When Banks don't Act on FOS Findings

Cotta

I just received the following email from the Manager/Ombudsman:

Dear Mr. Cotta,

Further to your email I wanted to address some of your concerns before I review your file and make a final judgement.

- On some of the side notes relating to the adjudicator, this will not feature as part of my investigation and can be looked into separately at the end. One point I would like to clarify is that TSB are not colleagues of our office, I have spoken the the adjudicator who has clarified her position in that as she was taken on to look after the TSB overflow and inadvertently felt that she was part of TSB. However she has assured me that she stands by her final decision and feels that she made fair recommendations.

- You have said that you were hoping I would deal with each of the problems that arose throughout the process with TSB. Unfortunately this will not be possible and I will simply be honing in on those areas that I feel are important.

- You have asked for a time-frame, this is difficult to ascertain but I would expect you to have a final decision by next week.

- You have asked me to look into TSB's inaction following the adjudicator's decision. I am still considering if this will form part of my investigation however we do not seek to punish businesses so it's highly unlikely that a further award will be made for this. Once I review your case in full I will be better positioned to make a final decision on this.

I will be in touch with you if I have any further questions.

Regards
FOS

eskbanker

Cotta wrote: »

On some of the side notes relating to the adjudicator, this will not feature as part of my investigation and can be looked into separately at the end. One point I would like to clarify is that TSB are not colleagues of our office, I have spoken the the adjudicator who has clarified her position in that as she was taken on to look after the TSB overflow and inadvertently felt that she was part of TSB.

Wow, that's quite an admission! Definitely worth further review 'at the end' once the TSB compo has been sorted out....

Cotta wrote: »

However she has assured me that she stands by her final decision and feels that she made fair recommendations.

It's a concern if the manager/ombudsman sees that assurance as relevant in any way, why would they expect the adjudicator to say anything else?!

Cotta wrote: »

You have asked me to look into TSB's inaction following the adjudicator's decision. I am still considering if this will form part of my investigation however we do not seek to punish businesses so it's highly unlikely that a further award will be made for this. Once I review your case in full I will be better positioned to make a final decision on this.

I still don't buy this stuff about not punishing businesses, even though it echoes what the adjudicator said and could be some sort of party line. FOS are in the business of reviewing the performance of financial institutions and directing them to pay compensation where they've clearly been deficient, so I'm not sure why they'd arbitrarily differentiate between TSB's original failures and their later inaction in response to the FOS instructions.

Cotta

eskbanker wrote: »

Wow, that's quite an admission! Definitely worth further review 'at the end' once the TSB compo has been sorted out....

It's a concern if the manager/ombudsman sees that assurance as relevant in any way, why would they expect the adjudicator to say anything else?!

I still don't buy this stuff about not punishing businesses, even though it echoes what the adjudicator said and could be some sort of party line. FOS are in the business of reviewing the performance of financial institutions and directing them to pay compensation where they've clearly been deficient, so I'm not sure why they'd arbitrarily differentiate between TSB's original failures and their later inaction in response to the FOS instructions.

I suspect that in some ways I am perhaps being advised that what's been offered will not be exceeded.

xylophone

who has clarified her position in that as she was taken on to look after the TSB overflow and inadvertently felt that she was part of TSB.

How on earth could this happen?
Surely this in itself should be the subject of a complaint?

masonic

I can only echo others' comments regarding the "colleagues" admission.

It seems you have pretty strong guidance that the Ombudsman will issue a decision within a week rubber stamping the one you accepted before Christmas. This one will be legally enforceable and will hopefully come with a time limit.

Cotta

masonic wrote: »

I can only echo others' comments regarding the "colleagues" admission.

It seems you have pretty strong guidance that the Ombudsman will issue a decision within a week rubber stamping the one you accepted before Christmas. This one will be legally enforceable and will hopefully come with a time limit.

