Do you trust Financial Ombudsman?

OceanSound

dunstonh wrote: »

Really? You ask anyone who has seen these programmes cover their profession .....

These 'professionals' are probably not the best persons to ask. i.e. if you ask a dodgy car mechanic being covered by the programme 'what do you think about the programme', they are hardly going to be singing it's praises!

JuicyJesus

OceanSound wrote: »

These 'professionals' are probably not the best persons to ask. i.e. if you ask a dodgy car mechanic being covered by the programme 'what do you think about the programme', they are hardly going to be singing it's praises!

Yeah but we're not talking about "a dodgy car mechanic" are we, we're talking about a wide variety of people across a profession.

Uxb

pmduk wrote: »

We never put forward a spokesman for live Watchdog again,

I had a now deceased relative who was occasionally asked for his specialist comment on a subject.
They got so fed up with the TV companies cutting and pasting him to alter the meaning and context of their comment in the editing room that in the end they refused to do any more interviews unless they were live.

To a previous poster - the reason the company gets an "attitude re-adjustment" when you say you are going to the FOS is that the FOS charge the company £500 for each complaint they handle.
It's meant to be an incentive to the companies to handle complaints properly pay compo where appropriate.
So to them paying you £50 to avoid a £500 bill is a good deal....

dunstonh

OceanSound wrote: »

These 'professionals' are probably not the best persons to ask. i.e. if you ask a dodgy car mechanic being covered by the programme 'what do you think about the programme', they are hardly going to be singing it's praises!

This just shows a level of paranoia that may explain why you are a serial complainer.

You have effectively accused everyone in every trade as being dodgy.

agrinnall

OceanSound wrote: »

10 complaints in 8 years isn't all that much. It's an average of 1.25 complaints a year...

So how many complaints to the companies involved were made in those 8 years that led to the 10 complaints to the FOS? I'd suggest that in the majority of cases a complaint to a bank or other financial organisation is likely to be settled without needing to be escalated to the ombudsman. So either you made rather more than 10 complaints in total, or your complaints were of a nature that the company declined to uphold them, both of which point to you being someone who complains far more than a normal consumer and about things that could be considered vexatious.

eskbanker

Anthorn wrote: »

Personally, I have never had to complain the the FOS but its very existence works. The conversation goes something like this:

Is that your final decision?
Yes it is.
Oh ok then, I'll go to the next stage in the complaints procedure which is the FOS.
Ah, hold on we'll take another look at it.
Ok we have considered your case on its individual merits and we can find in your favour and we'll pay you 50 quid for the inconvenience.
Ok thank you.

The same is also true of energy companies and OFGEM.

Uxb wrote: »

To a previous poster - the reason the company gets an "attitude re-adjustment" when you say you are going to the FOS is that the FOS charge the company £500 for each complaint they handle.
It's meant to be an incentive to the companies to handle complaints properly pay compo where appropriate.
So to them paying you £50 to avoid a £500 bill is a good deal....

It always amuses me when people suggest that financial institutions can be manipulated by entry-level extortion like this, i.e. the apparent expectation that threatening to go to FOS can be used to lever some compo out of them!

I'm not saying that a bit of brinkmanship negotiation never happens but to imply that businesses readily capitulate in response to a threat of some extra cost would be laughable, not least because less than one in six complaints and enquiries referred to FOS actually become chargeable.

JuicyJesus

eskbanker wrote: »

It always amuses me when people suggest that financial institutions can be manipulated by entry-level extortion like this, i.e. the apparent expectation that threatening to go to FOS can be used to lever some compo out of them!

I'm not saying that a bit of brinkmanship negotiation never happens but to imply that businesses readily capitulate in response to a threat of some extra cost would be laughable, not least because less than one in six complaints and enquiries referred to FOS actually become chargeable.

Also banks are quite aware of these tactics, and complaints handling staff are used to "give me £100 for this totally unjustifiable complaint or I'll go to FOS" and their reaction is almost uniformly going to be "lol idc". It's not their money, they can't uphold complaints they don't have grounds to uphold (especially considering that upheld complaints figures have to be reported to the FCA) and respondingby doing so simply encourages extortion.

