What's the Point of Financial Ombudsman?

EconomicsGirl

I won a case with Santander via FO - they were supposed to pay me £75 which they never did. Not amazed. But for me it was worth it because it solved my issue with Santander and meant could close my account and complete house purchase. I never informed FO but thought they were great.

wwfacp

Neil_Jones wrote: »

Why did Halifax close your ISA? Banks always reserve the right to close any accounts you have with them for any reason and they should have told you why they were closing it (unless it was for something like money laundering). The T&Cs of the ISA would have most likely incurred an early closure fee (typically loss of interest of anywhere from 90-365 days) regardless of who closed it.

No reason was given other than 'We can close an account for any reason.' Definitely nothing to do with anything like money laundering.

The T&Cs did not allow them to charge a fee for closing it even if they closed it. There would be no point to anybody ever opening an ISA otherwise as the account would just be closed by the bank and fees charged to ensure that the bank made a profit and the customer made a loss.

If there was such a term, I would have lost the case with FO. Instead, FO ruled that Halifax could not charge me an early closure fee because they wanted to close the account. That should be all the proof you need that there was no such term.

Ballard wrote: »

Halifax did not tell you that if you didn’t cash the cheque they would keep the money.

They told me that I have six months from the date on the cheque and if it isn't cashed in within that time frame, they will not be sending another or paying me via any other method.

What do you think will happen to the money other than Halifax keeping it?

spadoosh wrote: »

So youve spoke to them? Theyve confirmed they issued a cheque of which you said theyve sent it to the wrong address and they absolutely refuse to reissue a cheque? It just seems so far beyond reason and especially considering youve got the financial ombudsman backing you with the initial decision. Doesnt make sense.

Halifax are extremely uncooperative whenever I contact them. They have said that they have sent a cheque and, as far as they are concerned, that is the end of the matter. When I point out that they sent it to the wrong address, they tell me to contact the current homeowners at the address to retrieve the letter. They already returned it, marking the letter with 'not known at this address'. Halifax are adamant that the issue is between myself and the owner of my old home now that a cheque has been sent.

They claim that it is not possible for them to transfer money to another bank account, so I will have to use the cheque, which has presumably been returned to them in the post already.

eskbanker wrote: »

On the face of it there's no obvious reason why FOS would side with Halifax, but clearly you've summarised it down to a condensed version here - what rationale have they suggested?

I'm still at the initial stage with the current case. I have asked for it to be escalated to an ombudsman twice, but the investigator still hasn't done it. It appears that a phone call will be necessary to get this escalated.

The investigator is adamant that decisions made by FO on previous cases have no bearings on current ones. She claims that all FO can look at is whether or not it was fair for Halifax to send a cheque to an old address and refuse to issue a new one or pay me via any other method. She personally believes that it is fair for Halifax to have done this. She has not provided any explanation as to why she believes this is fair.

JuicyJesus

wwfacp wrote: »

She personally believes that it is fair for Halifax to have done this. She has not provided any explanation as to why she believes this is fair.

You can go to the Independent Assessor within FOS if you do not like the response from them in these sorts of terms, but my personal thought is that for them to take this line then there's possibly a bit more to the story than we're hearing here or that they can tell you.

wwfacp

JuicyJesus wrote: »

You can go to the Independent Assessor within FOS if you do not like the response from them in these sorts of terms, but my personal thought is that for them to take this line then there's possibly a bit more to the story than we're hearing here or that they can tell you.

My experience with FO is far from good. I know somebody whose bank made a mistake, causing them to lose close to £10,000 (the bank misread £100.00 as £10,000,00). The bank admitted they were at fault and gave the customer £50 as an apology. FO ruled that giving the customer £50 as an apology was enough, despite the fact that the customer had lost £9,900 due to the bank's error.

Of course the customer won when he took the bank to court. FO seem to be completely pointless.

eskbanker

wwfacp wrote: »

I'm still at the initial stage with the current case. I have asked for it to be escalated to an ombudsman twice, but the investigator still hasn't done it. It appears that a phone call will be necessary to get this escalated.

The investigator is adamant that decisions made by FO on previous cases have no bearings on current ones. She claims that all FO can look at is whether or not it was fair for Halifax to send a cheque to an old address and refuse to issue a new one or pay me via any other method. She personally believes that it is fair for Halifax to have done this. She has not provided any explanation as to why she believes this is fair.

Looking specifically at "whether or not it was fair for Halifax to send a cheque to an old address and refuse to issue a new one or pay me via any other method" does seem to me to be a reasonable approach here, what relevance do you believe other cases have?

In terms of their process, my understanding is that the adjudicator reaches a conclusion and gives you the option to agree or disagree, and if you elect to disagree then the next step is escalation to an ombudsman.

I'm sure that you're completely convinced that FOS are useless/negligent/incompetent/corrupt, etc, and based on what you've posted there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason why they'd take the stance they have, so in the absence of any more details we'll just have to leave you to it - are you going to post back once it's concluded one way or another?

wwfacp

eskbanker wrote: »

Looking specifically at "whether or not it was fair for Halifax to send a cheque to an old address and refuse to issue a new one or pay me via any other method" does seem to me to be a reasonable approach here, what relevance do you believe other cases have?

