Financial Ombudsman rejection (sort of!)

cazzam

I was dealing with a family illness which I explained in my letter to the Halifax. This took priority, then yes 6 months had passed so I thought I couldn't do anything about it, until I saw the Martin Lewis ITV consumer programme this year, when he stated you could put a second claim in.

justin56

It is a statement of fact, not an advertisement, that I investigate complaints against small firms of financial advisers for a living.

dunstonh

cazzam wrote: »

I was dealing with a family illness which I explained in my letter to the Halifax. This took priority, then yes 6 months had passed so I thought I couldn't do anything about it, until I saw the Martin Lewis ITV consumer programme this year, when he stated you could put a second claim in.

As you now know, Martin Lewis was wrong. It was good intentioned but wrong. It comes about because sometimes firms will reopen a case voluntarily if new evidence comes to light or if they are forced to by the regulator. The latter has happened with a few banks and they are going back over old complaint automatically. You dont need to ask again. Sometimes, firms will not link an original complaint to a new one. Not often nowadays but it happens. So, the odd one there can get through the cracks as well.

The rules are that you complain. If your complaint is rejected and you disagree with that outcome, then you have 6 months to refer your complaint to the FOS. A process that requires no more than 10 minutes. If you fail to refer within 6 months then you lose your ability to use the FOS unless the firm agree to volunteer a waiver of the 6 month rule. The other exception is where you were unable to act within, not just the 6 months but they whole period of the delay before going to the FOS for a justifiable reason. This is usually immediate family bereavement or incapacity. Family illness sounds a bit more remote than a direct family member and illness is unlikely to take all of your day, every day for 6-12 months.

Some of the things you get in a response is auto-text. Not specific to you but general pointers or comments that may apply. The 2005 rule can apply to brokers, for example, as most were not regulated prior to 2005. Although some had membership of an earlier body that did. Banks belonged to an earlier body. So, the 2005 rule doesnt apply. Then you have the case where a small minority of cases can see the insurers liable for the sale. Usually due to commercial arrangements where the seller was an agent of the insurer. Again, these do not apply to banks as it is their own in house product and the sellers are not agents of the insurers. This method has been more successful with car dealers.

You have to look at the specific personalised reasons for the rejection as one thing. Then look at the possible avenues non-personalised auto-text as another.

[Deleted User]

Far from being a "sort of " rejection, I'd say the chances of any success with this 2 year old "complaint" are nil.

It does indeed look like the Ombudsman response has tried to smooth the rejection with possible other avenues (like Plevin, for example) which do not necessarily apply personally to the originator of this thread.

cazzam

Thanks for replies, I now know where I stand and will not waste any more time on this.