Ombudsman or Court?

MikeMouse

Advice needed please!

I have what I consider to be a straight forward case against a loans provider. I will give the company full opportunity issue their final response to my complaint.

Following their final response it would be quicker and easier for me to simply bypass the ombudsman and the delay's associated with waiting for an adjudicator and simply fill in a MCOL (Money Claim Online), pay the small online fee and make the lender either file a defence or simply pay up.

Has anyone any experience of taking this approach? There is no legal requirement to go to the Ombudsman as the courts are at everyones disposal should they believe they have a case?

Thanks in advance

-taff

The Ombudsman is free.

unforeseen

And also a judge would probably throw it out because you haven't exhausted the mediation/complaints process.

ripplyuk

I'd go straight to MCOL.

I would think the court would like to see that you'd used the company's own complaints process, but I don't believe it's compulsory to have gone to the ombudsman first.

Ombudsman decisions can take forever. I currently have an ongoing complaint with a different ombudsman (not financial). Two years now and still waiting for a decision.

missile

unforeseen wrote: »

And also a judge would probably throw it out because you haven't exhausted the mediation/complaints process.

The judge will decide the case on it's merits. There is no obligation to use the ombudsman.

Bogalot

ripplyuk wrote: »

I'd go straight to MCOL.

I would think the court would like to see that you'd used the company's own complaints process, but I don't believe it's compulsory to have gone to the ombudsman first.

Ombudsman decisions can take forever. I currently have an ongoing complaint with a different ombudsman (not financial). Two years now and still waiting for a decision.

Why are you comparing the FOS to a different ombudsman? They are completely unrelated. In simple cases an adjudicator ruling can be as quick as a few weeks. You're not even going to have a court hearing date in that time.

As stated above, there is an expectation that you fulfil all other avenues prior to a small claim, including the ombudsman. Whilst a judge may choose to overlook this, they can dismiss the case, meaning the OP will have lost his fee.

OP there is far more to gain in going to the FOS first, not least the fact that they are far more lenient towards consumers than a court can be.

MEM62

My five cents worth;

* You consider that you have a straightforward case but the loan provider may take a different view.

* You are making the assumption that their final response will not be the outcome you are looking for - which is a little premature.

* Why bypass the ombudsman. Do you have a reason to suspect that he will not uphold your case?

* You are more likely to fail in court unless you have exhausted all other avenues of redress.

MikeMouse

Thanks for all your responses. Lots of different opinions. I remain unsure how I will proceed but will await the response from the business and decide then.

Thanks again everyone

Thrugelmir

MikeMouse wrote: »

I have what I consider to be a straight forward case against a loans provider.

Have you sought legal counsel?

ripplyuk

Bogalot wrote: »

Why are you comparing the FOS to a different ombudsman?

Because the people I know who have used the financial ombudsman have waited an equally long time.

I agree that an adjudicator's decision can be just a few weeks, but that only means the case has been accepted for the ombudsman to look at. An actual ombudsman decision will take much longer.

-taff

Only if the company or person bringing the complaint reject the adjudicators decision does it go to an actual Ombudsman.