When Banks don't Act on FOS Findings

xylophone

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-008-0211?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1

Should not the adjudicator be referring the file to the FCA?

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/fair-treatment-customers

Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.

JuicyJesus

OceanSound wrote: »

You have to wonder how on earth TSB got the licence in the first place. If the IT system upgrade wasn't part of the initial assessment, shouldn't a significant IT systems upgrade need to be approved by regulators (as it's clearly part of the licensing process).

But then RBS' issues in 2012 were caused not by a signifcant upgrade, but a minor alteration to an existing system. TSB's were obviously more major but the effects were extremely similar.

If the FCA needed to give consent every time a bank proposed to upgrade a system whenever there was a potential for consumer detriment, the whole system would grind to a halt. Because you have no way of knowing if a major update would be fine, while a minor update like RBS' would screw everything completely.

Cotta

A small update:

The Adjudicator called to advise that she has been working with TSB on the address issue today, TSB have advised that the change should go through on an evening system feed and be live by tomorrow. I am to call back tomorrow to resolve the issues which are currently preventing me from withdrawing money.

The Adjudicator is still aiming for Friday to complete this saga with proposals for additional compensation that TSB must pay and asked me to all think about this - what does everyone recommend?

masonic

So we're assuming the address issue is resolved, but they still haven't paid the referral money or interest?

Perhaps the monetary value of the above plus ~£100? There's a point at which I would have been willing to accept any reasonable figure for closure.

Cotta

masonic wrote: »

So we're assuming the address issue is resolved, but they still haven't paid the referral money or interest?

Perhaps the monetary value of the above plus ~£100? There's a point at which I would have been willing to accept any reasonable figure for closure.

Correct in addition to the missing interest and referral I can't transfer money out and my debit card was issued to a separate address. I've only requested outstanding issues be resolved which is where TSB are stalling.

JuicyJesus

Cotta wrote: »

A small update:

The Adjudicator called to advise that she has been working with TSB on the address issue today, TSB have advised that the change should go through on an evening system feed and be live by tomorrow. I am to call back tomorrow to resolve the issues which are currently preventing me from withdrawing money.

The Adjudicator is still aiming for Friday to complete this saga with proposals for additional compensation that TSB must pay and asked me to all think about this - what does everyone recommend?

I recommend literally any bank that isn't TSB.

xylophone

my debit card was issued to a separate address.

Your old address? The PIN as well?

The card has been cancelled?

Once the address has been updated they will expedite sending a new card and PIN?

They will pay the interest (and interest on interest) and referral bonus?

You will then have full unrestricted on line access to your account?

I should think that £150 on top would be reasonable.

Cotta

xylophone wrote: »

Your old address? The PIN as well?

The card has been cancelled?

Once the address has been updated they will expedite sending a new card and PIN?

They will pay the interest (and interest on interest) and referral bonus?

You will then have full unrestricted on line access to your account?

I should think that £150 on top would be reasonable.

£150 sounds nice but maybe too high considering I've been awarded £500 already.

Cotta

Unfortunately I spoke too soon, TSB's overnight address update following the administrator's request was unsuccessful.

OceanSound

JuicyJesus wrote: »

But then RBS' issues in 2012 were caused not by a signifcant upgrade, but a minor alteration to an existing system. TSB's were obviously more major but the effects were extremely similar.

If the FCA needed to give consent every time a bank proposed to upgrade a system whenever there was a potential for consumer detriment, the whole system would grind to a halt. Because you have no way of knowing if a major update would be fine, while a minor update like RBS' would screw everything completely.

I think you're getting consent and approval mixed-up. If you're abroad, and you take money out of an ATM, you would consent to any fee. Approve is what regulators do when they are satisfied with systems and processes.

... the whole system would grind to a halt.

Who's system are you talking about here?, the FCA's?, the whole system as in the FCA's system would grind to a halt? or the systems of the bank's awaiting approval?

Either way, this indicates an inherent problem with the FCA not having the resources (technological and/or human).

Because you have no way of knowing if a major update would be fine, while a minor update like RBS' would screw everything completely.

It's debatable if the RBS update was a minor update. Disaster waiting to happen really, if you outsource key support functions to India. Cheaper for sure, however, quality control probably less stringent.