Do you trust Financial Ombudsman?

masonic

veryintrigued wrote: »

Another example of a thread where forumites 'thank' other forumites due to their username and post history rather than judging individual posts on their worth.

If I click the thanks button on any posts, it will generally be for one of three reasons:
1) To thank someone for sharing something I find useful
2) To thank someone for making a point I would have made and saving me the trouble
3) To acknowledge a post directed at me that doesn't warrant a full reply

very occasionally 4) To thank someone for correcting an error I made

Others use the thanks button differently. In fact, there seem to be people elsewhere who assemble into groups and create threads in which all the contributors seem to thank each and every post made.

I don't think the latter is what's going on in this thread, though. More 'thanks' tend to get issued in threads where a heated argument is going on. I'd speculate those 'thanks' will mostly fall into category (2) above.

peterbaker

So let us give thanks that most MSE readers aren’t swayed by attempts to kill an important topic such as whether The Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (Yes it is a private limited company) can be trusted. Notably the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) are recorded as a person of significant control of FOS (the only person of significant control in fact). If our judgement of the answer to the thread title question is No, then what might we then infer about FCA?

JuicyJesus

peterbaker wrote: »

So let us give thanks that most MSE readers aren’t swayed by attempts to kill an important topic such as whether The Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (Yes it is a private limited company) can be trusted. Notably the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) are recorded as a person of significant control of FOS (the only person of significant control in fact). If our judgement of the answer to the thread title question is No, then what might we then infer about FCA?

Absolutely nothing at all.

peterbaker

If FCA is formally the "person of significant control" at FOS then it is logical to argue FCA bears ultimate responsibility for systemic failures at FOS. Just saying. It would be somewhat obtuse to argue otherwise.

JuicyJesus

Wow are you saying that the Financial Conduct Authority, the authority that regulates the conduct of the financial sector, has responsibility for the regulation and operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service?

It's almost like they, and their predecessors the Financial Services Authority, are responsible for the creation and implementation of FOS and set its rules under direction from Parliament per the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which also specifically stated that it was to be run as a "body corporate", a heading which can apply to but does not necessarily mean a limited company.

This. Changes. EVERYTHING.

Seriously what is it you're trying to prove here? Here's the chain of logic, can you point out where I'm going wrong or is it really this trite?

• Some people don't like FOS because they think it's biased.
• Therefore FOS is biased.
• The FCA is responsible for FOS.
• Therefore the FCA is responsible for the bias these people think FOS has.

peterbaker

Trite? If you wish to make it so:p

I prefer detail and discovery of underlying motive:

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Wow are you saying that the Financial Conduct Authority, the authority that regulates the conduct of the financial sector, has responsibility for the regulation and operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service?

I am saying that their Companies House returns show that FCA is the person of significant control of FOS. Their returns do not show that any other person significantly controls FOS.

It's almost like they, and their predecessors the Financial Services Authority, are responsible for the creation and implementation of FOS and set its rules under direction from Parliament per the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which also specifically stated that it was to be run as a "body corporate", a heading which can apply to but does not necessarily mean a limited company.

Indeed, and what was the effect? We ended up with FSA/FCA successfully declining to lower themselves to the level of complaining customers, and instead getting the green light to set up, yes, a limited company (of the common sort you can look up on Companies House website except like FCA, this one has no share capital in the normal sense, but note FCA lines insiders' nests in similar fashion ) FOS is set up as a type of market complaints sink to handle the financial markets' volume smelly stuff - by design apparently allowing FCA worthies to sit in their ivory towers uninterrupted by day to day stuff and not getting their hands dirty. Instead they get to handle more heady stuff with their old mates in the financial markets.

This. Changes. EVERYTHING.

Really? Looks like business as usual financial sector style to me. Employ monkeys paid peanuts to "adjudicate" customer complaints and keep them well away from the businesses' real decision-makers. Employ fee paid contractors when the masses get restless and start bulk claiming, and lay them off when it goes quiet. Take them on again in some office down the road when the next mass scandal gains traction (no not the new FCA building silly - try Coventry!). Oh and don't forget to keep everyone guessing about the real numbers of staff and adjudicators.

Meanwhile, let's not forget why we're all here - make sure all the Remuneration Committee peeps are networked into self-serving circular arrangements, and keep managing the 1998 FCA Pension Scheme nicely - the one that was naturally set up as soon as FSA became a regulator of old mates at the banks - most important for any self-respecting ivory tower wallah - it's a market credibility thing :mad: It was bad enough that SIB wallahs had got their pensions caught up in the Equitable Life fiasco. At least when they and their pensions transferred to FSA they were back amongst friends

Oh and don't make it too easy for pesky journalists or others to guage the size of the thing or work out what it truly costs - No not the FOS bit - who said anything about them? We're talking the FCA DB pension scheme of course - that's the important thing at FCA - but please don't tell Joe Public!

Best we give the FCA pension scheme dormant company status so only the members get to know the nitty gritty! We'll need to get Baroness Hogg to sign a piece of paper with zeros on it annually to put in the public domain at Companies House, but its a relatively small annual embarrassment for the dear lady if it is the price for protecting insider interests

The Plan (yes that is what is now actually called so you won't have much luck Googling it unless you know how to see wood from trees) does seem to include considerable Defined Benefits for the lucky ones, but of course FCA only ever intends to break even each year. I wonder how they fund it? Willis Towers Watson as usual will know the answer to that and most of the important big questions in the City, but I guess some very clever FOI requests might be needed to tease out the real picture

What's that you say? What about FOS pension scheme? Do they need one/deserve one ? - mostly a transitory bunch are they not, and getting themselves secretly filmed on Channel4 - that would never happen at FCA, eh? No, if they are lucky they can be admitted to the non-contributory (? :rotfl:) defined contribution pension section of the FCA scheme before they leave.

Oh well, end of another week - one more closer to a gilt-edged retirement for some. No not for the FOS monkeys especially the youngsters ... just their difficult to pin down masters.

JuicyJesus

Look, I'm not reading all of that. Make your point in a more succinct way or sod off to be honest. I'm not reading through twelve paragraphs of green ink about how FOS are intergalactic space lizards when I managed to summarise most of your posts on this thread in four bullet points.

eskbanker

Peter, you're obviously in need of some assistance with how to construct a cohesive (and coherent) argument, so can I suggest that you re-read your posts in the same way that others see them, i.e. by mentally responding after each sentence with "even if that assertion were true, so what?"?

peterbaker

Those tending to blindness as those who will not see always have the option of following dunstonh's advice.

There is no conspiracy theory, simply the tips of sundry but relevant icebergs lurking within the public domain just waiting to have more light shed on them by pointers like THIS.

JuicyJesus

Yes yes the FCA are space lizards, all you need to do is put on your tin-foil hat to stop THEM from interfering with your brain waves and BLOCKING YOU FROM SEEING THE TRUTH.