FOS is a Joke

[Deleted User]

NoOne2 wrote: »

So you agree they can make a decision without evidence and paperwork from the person who raised the issue?

It depends on the issue. For example, if a Bank claimed that they had no records of PPI and the customer provided detailed statements showing the insurance then I would expect FOS to adjudicate using the customer's evidence. However, in cases in which such documentary evidence is not in question, then FOS will decide the merits (or otherwise) of a case based mostly on a balance of probabilities.

If you still believe FOS are a "joke", then by all means take your case to court, but do realise that courts are not as customer-centric as FOS is and you will stand or fall on the evidence you provide.

Do also note that you can't use telephone recordings of FOS adjudicators in court unless you informed them that you were recording them in advance.

Martin Lewis sold this website some years ago and he is no longer an active presence here. Even back in the day, he never read or responded to forum posts so your opening sentence on page one is addressing someone who will never be aware of your disappointment.

NoOne2

neilmcl wrote: »

OK, how's this. The FOS are not there to judge whether you've had a breach of contract or what remedies you may or may not be due, that's for a small claims court to decide. They are there solely to adjudicate whether your CC co. have acted correctly. They don't need all your "paperwork" or apparent ramblings to do so. They have decided that your CC has indeed acted correctly and appropriately and I can't see any evidence that you've provided to suggest otherwise.

Thank you for the proper input

NoOne2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It depends on the issue. For example, if a Bank claimed that they had no records of PPI and the customer provided detailed statements showing the insurance then I would expect FOS to adjudicate using the customer's evidence. However, in cases in which such documentary evidence is not in question, then FOS will decide the merits (or otherwise) of a case based mostly on a balance of probabilities.

If you still believe FOS are a "joke", then by all means take your case to court, but do realise that courts are not as customer-centric as FOS is and you will stand or fall on the evidence you provide.

Do also note that you can't use telephone recordings of FOS adjudicators in court unless you informed them that you were recording them in advance.

Martin Lewis sold this website some years ago and he is no longer an active presence here. Even back in the day, he never read or responded to forum posts so your opening sentence on page one is addressing someone who will never be aware of your disappointment.

I am fully aware of the Small Claims, I have yet to lose one, and as stated before, the paperwork prepared is the full case.

Point 2

Why would I use recordings in Court as they are not the CC Company, unless you know something I don't?

Point 3

The FOS clearly stated they will wait for the Information, yet they didn't and claimed, they got all they needed.

One of the biggest mistakes made by them is going to the Manufacture and asking is the Temp ok on this product.

When I contacted them and asked, is this Temp Ok, as I am getting 100% fan speeds, noise which is overpowering the room, the PC is new build and free of dust etc, they said, the product is faulty, and looking at previous emails, it has already been identified as a faulty product.

This is the same basis of FOS vs Court of Law.

Courts act on facts and what is presented in front of them, while FOS seemed to do whatever they want with no evidence of exactly what they used to come to their conclusion.

Point 5

Martin refers to this site and has logo's everywhere, so unless he is linked to any other forum, then this was the appropriate one to post too.

hope it explains things

powerful_Rogue

NoOne2 wrote: »

Point 3

The FOS clearly stated they will wait for the Information, yet they didn't and claimed, they got all they needed.

The bit you posted and i've highlighted is the important bit.

The credit card only had to fulfil the same duties under the SOGA.
The item was sent to the manufacturer for repair - SOGA duty fulfilled.

The fact you asked for it to be sent back faulty is not the fault of the credit card company.

[Deleted User]

NoOne2 wrote: »

Why would I use recordings in Court as they are not the CC Company, unless you know something I don't?

I was simply addressing your earlier reference to having recordings of FOS adjudicators.

NoOne2 wrote: »

Martin refers to this site and has logo's everywhere,

Yes, Martin Lewis is still paid a hefty retainer for the continued use of his name and image. However, he has no active involvement in the running of this site and will never read your posts on this forum.

powerful_Rogue

Can you provide a few details so we can all see the FOS report online?

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/

NoOne2

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The bit you posted and i've highlighted is the important bit.

The credit card only had to fulfil the same duties under the SOGA.
The item was sent to the manufacturer for repair - SOGA duty fulfilled.

The fact you asked for it to be sent back faulty is not the fault of the credit card company.

Nothing to do with the Topic, but to correct you, I sent it to them to inspect, like if I had sent it to a 3rd party to inspect.

Just because I sent to the Manufacturer, nowhere does it say, I can't for inspection?

The Choice of repair is neither here or there as that was not the purpose.

Any more post's not related to the FOS I will ignore as you have allowed this Topic to get off track and made to look like it is about the case.

If I wanted it about the Case SoG, CCR, CRA and soo on, I would given a post of, faulty product and failed under Section 75.

Jumping to conclusions and then trying to claim, i am not the one listening goes bothways.

Had you and others stuck to the Topic then there would have been no confusion here.

powerful_Rogue

NoOne2 wrote: »

Nothing to do with the Topic, but to correct you, I sent it to them to inspect, like if I had sent it to a 3rd party to inspect.

Just because I sent to the Manufacturer, nowhere does it say, I can't for inspection?

The Choice of repair is neither here or there as that was not the purpose.

Any more post's not related to the FOS I will ignore as you have allowed this Topic to get off track and made to look like it is about the case.

If I wanted it about the Case SoG, CCR, CRA and soo on, I would given a post of, faulty product and failed under Section 75.

Jumping to conclusions and then trying to claim, i am not the one listening goes bothways.

Had you and others stuck to the Topic then there would have been no confusion here.

Ok, can you answer my post above which is specifically about the FOS?

Can you provide a few details so we can view the FOS report and see what the actually said. That way people will be able to understand/give specific answers in relation to the FOS

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/

neilmcl

The background to the apparent breach of contract is completely relevant, why aren't you getting this!

You ask us to make a judgement as to whether the FOS have made a correct judgement, to do this we need to see why the CC have acted in the way you suggest. Everything regarding this case is relevant and on topic and it's not for you to say otherwise.

Valli

NoOne2 wrote: »

Nothing to do with the Topic, but to correct you, I sent it to them to inspect, like if I had sent it to a 3rd party to inspect.

Just because I sent to the Manufacturer, nowhere does it say, I can't for inspection?

Sending an item back to its manufacturer, or seller is NOT the same as sending it to a 3rd party for inspection. A 3rd party would have no financial interest in the outcome of the inspection and would be deemed to be independent.