Tricky Question for the Experts

xlnc99

I am going to the FOS - its a long wait. 8 weeks or so. But in the meantime i thought id get a thread started and get peoples opinions! No harm in that. Its called having a discussion, not everyone agrees and if someone disagrees they state why - which is what is going on in this thread

boo_star

xlnc99 wrote: »

I am going to the FOS - its a long wait. 8 weeks or so. But in the meantime i thought id get a thread started and get peoples opinions! No harm in that. Its called having a discussion, not everyone agrees and if someone disagrees they state why - which is what is going on in this thread

Seems like a bit of a pointless discussion to me. I suppose it ties in well with the pointless FOS complaint.

xlnc99

BoGoF wrote: »

Which you will just ignore.

I am not ignoring. I am responding to each one. I am just countering the arguments. ITs called having a discussion

BoGoF

No, you are dismissing the replies out of hand.

xlnc99

I disagree. I am listening and responding with my own counter arguements. I am basing it on facts and the FOS and they are basing it on their own knowledge which is fair enough. But i need them to back up their points which they dont have, i am just using the FOS website and nothing else

boo_star

xlnc99 wrote: »

I disagree. I am listening and responding with my own counter arguements. I am basing it on facts and the FOS and they are basing it on their own knowledge which is fair enough. But i need them to back up their points which they dont have, i am just using the FOS website and nothing else

But you're not even doing that. It seems like you're cherry picking parts of the document that side with you and ignoring the rest.

For example about checks on vulnerable customers...

These situations can be difficult as a customer might not see themselves as vulnerable, and might not be financially struggling in an easily identifiable way. If a lender couldn’t reasonably have been aware that a borrower was vulnerable (even if we later knew the customer was), then we’d take this into account.

Which really goes against your assertion that they must perform checks on everyone to ascertain if they're vulnerable or not.

Cashplus could have in no way known that you were suffering from mental health issues but you keep insisting that they should have checked but it's not clear how they could do this.

I suppose you could make the argument that anyone who does take out one of these credit building products needs their head examined and Cashplus should know this :rotfl:

Bermonia

Firstly I suggest you re-read the thread as you have completely misinterpreted it (no surprise there given you already have your mind set). Also FOS do not make the rules, they are there to mediate complaints between financial companies and customers at times this may involve interpreting the FCA’s very ambiguous guidelines.

You have already been given the option of those with a great deal more experience and knowledge than yourself, which you reject so not entirely sure what else to tell you... make your complaint and be prepared for it to be rejected accordingly

Dangermac

I agree with the OP.

There are certain people who should not be allowed to use the financial system without appropriate supervision. The result being spurious complaints to the FOS and the customer being unhappy

DM

xlnc99

Update: Successful outcome on this. Negotiated with lender, explained circumstances.

There is hope for all

Bermonia

But of course