Not saying they don't respond to this (e.g. by offering small goodwill gestures up front) but they're also not just going to roll over and give you money if you call up HSBC saying "I'd like to complain that your logo is too pointy and it's giving me manic depression."

peterbaker

Sad that the usual posters have been piling in to denigrate the OP as a serial complainer.

I could keep warm all night in winter burning the little green bubble FOS leaflets that banks and insurance companies have for so long dished out willy-nilly and so so prematurely with their "final decisions". We even seem to to be in the process of a design change currently and they can be ordered in boxes of 825, each for as little as a third the price of a second class stamp

You can even get them in Polish it seems! On the other hand, I could also burn uncashed unasked for "go away we're bored" cheques (some for £100 but mostly the insulting fifty quid that usually gets mentioned) which I have received from major companies distributed like so many coloured shiney beads for the restless natives.

8? I must have received maybe 28 invitations over the years. I have not bothered letting FOS handle any complaints yet. I have had a distinct aversion since a senior manager at a bank I blew the whistle at resigned, and then a year or so later pitched up as a senior at FOS - that poacher turned gamekeeper excursion lasted until approximately the same time Martin Lewis had successfully broken down all the remaining barriers to routine PPI claiming causing consciences to be examined at FOS and more lofty places, and so said industry most-favoured person then bogged off to a senior job at another bank, but has moved again both active and inactive (currently seemingly inactive) on the FCA Register.

I often ask the basic question about why we even need an FOS when we have so many extremely highly paid industry favoured persons already at FCA. FCA is "A Person of Significant Control" at FOS according to Companies House records. Yet unless you are very persuasive, FCA won't speak to mere customers. You get fobbed off to the commoners' melting pot set up with the connivance of government back in the days of "light touch regulation".

So FOS is a sort of proxy complaints handler both for financial services companies and the financial services police who continue to rub shoulders with their [STRIKE]prime adversaries[/STRIKE] old mates at industry and City junkets I guess, whilst the juniors handle the smelly stuff? And so, via the FOS (which FCA significantly control) a cut is taken from the companies complained about. Funny old policing arrangement, eh?

And at the top end, FCA get to agree occasional hush money "fines" to stop investigating the bigger scandals. But years after the event, we do at least have SFO (real police? - I am not sure about that either:p) investigating CEO's every now and then, but has anyone been jailed yet?

But the OP asked about FOS specifically. It's just beads for the restless natives again with the odd minor jackpot draw to keep them coming through the door, instead of letting them darken the doors of the essential engines of the financial services industry. It's all in Great Britain's best national interests of course, but as in Botany Bay and subsequent trips, it might sometime end in tears :rotfl:

Anthorn

eskbanker wrote: »

It always amuses me when people suggest that financial institutions can be manipulated by entry-level extortion like this, i.e. the apparent expectation that threatening to go to FOS can be used to lever some compo out of them!

I'm not saying that a bit of brinkmanship negotiation never happens but to imply that businesses readily capitulate in response to a threat of some extra cost would be laughable, not least because less than one in six complaints and enquiries referred to FOS actually become chargeable.

So without even knowing the circumstances you accuse me of "entry level extortion" and "Brinkmanship". Do you by any chance have the power to access telepathy to get that information from me? Hold on, I'll give it a try: Om ... Om. No not working.

It is not exactly unusual for banks and indeed energy companies to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to admit fault even when there is a good case. Isn't that why the FOS and OFGEM exist? Without those Ombudsment we would be stuck with the expense of the Courts and possibly at the mercy of organisations which could do as they please and that was my point.

Really, try to get your facts straight and if you don't have the facts keep quiet about something about which you have not even the foggiest idea!

pmduk

Anthorn wrote: »

Personally, I have never had to complain the the FOS but its very existence works. The conversation goes something like this:

Is that your final decision?
Yes it is.
Oh ok then, I'll go to the next stage in the complaints procedure which is the FOS.
Ah, hold on we'll take another look at it.
Ok we have considered your case on its individual merits and we can find in your favour and we'll pay you 50 quid for the inconvenience.
Ok thank you.

The same is also true of energy companies and OFGEM.

As a complaints handler in the telecoms industry, I never worried about a complaint being escalated. If the complaint had merit I'd have settled it, except for a couple of times when the complainant thought they were sitting on a winning lottery ticket, declined my offer, (conditional upon settling the claim without wasting my time preparing the case for escalation), and then got awarded less by the ADR.