Do you trust Financial Ombudsman?

JuicyJesus

Cotta wrote: »

Sorry I said that with tongue in cheek regarding Paul Pester, although the changes in compensation levels I can't explain.

I wouldn't blame you if you're not too fussed about the explanation either way, given you're £500 richer as a result!

peterbaker

JuicyJesus wrote: »

It's pretty doubtful. More likely is that they'd double checked and thought "hang on a second, this is a bit low".

The departure of Paul Pester is almost certainly going to be unconnected in any way.

Well, not exactly unconnected in any way ... although it may have been connected with yet another TSB online outage on Monday. That will not pass have passed unnoticed at FOS, and I wonder now if we can trust FOS to say "hang on a second, is the original tranche of TSB complaints we handled under-compensated, and have some we said were worth fifty quid then, now worth re-assessing with a supplementary uplift in compensation award?"

JuicyJesus

peterbaker wrote: »

Well, not exactly unconnected in any way ... although it may have been connected with yet another TSB online outage on Monday. That will not pass have passed unnoticed at FOS, and I wonder now if we can trust FOS to say "hang on a second, is the original tranche of TSB complaints we handled under-compensated, and have some we said were worth fifty quid then, now worth re-assessing with a supplementary uplift in compensation award?"

Honestly? Tenuous at best. Especially given the whole point is that complaints are handled based on individual circumstances, and Cotta wasn't actually affected by that outage.

Cotta

peterbaker wrote: »

Well, not exactly unconnected in any way ... although it may have been connected with yet another TSB online outage on Monday. That will not pass have passed unnoticed at FOS, and I wonder now if we can trust FOS to say "hang on a second, is the original tranche of TSB complaints we handled under-compensated, and have some we said were worth fifty quid then, now worth re-assessing with a supplementary uplift in compensation award?"

The Ombudsman adjudicator mentioned that recent TSB issues could not be included within any open Ombudsman cases and the usual channels would have to be followed e.g. Log a complaint with TSB first.

chocolady

I've used the financial ombudsman for investigating a loss of documents and awful customer service case from my
Bank. Lost both parents last year. My mother had died in December and the bank said they had a dormant account for my mother once we checked for probate purposes. They asked for application forms, death certificates and my ID details documents to be taken to branch in person as they wouldn't take them by email (but they then subsequently did) which they then promptly lost. They had no proof of where they had gone. When they were queried about the loss first they lied and on 2nd call to bereavement department they laughed at me and then sent me 2 further letters. One said they had sent me a letter on the day of my mothers death "which I must have received by now regarding the death of your mother" another eventually said they didn't have a dormant bank account at all. When questioned why they sent me on this goose chase at what was a deeply distressing time for me they said it was probably an error (which seemed to satisfy the ombudsman along with all their other errors). The ombudsman service from the start seemed very helpful. But after my having to continuously chase up the case from a seemingly junior member of their team I was told months later they were sorry but they couldn't force my bank to compensate me any further as the case was about my mothers estate (I was complaining about the poor customer service meted out to me and loss of my documents which my bank accepted). One would assume they knew the details from the start as it was clearly explained. They then said they thought my request for compensation wasn't unreasonable but couldn't enforce it but would pass it on for a formal decision. Instead of that I got a couple of curt emails from a Ms. Wiltshire who said she was answering to avoid a formal ombudsman decision but agreed my banks offer was fair contrary to her colleagues thoughts? She said if the banks loss of my documents lead to fraud I could come back to them later!! Despite no evidence of my documents being destroyed she said she had no reason to think they hadn't been! She asked for more information and when it was provided ignored it and said she was closing the file. I have asked her further questions but don't expect much more than the curt response I've had so far. There is a service review body which I will now contact as this person seems to want to cut off my case without due process. Highly unsatisfactory and really surprised at what used to be a very good service on the rare ocassion I used it. It seems like they are far too cosy with the banks and other companies these days and too busy to care. Still I suppose their lack of holding businesses to account from the look of their reviews does add up to a whole lot of work for them! If you go to trust pilot they have virtually unanimous poor reviews. On there people say they are paid by companies for each case they take, not sure if that’s right but they certainly seem biased to me. It’s also said that channel 4 did an investigation on them and an mp still has them under investigation. Don’t know again if this is true. Still they were awful with my case and I had to chase them up all the time or they would let it go on for ages or ignore it.

eskbanker

chocolady wrote: »

It’s also said that channel 4 did an investigation on them and an mp still has them under investigation. Don’t know again if this is true.

