.

Naming the staff member does not prove anything. Now I am older and more wise to these things, I have seen and been subject to fraudulent and try-it-on complaints. The evidence is what is key. Not what people may think they remember. Recollection is not ignored. It just needs to be in context. For example, if you recall events and its found that just one of those recollections is wrong, then the rest of your recollections would be treated as being unreliable without evidence.

Lack of evidence does not mean auto-uphold. The available evidence has to point towards a failing in a balance of probability decision. If neither party has any evidence and nothing points towards a failing then it will be assumed that there was no failing.

On the FOS Fee that's the fee so regardless of which way the Ombudsman rule presumably each time the banks get a complaint its costing them £550 per complaint that needs to be investigated which is in 1 in 5.

Yes. Although the FOS can choose to not levy it (typcally done on complaints from serial complainers, troublemakers and frivolous complaints). They almost certainly would charge it in this case but that wont worry the bank as their product charges and interest rates are set on the expectation of paying FOS fees.

Nasqueron

ChuckMountain wrote: »

Thanks, but presumably not proof of contents though :eek:

No but if you have a copy of the letter and have proof it was posted then the issue is that the bank can't claim they didn't receive it as the "rules" say it was delivered. That is why the bank could produce a copy of a system/screen showing a welcome pack was posted you on xyz date and that is proof enough (if it worked the other way, you could just claim you never received it when you had and how would they ever prove you received it, short of hand delivering it?)

The problem is always documentary proof of verbal claims, they won't stand up to testing. Phone calls should be recorded though won't be kept forever and it relies on the bank having a system that records that you as the account holder rang and the employee making a note of the conversation - who knows if they do or not.

ChuckMountain

dunstonh wrote: »

Lack of evidence does not mean auto-uphold. The available evidence has to point towards a failing in a balance of probability decision. If neither party has any evidence and nothing points towards a failing then it will be assumed that there was no failing.

Thanks for the input I was trying to make sure I presented all the information in my letter I had so that the balance of probability fell on my side, the bank disagrees with that, hopefully the ombudsman may take a different view.

I do like your scud missile analogy in a previous thread as its somewhat frustrating when you get people entering a simple web form on the system and getting money back after a glass of wine. Ok it could be an open and shut case and I guess depends on what the system said about the auto upgrade. Maybe I should have provided less detail initially. I did also think the first telephone call was very much leading the witness.

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. Although the FOS can choose to not levy it (typcally done on complaints from serial complainers, troublemakers and frivolous complaints). They almost certainly would charge it in this case but that wont worry the bank as their product charges and interest rates are set on the expectation of paying FOS fees.

I appreciate its part of the costs of them doing business though (and not reason to worry) but I guess I had not fully appreciated the scale of the charge. They would normally expect x% of complaints and factor that in but with PPI and AVAs then the numbers would have been dramatically over what they had planned and so just the FOS fees are going to have some impact on their bottom line.

ChuckMountain

Nasqueron wrote: »

No but if you have a copy of the letter and have proof it was posted then the issue is that the bank can't claim they didn't receive it as the "rules" say it was delivered. That is why the bank could produce a copy of a system/screen showing a welcome pack was posted you on xyz date and that is proof enough (if it worked the other way, you could just claim you never received it when you had and how would they ever prove you received it, short of hand delivering it?)

The problem is always documentary proof of verbal claims, they won't stand up to testing. Phone calls should be recorded though won't be kept forever and it relies on the bank having a system that records that you as the account holder rang and the employee making a note of the conversation - who knows if they do or not.

Thanks I guess that's the frustrating thing even in the above scenario all you have proved is something was posted\received\rejected by the recipient depending on the method used not the contents. I could have easily sent a cheque to pay in or even a brick for that matter, its all the same address.

If the recipient disputes the content I can't prove it either way. Hopefully it wouldn't get to that :j

In the same way if I ask Vodafone for my bill or calls to Lloyds number that would presumably be more evidence that I had rung Lloyds about something.

In respect of the bank sending me something I ironically had to ask for them to resend me the original complaint response letter as I was told I would have it within in a week of the complaint call (which confirmed rejection). I had to chase after 4 weeks and it was re-sent so if a note on a screen can be taken as proof of postage (and not require Royal Mail proof) its weighted somewhat in favour of bank.

One more point is that the say I should have received a Welcome pack with all the details, right to cancellation etc. but they have not supplied any evidence of this or whether it was actually sent. There is an example like this on the Ombudsman site which amongst other reasons upholds the complaint.

Nasqueron

ChuckMountain wrote: »

Thanks I guess that's the frustrating thing even in the above scenario all you have proved is something was posted\received\rejected by the recipient depending on the method used not the contents. I could have easily sent a cheque to pay in or even a brick for that matter, its all the same address.

If the recipient disputes the content I can't prove it either way. Hopefully it wouldn't get to that :j

In the same way if I ask Vodafone for my bill or calls to Lloyds number that would presumably be more evidence that I had rung Lloyds about something.

In respect of the bank sending me something I ironically had to ask for them to resend me the original complaint response letter as I was told I would have it within in a week of the complaint call (which confirmed rejection). I had to chase after 4 weeks and it was re-sent so if a note on a screen can be taken as proof of postage (and not require Royal Mail proof) its weighted somewhat in favour of bank.

One more point is that the say I should have received a Welcome pack with all the details, right to cancellation etc. but they have not supplied any evidence of this or whether it was actually sent. There is an example like this on the Ombudsman site which amongst other reasons upholds the complaint.

Yes that would work in your favour if they can't show they sent the stuff out as the Ombudsman does tend to be fairly customer friendly.

The point with the screen thing is to make allowances for businesses who obviously don't go to the post office for every welcome pack, they would have a record showing a request was sent to a printers and a item was paid for to be mailed

ChuckMountain

Ok a quick follow up on this as have received official letter so am about to open a case with Ombudsman.

In the letter they have reiterated the complaint points I made as a summary but in some cases they don't actually match my complaint or have changed the meaning then answer the incorrect complaint item. They have still not answered some issues.

Are there any advantages in detailing all this to the Ombudsman, is less more? Any tips should I just focus on the items we disagree on ?