When Banks don't Act on FOS Findings

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.

pmduk

Cotta wrote: »

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

At this point, I'd be asking that the FOS report the issue to the ICO and FCA as a matter of urgency. How can they be following the requirements to prevent money-laundering when they cannot even maintain an accurate database of customer details?

I wonder if anybody at TSB even knows what's going on there?

xylophone

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

Post 63 above.

eskbanker

xylophone wrote: »

Post 63 above.

xylophone wrote: »

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.

Perhaps it would be worth joining up the dots to explain your thinking - are you contending that this latest failure triggers some sort of explicit threshold that warrants escalation from FOS to FCA?

That high-level fifth FCA outcome was immediately and comprehensively breached by TSB in April (and hence the FCA intervening directly from week one onwards) and it's not clear to me how you're interpreting that lengthy Thomson Reuters document in this context.

I do agree that OP's treatment at the hands of TSB (and arguably FOS) has been very poor but am just trying to understand from your links the basis on which you're recommending FCA involvement in a specific complaint....

h3456671

In britain, the only thing that matters is how much money you've got. They've got billions, and you haven't. Therefore they'll win any court battle. That's what happens when everything plus the kitchen sink is owned by foreigners. Quoting rules and regulations changes nothing.

eskbanker

h3456671 wrote: »

In britain, the only thing that matters is how much money you've got. They've got billions, and you haven't. Therefore they'll win any court battle. That's what happens when everything plus the kitchen sink is owned by foreigners. Quoting rules and regulations changes nothing.

I think you must have typed the address of this forum in by mistake, you were obviously looking for https://www.dailymail.co.uk, where you'll find plenty of like-minded folk making comments of that calibre....

xylophone

I do agree that OP's treatment at the hands of TSB (and arguably FOS) has been very poor but am just trying to understand from your links the basis on which you're recommending FCA involvement in a specific complaint....

You say that TSB has already been referred to FCA in respect of the system failure affecting all customers.

This is a matter affecting a particular customer that the Adjudicator has signally failed to resolve either to her or the customer's satisfaction.

TSB provided this customer with a product ( a bank account).


Does it perform as he was led to expect? I'd say the answer is a resounding negative.

Has the associated service been of an acceptable standard and as he was led to expect? Absolutely not.

It seems that the adjudicator can do nothing more in the face of TSB's incompetence and intransigence.

Therefore it is worth referring to the Adjudicator's superior and thence to the FCA?

Cotta

The adjudicator has said that as the £500 has been awarded she will need to spend more time trying to get the address issue resolved. With reference to the fact that I cannot withdraw funds from the banks I am to continue calling TSB to attempt to resolve the issue but I am losing the will at this point to be honest.

h3456671

eskbanker wrote: »

I think you must have typed the address of this forum in by mistake, you were obviously looking for dailymail.co.uk, where you'll find plenty of like-minded folk making comments of that calibre....

No, I meant trustpilot where you'll find plenty of folk describing just that. I'll leave the daily fail to readers of your "calibre".

xylophone

I am losing the will at this point to be honest.

Perhaps TSB is hoping for just that?