As covered earlier in the thread, it's certainly true that Channel 4's Dispatches ran a programme on FOS, aired on 12 March - their press release at the time is https://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/investigation-at-fos-finds-staff-with-severe-lack-of-training but I can't find the episode itself online.

FOS then commissioned an independent review, findings published at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/pdf/independent-review-2018.PDF

The Treasury Select Committee was already looking into FOS before the programme anyway, their activities are covered at https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/treasury-sub-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/financial-ombudsman-service-17-19/

chocolady wrote: »

If you go to trust pilot they have virtually unanimous poor reviews.

That's the fundamental flaw with the likes of Trustpilot but also threads like this - people rarely feel the need to praise and so swathes of criticism aren't necessarily representative. If FOS had found in your favour, would you have sought this thread out and rushed to their defence?

chocolady wrote: »

On there people say they are paid by companies for each case they take, not sure if that’s right but they certainly seem biased to me.

It's right that FOS are funded by both levies and case fees from financial institutions but that's hardly symptomatic of bias as somebody has to pay for the service provision! Or would it make you feel better if you had to fork out a few hundred quid to raise a case with them?

chocolady

That’s what the thread is about. They did find in my favour but said their hands were tied when in fact their own incompetence etc and lack of interest in holding the bank to account were at the root of the problem. I think your claims about trust pilot are ridiculous as I see many positive reviews on there and in fact have posted several myself. Are you trying to say that everyone who takes a dim view of the FOS are wrong? You and your friends seem to love attacking anyone who dares to complain about them. I wonder why that is. Seems very curious. I wonder do you think it’s good service to laugh at grieving relatives or to make up accounts that don’t exist? Your responses seem more likely trolling than fellow MSE poster.

chocolady

Btw I’d be fine about funding the ombudsman service.

eskbanker

chocolady wrote: »

I think your claims about trust pilot are ridiculous as I see many positive reviews on there and in fact have posted several myself.

I'm not saying that Trustpilot only has negative reviews, far from it, and it would be a complete waste of everyone's time if that's all it was used for. My point was more that, in the context of a monopoly complaints handler with effectively binary outcomes, FOS customers are largely going to be either happy or unhappy, based on the result obtained, with very little middle ground. However, I'd consider the MSE report on a range of ombudsman services (see links earlier in thread) to be a more accurate measure.

chocolady wrote: »

Are you trying to say that everyone who takes a dim view of the FOS are wrong?

No, not at all, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm just saying that (in my opinion) those who take a dim view of FOS are likely to be heavily influenced by the outcome achieved rather than the process or the body itself, i.e. those whose complaints are upheld by FOS will feel FOS to be trustworthy, while others will perceive rejection as evidence of a flawed organisation or processes, or bias, etc. Note that I wasn't commenting specifically on your own case and your own views, but the way in which you were seemingly happy to take others' remarks at face value.

chocolady wrote: »

You and your friends seem to love attacking anyone who dares to complain about them.

I don't see any attacking going on, just calm and rational debate, which is what should be expected on a web forum.

chocolady wrote: »

I wonder do you think it’s good service to laugh at grieving relatives or to make up accounts that don’t exist?

No, of course not, but that's a complaint about the bank not FOS.

chocolady wrote: »

Your responses seem more likely trolling than fellow MSE poster.

Not quite sure what that's meant to mean but it's clearly not trolling....

You may have noticed that I didn't comment on the merits or otherwise of your case (it's quite difficult to pick it out from that huge monolithic block of text) but was just picking up on some of the broader issues you touched on, such as the distinction between incompetence/human error, etc, and institutional bias. For what it's worth, on the face of it, I'd be inclined to agree that you've had a poor experience with FOS, but what's the outcome you're hoping for by escalating to them?

dunstonh

I think your claims about trust pilot are ridiculous as I see many positive reviews on there and in fact have posted several myself.

There are scams which have 5 star ratings on them with Trustpiliot.

It is well known that people are more likely make a negative report than a positive.
Also, many of those making a positive report wouldnt know a service is good as they have not held it long enough. Many of those marking a service down because it does not do something they want even when it is not advertised as giving that service. Many reports are just from people not in a position to comment either way.

. Are you trying to say that everyone who takes a dim view of the FOS are wrong?

Are you trying to say that the few people that have an issue with the FOS are right?