When Banks don't Act on FOS Findings

eskbanker

Cotta wrote: »

One thing the adjudicator asked is what I'd lose if this account was closed? I advised on the 5% rate. Is this an angle I could go down in relation to loss of future interest?

There's nothing to lose by trying to make that argument, in that you'd have earned £73 a year if it was always funded with at least £1500, although it could be argued that you could instead earn that (for one year) with a Nationwide FlexDirect or £44.40 with a Tesco current account.

EachPenny

Cotta wrote: »

One thing the adjudicator asked is what I'd lose if this account was closed? I advised on the 5% rate. Is this an angle I could go down in relation to loss of future interest?

Wouldn't you be able to open a new account to get the 5% again?

If it would be a case of not being able to open a new second account (not sure of your full situation) then that would be something very much to your disadvantage.

Also, does this account represent one of your longer banking relationships?

Cotta

EachPenny wrote: »

Wouldn't you be able to open a new account to get the 5% again?

If it would be a case of not being able to open a new second account (not sure of your full situation) then that would be something very much to your disadvantage.

Also, does this account represent one of your longer banking relationships?

It has not been categorically stated but it has been implied that I maybe prevented from coming straight back.

EachPenny

Cotta wrote: »

It has not been categorically stated but it has been implied that I maybe prevented from coming straight back.

Personally I wouldn't accept that. Yes, banks have the right to pick and choose their customers, but to terminate your banking relationship with them because their IT systems have stuffed up and they are incapable of sorting them out does not even come close to what any reasonable person would consider 'fair'.

I think I would be making noises about submitting evidence to the Treasury Committee inquiry into IT failures in the FS sector. Anybody can do this, and some of the issues you have experienced fit very nicely into the remit of the inquiry. You have until 18 January 2019 to submit evidence.

I cannot believe that people from TSB won't be called to appear before the Committee in person, and the last thing they will want is for the Committee to ask them - in public - why they were incapable of resolving customer's problems. If TSB effectively terminated your banking relationship with them then this would be like red rag to a bull as far as MPs are concerned.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2017/it-failures-in-the-financial-services-inquiry-launch-17-19/

Cotta

EachPenny wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't accept that. Yes, banks have the right to pick and choose their customers, but to terminate your banking relationship with them because their IT systems have stuffed up and they are incapable of sorting them out does not even come close to what any reasonable person would consider 'fair'.

I think I would be making noises about submitting evidence to the Treasury Committee inquiry into IT failures in the FS sector. Anybody can do this, and some of the issues you have experienced fit very nicely into the remit of the inquiry. You have until 18 January 2019 to submit evidence.

I cannot believe that people from TSB won't be called to appear before the Committee in person, and the last thing they will want is for the Committee to ask them - in public - why they were incapable of resolving customer's problems. If TSB effectively terminated your banking relationship with them then this would be like red rag to a bull as far as MPs are concerned.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2017/it-failures-in-the-financial-services-inquiry-launch-17-19/

Agreed with everything you've said on this but obviously TSB are not a normal bank and any return to them would be subject to all IT issues being in the distant past.

Cotta

A final update from FOS this week. I have been asked to troubleshoot with TSB again this evening so I am leaving work early, below is what FOS have said:

Dear Mr Cotta



Thank you for your email.



TSB have confirmed the advisor you spoke to last week will call you today between 3pm and 5pm.



Whilst I appreciate that you’ve taken time off work for this, we don’t generally make awards for loss of income. However, I will definitely be taking it into consideration when recommending compensation for the inconvenience you’ve been caused.



As explained during our call, there’s little more we as a service can do apart from put you on touch with the relevant departments. Therefore, I do think it’s coming to stage where I’m going to have to make my recommendation on compensation.



Before I do this, please let me know how you get on with the advisor today.



Yours sincerely
FOS

Cotta

A final final update from FOS, I am not sure what to ask for here, I would have preferred to let them advise on a figure. What is reasonable to ask?

Dear Mr. Cotta,

Further to my earlier email today please do think over the weekend of a suitable settlement figure for the following eventualities:

1. TSB resolve your issue today and you're able to bank as normal.

2. TSB are unable to resolve your issues today and we require them to close your account and issue a cheque.

Please take into consideration the following:

a) Time you have spent on this issue.
b) Repercussions of being locked out of your account and debit cards etc going astray.
c) Lost interest both past and future (if point 1 above happens)
d) Calls made
e) Your issues about TSB in terms of their version of events not reconciling with what happened.
f) Please factor in that you have already been paid £500.

Whilst an overall figures is beneficial, if you can rationalise it with a breakdown this will aid your case.

We need to close off this case as a matter of urgency.

Kind Regards
FOS

eskbanker

I'd suggest saying that you agree that the issues do need to be resolved as a matter of urgency but that until they are it's pointless to come up with a figure, as the inconvenience and hassle are ongoing (with the meter still running)!

Without trawling back through the entire thread, my recollection is that the £500 covered the problems you'd experienced up to August, but there has obviously been plenty more disruption and grief since then, which is what the next figure is (independently) intended to address....

Cotta

eskbanker wrote: »

I'd suggest saying that you agree that the issues do need to be resolved as a matter of urgency but that until they are it's pointless to come up with a figure, as the inconvenience and hassle are ongoing (with the meter still running)!

Without trawling back through the entire thread, my recollection is that the £500 covered the problems you'd experienced up to August, but there has obviously been plenty more disruption and grief since then, which is what the next figure is (independently) intended to address....

Yes the decision was made around 15th of August, the £500 covered up until end of July as that was as far as the investigation covered.

Cotta

Another wasted session with a TSB contractor working of their laptop at home unable to resolve the issue and wishing to go through more troubleshooting on Monday.

Edit - I sense TSB are blaming me for this issue as they're unable to resolve it.