Do you trust Financial Ombudsman?

JuicyJesus

Cotta wrote: »

It may explain why my ceiling is £50 or the adjudicator could have been trying to justify his sum total to me.

It's possible he could have meant that the usual sum of compensation being handed out is £50, expressed poorly. I can believe that; a lot of peoples' cases are likely to be much less extreme than yours, and FOS front-line staff aren't all perfectly articulate.

However it's all a bit academic because ceiling or not you're clearly upset with the compensation offered as you don't feel it's appropriate and can back that up with argument, so you at least do have the recourse of an ombudsman.

Cotta

JuicyJesus wrote: »

It's possible he could have meant that the usual sum of compensation being handed out is £50, expressed poorly. I can believe that; a lot of peoples' cases are likely to be much less extreme than yours, and FOS front-line staff aren't all perfectly articulate.

However it's all a bit academic because ceiling or not you're clearly upset with the compensation offered as you don't feel it's appropriate and can back that up with argument, so you at least do have the recourse of an ombudsman.

Possibe, in any regards I've emailed the Agent directly just with my points on it and I expect the decision will certainly now be on Monday rather than today.

masonic

Cotta wrote: »

It looks like I'll have to if this is the final decision, I'm not quite sure why it's taking until Monday to confirm.

The likely reason is to give time for TSB to provide any final information needed to reach the decision.

The Agent did ask what I was seeking in term of loss of account access, I simply said more than £50.

I still think your best option would have been to make a counter-offer that could have been put to TSB, but it seems that time has passed. Once a decision is issued, the bar moves from whether the decision was the best compromise between both parties to whether the decision was sufficiently wrong to warrant being changed. That's not to say it definitely will be more difficult to get a better outcome, but it might be.

It seems you have been unlucky and hopefully an Ombudsman will be more sympathetic on review.

Agreed but this sounds inline with what the FOS Agent told me in that there is a general cap around the £50 mark for most TSB complaints.

It seems very odd I was offered £150 plus costs for my TSB complaint. I don't think it was because I'm a particularly skilled complainer and I didn't get an initial low-ball offer like you.

Cotta

masonic wrote: »

The likely reason is to give time for TSB to provide any final information needed to reach the decision.


I still think your best option would have been to make a counter-offer that could have been put to TSB, but it seems that time has passed. Once a decision is issued, the bar moves from whether the decision was the best compromise between both parties to whether the decision was sufficiently wrong to warrant being changed. That's not to say it definitely will be more difficult to get a better outcome, but it might be.

It seems you have been unlucky and hopefully an Ombudsman will be more sympathetic on review.


It seems very odd I was offered £150 plus costs for my TSB complaint. I don't think it was because I'm a particularly skilled complainer and I didn't get an initial low-ball offer like you.

£150 isn't a ransom considering what failures TSB have had.

I didn't get the feeling the Agent was looking for a counter offer today, he was adamant that it was almost impossible to financially quantify loss of account access.

masonic

Cotta wrote: »

£150 isn't a ransom considering what failures TSB have had.

No it's not, and it seemed an appropriate sum IMHO. I would have been satisfied with slightly less, but not as little as £50.

Cotta

masonic wrote: »

No it's not, and it seemed an appropriate sum IMHO. I would have been satisfied with slightly less, but not as little as £50.

I've possibly managed the situation poorly, when I first spoke to the Agent a week ago a throwaway line was used by him that in some cases of customs being locked out of accounts unfairly he's applied a £5 per day quota but due to the longevity of my issue this would not be appropriate. However this conversation has not been mentioned since.

Chickenlips

I do trust them.

They review if the company have been fair in applying the applicable terms. They also review if the terms are fair and worded in a reasonable way.

They are a slow service, because they have limited staffing and complaints do fluctuate (also, some people submit complaints that are clearly not going to succeed, but they are duty bound to investigate!). For older complaints, they have a lot of paperwork to read through.

Irrespective of their decision, if a firm has been slow to communicate with you, they will make them pay compensation. Be warned though: it won't be life changing. Something like £50 a week I think.

It is always worth considering if you don't think a firm has acted in accordance with the agreed contract.

Sometimes though, they do side with the consumer despite evidence suggesting they shouldn't.

They are a good free alternative to legal action!

peterbaker

Chickenlips wrote: »

I do trust them.

They review if the company have been fair in applying the applicable terms. They also review if the terms are fair and worded in a reasonable way.

They are a slow service, because they have limited staffing and complaints do fluctuate (also, some people submit complaints that are clearly not going to succeed, but they are duty bound to investigate!). For older complaints, they have a lot of paperwork to read through.

Irrespective of their decision, if a firm has been slow to communicate with you, they will make them pay compensation. Be warned though: it won't be life changing. Something like £50 a week I think.

It is always worth considering if you don't think a firm has acted in accordance with the agreed contract.

Sometimes though, they do side with the consumer despite evidence suggesting they shouldn't.

They are a good free alternative to legal action!

I think it might be useful to readers generally, Chickenlips, if you could say from what point of view you have gained your trust in FOS. Is it through experience as a claimant via FOS, or as an industry observer? I see on these forums you answer a lot of general insurance questions authoritatively. You work in insurance?

On your suggestion of limited FOS staffing, I noted the other day from one or more FOI requests made to FOS that FOS seems to employ more staff than many insurance companies (about 3,000 full-time equivalent currently?).

The big question doesn't seem to be about the numbers, but more about whether they are the right stuff?

Cotta

Adjudicator has advised that following my feedback he has referred my case to a colleague but still expects a final response be made today.

Edit - Spoke too soon, a decision has been postponed until tomorrow.

Nattyblue

Hi
Im new to this but need to talk to someone as i feel so frustrated...i recently filled an online form on barclay card to see if i had ppi. A few weeks later was told yes on two cards dating back to January 2003. I was like wow i never know i had then so today i had a refund in my bank for £66 confused i gave barclays a ring which they told me my ppi has been rejected on the grounds that it was done by post and that i had ticked two insurance and signed. I have no recognition of this... i was pay this all the way up to 2012 where i was in financial difficultys and ask to be put on a payment plan and the card to be stop. Barclays then did tell me i had this insurance that would of help me instead i set up a payment plan with cccs that still was taking ppi payment without me know. I have told barclays this and has ask for a copie of my application form for the card. They have said they they will reopen the case but i dont know if i should of just gone to FOS????