MSE News: MPs turn to MSE for report on ombudsmen effectiveness

Legacy_userLegacy_user Forumite
0 Posts
MoneySaving Newbie
MoneySavingExpert.com has been asked to write a report on the effectiveness of ombudsmen by a group of cross-party MPs...
Read the full story:
'MPs turn to MSE for report on ombudsmen effectiveness'
OfficialStamp.gif
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

Replies

  • edited 22 February 2017 at 3:57PM
    DoaMDoaM Forumite
    11.9K Posts
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 22 February 2017 at 3:57PM
    I'd suggest that the report should also cover the pseudo-ombudsmen that exist in the Private Parking world ...

    POPLA (Parking On Private Land Appeals) who provide ombudsman-like services for BPA (British Parking Association) members. POPLA are OK and at least have a semblance of fairness.

    IAS (Independent Appeals Service) who provide ombudsman-like services for IPC (International Parking Community) members. IAS are run by the same controlling minds as the IPC, therefore there is no sense of fairness in how IAS adjudicate motorist appeals against parking tickets ... IAS is effectively a kangaroo court who will almost invariably find in favour of the parking company, even when faced with cast iron, legally-proven appeal points posed by motorists.

    The lack of effective regulation in the private parking world is a disgrace. The law was changed in 2012 (Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4) to allow parking companies to pursue vehicle keepers for parking charges, after clamping was outlawed. Key to the argument put forward by the parking companies (in favour of POFA schedule 4) was the burden on the courts in respect of small claims for outstanding charges - they said POFA plus their appeals service would reduce the burden. They lied ... in 2012 there were less than 1,000 court claims in respect of parking; in 2016 there were around 50,000 court claims!
  • BogalotBogalot Forumite
    1.1K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    Richard Arkless, who chairs the APPG on Consumer Protection, today accepted an offer by MSE to conduct a report on the effectiveness of ombudsmen - this is the first time MSE has been asked to carry out a report of this nature by an APPG.

    So did you offer to do a report or were you asked?

    I hope the report is clearer than your article!
  • brisbris Forumite
    10.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Unless the Ombudsmen have legal powers they are a waste of time. The furniture ombudsman for instance is paid for by the retailers and therefor every thread on here about them shows bias to their paymasters.


    As long as they are paid by the companies they are supposed to be investigating there will never be fairness.


    Even when they do agree with the customer they have no powers to enforce it, the retail ombudsman is proof of that, they can simply be ignored.
  • keirankeiran Forumite
    696 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts
    ✭✭
    I do hope that MSE will clearly lay out the ineffectiveness and the "regulatory capture" of the so-called Energy Ombudsman. There's no end of threads on the energy forums describing the issues that seasoned and assertive consumers have had with this useless, expensive, self-aggrandising body which is without doubt in the pockets of the energy companies
  • edited 22 February 2017 at 9:53PM
    hollydayshollydays Forumite
    19.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 22 February 2017 at 9:53PM
    hildass1 wrote: »
    About time that MSE was consulted.

    Suggest that MSE include PPI in the report. I am still amazed that the FOS appears to be agreeing to the banks suggestion to stop PPI complaints during 2019; although I do not believe that they have officially or formally communicated this yet. For me, as a Barclays bank whistle-blower on PPI, the banks will be getting away with murder if/when the FOS do this.

    I have already advised the FOS that Barclays should be giving upholds for any PPI mis-sold; irrespective of whether the customer has complained or not. If has been mis-sold, it does not matter if the customer has complained or not, Just pay up and act with honesty and integrity (strange these are 2 of the bank's core behaviours for staff that they are conveniently ignoring for customers. I will even offer the FOS if I have not done already; a method to give automatic upholds for customers.

    I am sure that the other banks use similar; if not identical tools, so what I am saying to the FOS should be applicable for them as well.

    But mse " churnalists" have given prominence to the so- called
    " retail ombudsman".

    Nothing more than a business calling itself an ombudsman.

    Several mse users have believed this is some sort of official body.

    The original thread

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5144700
  • ~Brock~~Brock~ Forumite
    1.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    hildass1 wrote: »
    About time that MSE was consulted.

    Suggest that MSE include PPI in the report. I am still amazed that the FOS appears to be agreeing to the banks suggestion to stop PPI complaints during 2019; although I do not believe that they have officially or formally communicated this yet. For me, as a Barclays bank whistle-blower on PPI, the banks will be getting away with murder if/when the FOS do this.

    You're barking up the wrong tree. It's not their call. FOS will just do whatever the FCA decides.
  • edited 29 March 2017 at 11:11AM
    freebiequeenfreebiequeen Forumite
    25 Posts
    edited 29 March 2017 at 11:11AM
    I have been to the LGO, the FOS, the Legal Ombudsman and the PHSO and found all to be absolutely useless. I have found the investigators' powers of reasoning not to be impressive and they are not independent at all - they are biased against the applicant and, no matter how strong your case, in my experience, you will end up disappointed. There is an excellent pressure group called phsothefacts that exposes the flaws in the PHSO process. The burden of proof on an applicant is higher than the burden of proof in a criminal trial and there are no guidelines informing the ombudsman's assessment of causation. My complaint was provisionally upheld - the report in my favour was very strong - only to have the decision reversed, without rhyme or reason, when the CSA objected. One of the problems is that the body under investigation does not have to abide by the Ombudsman's decision.
  • DoaMDoaM Forumite
    11.9K Posts
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    hollydays wrote: »
    Has a post been removed from here?
    Someone just mentioned that mse had offered to do the report , not that they were asked, but that post has gone?

    Post #3 by Bogalot is still there ... did you skim over it?
  • hollydayshollydays Forumite
    19.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I've deleted that post now-yes I'm
    On my phone and missed it.
  • Recently a case went against me when the Financial Ombudsman failed to notice that the two falsified signatures on car breakdown worksheet were by the same vehicle technician.
    In cases like this you should be able to get the final decision reviewed.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Stoozing, sublets & summer sips

This week's MSE Forum highlights

MSE News

Martin Lewis quizzes Rishi Sunak

Watch the cost of living support Q&A here

Join the MSE Forum discussion

48 craft beers for £50 delivered

One-off bundle for newbies. Excludes Northern Ireland

MSE Deals