When Banks don't Act on FOS Findings

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.

xylophone

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 am honestly wondering whether the OP should be copying the letter from the ombudsman to his MP and making a complaint to the "Independent
Assessor".

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/complaints-about-our-service.htm

eskbanker

EachPenny wrote: »

You need to make a complaint about the FOS service.

[...]

A formal complaint needs to be made about the way the FOS have handled this

xylophone wrote: »

I am honestly wondering whether the OP should be copying the letter from the ombudsman to his MP and making a complaint to the "Independent
Assessor".

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/complaints-about-our-service.htm

This FOS complaints process is the route that Cotta has been following for the last couple of months, with the first point of contact being the manager who's now dealing with it.

Her priority is, understandably, getting the initial complaint against TSB resolved (with her ombudsman hat on), but if she refuses to assess the conduct of the FOS adjudicator after this ("this will not feature as part of my investigation and can be looked into separately at the end" is a mixed message) then it would undoubtedly be appropriate to go to the next stage of the FOS complaints process in that link, i.e. the independent assessor.

Cotta

I have just added a caveat to my complaint stipulating that I want TSB's refusal to address the FOS recommendations as far back as December looked into. I know it's clear from what FOS have advised that nothing will be done here, however I thought it was worth mentioning.

eskbanker

Cotta wrote: »

I have just added a caveat to my complaint stipulating that I want TSB's refusal to address the FOS recommendations as far back as December looked into. I know it's clear from what FOS have advised that nothing will be done here, however I thought it was worth mentioning.

Personally I think that this is worth incorporating into both complaints, i.e. the one against TSB and the one against FOS.

TSB are undoubtedly guilty of dragging their feet in response to what was apparently an instruction from FOS that was supposedly accompanied by a clear deadline for payment, that expired three months ago now, so should be held accountable for that. That doesn't necessarily take the form of additional compensation but I'd have thought that there's a case for FOS censuring them in some way or reporting them to the FCA.

However, FOS should also accept their share of the responsibility for this situation, at least some of which could easily be argued to be a direct consequence of the adjudicator's over-sympathetic attitude to her 'colleagues' at TSB. Without trawling back through the thread, my recollection is that when you started chasing once the three weeks were up in early January, she airily dismissed your concern and suggested you contact her in mid February if you hadn't heard anything! Her manager weighed in with let's give them another week, but with little difference in terms of action - I'm sure that FOS can argue that they're not responsible for persistently chasing after late payers but in the context of the original problems dating back to the middle of last year, it doesn't seem unreasonable for you to expect that they'd recognise TSB's intransigence and act accordingly....

EachPenny

eskbanker wrote: »

This FOS complaints process is the route that Cotta has been following for the last couple of months, with the first point of contact being the manager who's now dealing with it.

Her priority is, understandably, getting the initial complaint against TSB resolved (with her ombudsman hat on), but if she refuses to assess the conduct of the FOS adjudicator after this ("this will not feature as part of my investigation and can be looked into separately at the end" is a mixed message) then it would undoubtedly be appropriate to go to the next stage of the FOS complaints process in that link, i.e. the independent assessor.

I agree, but I'm not convinced the FOS are treating Cotta's previous communications as a formal complaint. The response from the manager/ombudsman to date suggest a significant degree of informality about it.

Unfortunately the FOS complaints process has changed since I needed to use it, and it doesn't seem to be a change for the better.

The service complaint should have been investigated and dealt with long before now - that in itself might have alerted FOS managers to the fact one (or more?) of their staff has seems to have been working on the basis they are employed by someone else. How many other adjudications has this individual dealt with between Cotta first raising the complaint and now? All those other cases have potentially been handled incorrectly.

In contrast, when I got fed up and complained about the FOS service, the complaint was dealt with by a separate team who (iirc) only took a few days to investigate and ensure corrective management input was applied to the adjudicator involved.

I'm inclined to think the FOS complaints system is also currently defective.

eskbanker

EachPenny wrote: »

I'm inclined to think the FOS complaints system is also currently defective.

This all starts getting increasingly convoluted!

1. Consumer complains to bank.
2. Consumer complains to FOS about the way that bank hasn't adequately addressed complaint #1.
3. Consumer complains to FOS complaints process about the way that FOS hasn't adequately addressed complaint #2.
4. Consumer complains to [?] about the way that the FOS complaints process hasn't adequately addressed complaint #3....

Anyway, yes, I agree that it's not as clearly delineated as might be expected and was effectively speculating about the distinction between sorting things out with TSB and then separately reviewing FOS's handling, I don't know to what extent they've formalised this to Cotta....

cannugec5

I stumbled upon this thread this morning and have just read it to its current conclusion. I really thought as I approached April 1st, that was going to be revealed as one of the most protracted April Fool's Jokes I have ever seen.

But it seems not... it continues...
Cotta - you have far more patience than me.

Cotta

Just received the following in response to my last caveat:

Dear Mr. Cotta,

Please note that I am extremely close to making a final judgment on your case. In relation to the delay following the adjudicator's recommendations, I am minded not to further punish the business especially taking into account the extenuating circumstances that TSB have endured. As this is the second delay you have incurred from TSB within a singular Ombudsman case my initial thoughts are not to extend the investigation beyond the point at which you closed your account with TSB. However your case is extremely complex and I will consult with a member of my team before coming to a final decision.

Please note that I cannot communicate further on your case until I have issued you with my findings.

Regards
FOS