Resolver

smurf667

Hi, I used the Resolver app to lodge a claim against Lloyds Bank for forcing me to have a paid for account, I did this on Wednesday night/Thursday Morning (12th/13th October 2016).

Yesterday I was contacted by the bank (yes as quick as that) but unfortunately I wasn't available when they rang. They've rang me again Today (14/10/16) by the same person, saying that he was dealing with my claim, and that he would either call back later today to give me the outcome of the claim, or if he needed to any questions answered, which again he did.

He has called me back just now, and said that he was upholding part of my claim, but rejecting the rest (the biggest part of my claim).

Now I've just been back to the resolver site to escalate my claim to the ombudsman, but all it says that I have to give Lloyds 8 weeks to answer my claim before upgrading to the ombudsman, BUT they have already answered my claim (2 days after my claim went in), so surely I should be able to escalate my claim to the ombudsman now as it has already been answered by lloyds, instead of having to wait 8 weeks before upgrading to the ombudsman.

Am I missing something, or is there a way I can upgrade it Now on Resolver, to the ombudsman?

Thanks in advance

dunstonh

but all it says that I have to give Lloyds 8 weeks to answer my claim before upgrading to the ombudsman,

No you dont. Its 8 weeks OR a final response.

However, you may want to look at the rejection reason carefully. The FOS only uphold around 11% of packaged bank account complaints. So, the odds are well against you. If you believe the complaint response is wrong then you are statistically more likely to get a better resolution by countering the bank rejection with your own evidence.

Why did they reject the other part of the complaint?

smurf667

He rejected it (using his words) "because you could have gone to another bank" so basically it's because I could have gone elsewhere

dunstonh

smurf667 wrote: »

He rejected it (using his words) "because you could have gone to another bank" so basically it's because I could have gone elsewhere

Was that more than 3 years ago?
i.e. did they mention 3 years in the response as there is a timebar allowed and closure or change of account is a valid reason if it was more than 3 years ago

smurf667

Yes it was more than 3 years ago, I've had this account since 1999 and there was no mention of 3 years

[Deleted User]

smurf667 wrote: »

Yes it was more than 3 years ago,

This means you will be time barred from complaint. The Ombudsman will not be able to overturn this.. All of this will be explained in the letter you'll receive confirming rejection of your complaint.

magpiecottage

At present the OP does not have a written response from the bank so they do not have the exact reasons.

Nasqueron

You need to wait for the formal response in writing from the bank.

The FOS is not a "backdoor" to get the answer you want, if you presented no case beyond the claim you were told you had to have the account then expect a rejection from the FOS as well especially as the bank have agreed to a partial refund.

smurf667

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

This means you will be time barred from complaint. The Ombudsman will not be able to overturn this.. All of this will be explained in the letter you'll receive confirming rejection of your complaint.

Can you point me to the relevant information that states I will be time barred please, as everywhere I have looked, including on this site, when asked how far back can I claim for, the answer was "There is no limit to how far back you can claim"

Thanks

Nasqueron

smurf667 wrote: »

Can you point me to the relevant information that states I will be time barred please, as everywhere I have looked, including on this site, when asked how far back can I claim for, the answer was "There is no limit to how far back you can claim"

Thanks

The financial rules state that you have 6 years from taking out the product and/or 3 years from knowing you had a reason to complain (whichever is longer).

So yes in theory the site is correct but remember these guides date from the beginning of the whole complaint "industry" when the complaints were a new thing so there was no issue with the 3 year rule.

To explain:

If you took out a product in say 2009, you are outside the 6 year rule, so they look at the 3 year rule.

If in say September 2013 the bank sent you details of the account including what you were paying for and the benefits (proof of sending is sufficient, they do not have to prove you received this), this is accepted by the FOS as giving you a reason to complain, starting the 3 year time bar clock. Banks with paid for accounts have been sending out information packs with letters advising you of other accounts and the complaints process for a number of years to cover their backs so it is possible this applies to you.

If both the 6 year and 3 year apply, your complaint can be time barred and the FOS cannot do anything about this.

dunstonh

smurf667 wrote: »

Can you point me to the relevant information that states I will be time barred please, as everywhere I have looked, including on this site, when asked how far back can I claim for, the answer was "There is no limit to how far back you can claim"

Thanks

Many packaged back account complaints are getting timebarred. There are two rules that have to be met for it to be timebarred.

1 - no more than 6 years from the sale.
2 - no more than 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue.

Closure of account or change of account are considered sufficient to trigger the start of the 3 year rule. So, whilst the bank cannot reject a complaint because the account was closed if it was less than 3 years ago. It can reject the complaint if it was closed by more than 3 years ago.

When you get the letter giving you the reasons, they will explain your reasons. Wait until you get that before you go to the FOS. Remember you are countering their rejection reasons. If you dont know the rejection reasons fully yet then you cant counter them.

If it is timebar (which is the only logical reason that would match the closure of account) then that would seem like a fair rejection and the FOS are unlikely to overturn it as they consider closure or account change as a valid start to the 3 year timer.