Yes I suspect that it will be £500 again and missing interest as of a specific date from last year. Disappointed that TSB's nonsense has resulted in such a delay since then.

masonic

Cotta wrote: »

Yes I suspect that it will be £500 again and missing interest as of a specific date from last year. Disappointed that TSB's nonsense has resulted in such a delay since then.

The silver lining is that the decision will be published, so providing the Ombudsman's account is fair and reasonable it will be pretty embarrassing for TSB. Let's hope nobody tries to draw any attention to it :whistle:

Cotta

masonic wrote: »

The silver lining is that the decision will be published, so providing the Ombudsman's account is fair and reasonable it will be pretty embarrassing for TSB. Let's hope nobody tries to draw any attention to it :whistle:

Yes and the fact the money seems reasonably assured is good as this is what the Ombudsman told me when wearing her Manager's hat. However she did chase the missing compensation from TSB and even asked if they'd look into making amends for the delay, all of which was rebuked and now she is "not seeking to punish businesses" so I'm a little concerned her tone has changed from before.

EachPenny

Cotta wrote: »

Yes and the fact the money seems reasonably assured is good as this is what the Ombudsman told me when wearing her Manager's hat. However she did chase the missing compensation from TSB and even asked if they'd look into making amends for the delay, all of which was rebuked and now she is "not seeking to punish businesses" so I'm a little concerned her tone has changed from before.

You need to make a complaint about the FOS service.

In my view TSB should be paying you more to reflect the further delay (this only restores you to the position you would have been in but for the errors, it does not 'punish' them). But part of the delay is down to the FOS not doing the job they were meant to be doing because the adjudicator misunderstood who they were working for.

I've been following developments in your thread during my recent involuntary 'holiday' with increasing astonishment. The email the adjudicator sent you the other day is outrageous - someone without the knowledge and/or support to recognise the email for what it was might have caved in on the basis of the FOS 'neutral' advice.

The 'confession' defies belief. It points to a fundamental breakdown of training and procedures at the FOS if adjudicators are looking at cases without understanding their raison d'etre. I mentioned a while back that the repeated use of 'colleagues' pointed to something being very wrong.

In view of the manager/ombudsman's comments, you need to be prepared not to get a better outcome than already offered, but you shouldn't take that laying down. A formal complaint needs to be made about the way the FOS have handled this, and if they are unwilling to 'punish' TSB then they need to 'punish' themselves.

I would think the FOS should be offering you something in the region of £400-£500 for additional problems you have suffered as a result of their case handling. The errors have been persistent and potentially prevented you getting the resolution you deserve.

Good luck.

Cotta

EachPenny wrote: »

You need to make a complaint about the FOS service.

In my view TSB should be paying you more to reflect the further delay (this only restores you to the position you would have been in but for the errors, it does not 'punish' them). But part of the delay is down to the FOS not doing the job they were meant to be doing because the adjudicator misunderstood who they were working for.

I've been following developments in your thread during my recent involuntary 'holiday' with increasing astonishment. The email the adjudicator sent you the other day is outrageous - someone without the knowledge and/or support to recognise the email for what it was might have caved in on the basis of the FOS 'neutral' advice.

The 'confession' defies belief. It points to a fundamental breakdown of training and procedures at the FOS if adjudicators are looking at cases without understanding their raison d'etre. I mentioned a while back that the repeated use of 'colleagues' pointed to something being very wrong.

In view of the manager/ombudsman's comments, you need to be prepared not to get a better outcome than already offered, but you shouldn't take that laying down. A formal complaint needs to be made about the way the FOS have handled this, and if they are unwilling to 'punish' TSB then they need to 'punish' themselves.

I would think the FOS should be offering you something in the region of £400-£500 for additional problems you have suffered as a result of their case handling. The errors have been persistent and potentially prevented you getting the resolution you deserve.

Good luck.

From conversations in the past with the Ombudsman acting in the managerial capacity once the Manager had attempted to attain a solution with TSB in terms of the delay, when TSB declined to cooperate the Manager said there wasn't much more she could do.