The entire complaint is based on how a previous case with FO, which I won, specifically instructed Halifax to send me the money via bank transfer. Halifax refused to do that.

They were instructed to send me the money via bank transfer due to Halifax only having my old address. Halifax knew I no longer lived at that address, but did not have my current address at the time.

Despite my complaint being about how Halifax refused to follow FO's instructions, the case the complaint is based on is not being taken into consideration at all. To be honest, I don't even think I should have had to raise this as a separate complaint with FO to begin with. I assume if I win this one, Halifax will just ignore FO's decision again and I will be told that I have to raise yet another complaint with FO. That makes FO completely pointless.

I'm sure that you're completely convinced that FOS are useless/negligent/incompetent/corrupt, etc

I'm questioning their purpose as I am aware of them making blatantly incorrect decisions in the past and, if you do win a complaint with them, you have to raise yet another complaint with them if the bank refuse to comply with their decision. The new complaint is then apparently unable to take the previous complaint into account, even if the complaint is based entirely on the other complaint.

It makes very little sense.

keef-WhatStandards

wwfacp wrote: »

It makes very little sense.

Not a lot they do, that does really.

They keep insisting that they quote their case/ref. number on everything they send me and yet all they have sent me recently is correspondence without said ref.

eskbanker

wwfacp wrote: »

The entire complaint is based on how a previous case with FO, which I won, specifically instructed Halifax to send me the money via bank transfer. Halifax refused to do that.

They were instructed to send me the money via bank transfer due to Halifax only having my old address. Halifax knew I no longer lived at that address, but did not have my current address at the time.

Despite my complaint being about how Halifax refused to follow FO's instructions, the case the complaint is based on is not being taken into consideration at all. To be honest, I don't even think I should have had to raise this as a separate complaint with FO to begin with. I assume if I win this one, Halifax will just ignore FO's decision again and I will be told that I have to raise yet another complaint with FO. That makes FO completely pointless.

Yes, I get the frustration of being asked to open a new case and agree that it's not particularly logical. However, it shouldn't be necessary to revisit the circumstances of the first one in its entirety - surely the starting point for the second one is 'Halifax were specifically instructed by FOS to make a payment to me via bank transfer but instead chose to pay in a different way which meant I don't receive the money'? There's no need to revisit ISAs, changes of address, etc, but just to establish the premise of the complaint - are you saying that FOS are refusing to accept a complaint phrased along those lines?

wwfacp wrote: »

I'm questioning their purpose as I am aware of them making blatantly incorrect decisions in the past and, if you do win a complaint with them, you have to raise yet another complaint with them if the bank refuse to comply with their decision. The new complaint is then apparently unable to take the previous complaint into account, even if the complaint is based entirely on the other complaint.

It makes very little sense.

There was a long-running thread about failure of another bank to abide by a FOS finding, and in that one too, it was emphasised how important it is to get to an actual formal ombudsman decision, as these are legally binding, unlike the recommendations of more junior adjudicators.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5899463/when-banks-dont-act-on-fos-findings

born_again

wwfacp wrote: »

I know somebody whose bank made a mistake, causing them to lose close to £10,000 (the bank misread £100.00 as £10,000,00). The bank admitted they were at fault and gave the customer £50 as an apology. FO ruled that giving the customer £50 as an apology was enough, despite the fact that the customer had lost £9,900 due to the bank's error.

Of course the customer won when he took the bank to court. FO seem to be completely pointless.

So bank read £100 as £10,000. So how was the customer out of pocket by £9,900?
Yes bank error, but even so the customer is not entitled to keep the £9,900...

wwfacp

eskbanker wrote: »

Yes, I get the frustration of being asked to open a new case and agree that it's not particularly logical. However, it shouldn't be necessary to revisit the circumstances of the first one in its entirety - surely the starting point for the second one is 'Halifax were specifically instructed by FOS to make a payment to me via bank transfer but instead chose to pay in a different way which meant I don't receive the money'? There's no need to revisit ISAs, changes of address, etc, but just to establish the premise of the complaint - are you saying that FOS are refusing to accept a complaint phrased along those lines?

Yes, that is the complaint. However, the initial investigator has told me that the initial complaint will not even be looked at. They can only decide whether or not it was fair to send a cheque to my old address and not send a new one or give me my money via any other method.

There was a long-running thread about failure of another bank to abide by a FOS finding, and in that one too, it was emphasised how important it is to get to an actual formal ombudsman decision, as these are legally binding, unlike the recommendations of more junior adjudicators.

The decision was made by an ombudsman. The initial 'junior adjudicator' found in favour of Halifax. The ombudsman said that the customer didn't have to pay an early closure fee if the bank chose to close the account. They instructed Halifax to pay me via bank transfer. Halifax opted for a cheque sent to an old address. I was told I had to raise a new complaint as it was a separate issue.

born_again wrote: »

So bank read £100 as £10,000. So how was the customer out of pocket by £9,900?
Yes bank error, but even so the customer is not entitled to keep the £9,900...

£10,000 left their account instead of £100 because the bank made a mistake. The money could not be retrieved. The bank refused to reimburse the customer for the mistake that was entirely their own fault (they even admitted as such) and only gave the customer a paltry £50 as an apology.

The £9,900 100% belonged to the customer and the courts agreed. Only yourself and Financial Ombudsman think otherwise.