Do you trust Financial Ombudsman?

Dominion

The financial ombudsman has colluded with TSB in refusing to uphold my complain in the recent alleged "IT Meltdown". I have no access to my funds since past several months while the FOS is acting as accomplice to TSB's embezzlement. I want to ask about others' experiences.

eskbanker

Dominion wrote: »

The financial ombudsman has colluded with TSB in refusing to uphold my complain in the recent alleged "IT Meltdown". I have no access to my funds since past several months while the FOS is acting as accomplice to TSB's embezzlement. I want to ask about others' experiences.

You're certainly not the first and undoubtedly won't be the last to make that leap of logic that says 'FOS didn't uphold my complaint, so therefore they're in the pocket of the banks'!

Obviously the way you've described it makes it seem unlikely at face value that it should have gone the way it did, so what's the rest of the story, both in terms of TSB's rejection of your complaint and then its handling by FOS?

In other words, are you looking for people to nod along and say "yes, they're bent" or are you seeking some guidance on the situation you're now facing?

dunstonh

Dominion wrote: »

The financial ombudsman has colluded with TSB in refusing to uphold my complain in the recent alleged "IT Meltdown". I have no access to my funds since past several months while the FOS is acting as accomplice to TSB's embezzlement. I want to ask about others' experiences.

A rejection in your complaint does not mean the bank have colluded. That is just a bad assumption. Your allegations reflect your frustration but are totally misplaced. You are accusing the TSB of fraud. And now accusing the FOS of fraud. Clearly, that is not the case with either.

A rejection in your complaint means that the FOS found no wrongdoing within its remit. No breach of rules or law.

We don't know your complaint reason or the response. Maybe you could post the DRN number so we can view it via the published decisions.

JuicyJesus

dunstonh wrote: »

We don't know your complaint reason or the response. Maybe you could post the DRN number so we can view it via the published decisions.

I'd be amazed if a final ombudsman's decision had been obtained that quickly.

peterbaker

Am I the only one confused by the titles that people at FOS go by?¨

Board of the Financial Ombudsman Service. The scheme operator is responsible for appointing a panel of people, with appropriate qualifications and experience, to act as ombudsmen for the purposes of the scheme, on such terms as it considers to be consistent with the independence of those appointed.
Academy – The Academy provides training for new investigators, which takes place over a six month period.
Adjudicators – Adjudicators are members of staff at the FOS that handle cases outside the investigation model.
Investigators – Investigators are the case-handlers within the FOS’ new way of working, taking calls directly from consumers and issuing initial views on complaints.
Ombudsman – An ombudsman makes final decisions on cases, which are legally binding if accepted by a consumer. Appointments to the panel of ombudsmen are made under paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 17 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Ombudsman managers – Ombudsmen working as managers to a group of investigators.
Associate ombudsmen are a flexible resource of contractor ombudsmen that can be drawn upon when required.

Still not sure how many ombudsman clones or iterations it takes to run FOS.

That last one looks a bit suspect ... since so many of us in UK have worked in Financial Services and have relevant experience, can we be expected to be called upon a bit like we are for Jury Service? (With the major difference in that this would appear to be a paid oppurtunity since the word contractor is used). Or are such opportunities reserved for the select few who know how to take orders, fit outcomes to targets, and keep shtum?

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

Am I the only one confused by the titles that people at FOS go by?

Possibly, or perhaps you're the only one whose agenda entails that level of research and suspicion?

peterbaker wrote: »

Still not sure how many ombudsman clones or iterations it takes to run FOS.

Doesn't seem unusual to me that a reasonable size of organisation has a structure that involves varying degree of seniority and responsibility, ranging from the front-line staff who answer the relatively simple first-line stuff, through adjudicators empowered to resolve second-line issues, up to actual ombudsmen who have the most responsibility to make final decisions, and some of whom act as line managers to more junior roles.

peterbaker wrote: »

That last one looks a bit suspect ... since so many of us in UK have worked in Financial Services and have relevant experience, can we be expected to be called upon a bit like we are for Jury Service? (With the major difference in that this would appear to be a paid oppurtunity since the word contractor is used). Or are such opportunities reserved for the select few who know how to take orders, fit outcomes to targets, and keep shtum?

Again it doesn't seem remarkable to me that an organisation would seek to retain access to a pool of people with relevant skills and experience on a flexible basis, in order to manage workload peaks, holiday seasons, etc. Unsurprisingly, I wouldn't interpret this as yet more 'evidence' of conspiracy....

peterbaker

eskbanker wrote: »

Possibly, or perhaps you're the only one whose agenda entails that level of research and suspicion?

What level? It's all from the latest FOS independent review report dated July 2018 on their website?

Unsurprisingly, I wouldn't interpret this as yet more 'evidence' of conspiracy....

Who said anything about conspiracy? Most of what I read from FOS about FOS and from people like Martin Lewis's MSE by official invitation, indicates incompetence.

You can make the leap from that sad fact to something more deliberate if you wish, and it seems you have. Share your reasoning if you will.

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

What level? It's all from the latest FOS independent review report dated July 2018 on their website?

Fair enough, perhaps it wasn't accurate to suggest that the stuff you posted was particularly difficult to find (for those who are minded to go looking), but I was also challenging the level of suspicion inherent in your post.

peterbaker wrote: »

Who said anything about conspiracy? Most of what I read from FOS about FOS and from people like Martin Lewis's MSE by official invitation, indicates incompetence.

You can make the leap from that sad fact to something more deliberate if you wish, and it seems you have. Share your reasoning if you will.

It was your heavily loaded question "are such opportunities reserved for the select few who know how to take orders, fit outcomes to targets, and keep shtum?", which clearly implies (to me at least) that you feel FOS has a sinister agenda and deliberately recruits pliable individuals who are predisposed to fit it.

peterbaker

eskbanker wrote: »

Fair enough, perhaps it wasn't accurate to suggest that the stuff you posted was particularly difficult to find (for those who are minded to go looking),...

Well I didn't say it was difficult to find (it's easy!) but it is confusing once found. It seems keen commentators are minded to attend this thread - so why not attend the horse's mouth and have some of that from the front end?

... but I was also challenging the level of suspicion inherent in your post.

What level is that then, and suspicion of what?

It was your heavily loaded question "are such opportunities reserved for the select few who know how to take orders, fit outcomes to targets, and keep shtum?", which clearly implies (to me at least) that you feel FOS has a sinister agenda and deliberately recruits pliable individuals who are predisposed to fit it.

All I was doing was matching the disclosure by FOS in July2018, and MSE in their formal November 2017 report on Ombudsmen Services, of the types FOS employs, to their typical previous career backgrounds. It is pretty much a given, wouldn't you say, that no-one has survived long at banks particularly in the last two decades unless they exhibit the particular cultural qualities I mentioned? Does that make them sinister and pliable? Again, your words not mine.

peterbaker

So can we all now quietly conclude that indeed FOS should not be automatically trusted, or is it now being suggested that any kind of sheep-worrying in threads like this may cause sheep to trample all over the green grass reserved for those higher mammals best able to digest it, so it is best for higher mammals to backtrack, be quiet and let the sheep resettle in their original corners?