What's the Point of Financial Ombudsman?

born_again

wwfacp wrote: »

Y
£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.

Apologies.
I misread the post. :eek::(
Bank should have refunded. And claimed the money back from the account that received it.

boo_star

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...

Depends on the circumstances, surely?

If the bank were instructed to send £100, and sent £10,000 and were unable to recover the funds, surely the customer would be entitled to have the erroneous amount sent back?

wwfacp

boo_star wrote: »

Depends on the circumstances, surely?

If the bank were instructed to send £100, and sent £10,000 and were unable to recover the funds, surely the customer would be entitled to have the erroneous amount sent back?

Indeed. In this case it was a charitable donation sent to somebody trying to raise money for medical care to save their child's life.

The money was obviously spent and it would have been legally and ethically wrong for the bank to attempt to retrieve it.

[Deleted User]

If you think the Financial Ombudsman is bad, try the PHSO. FOS is one of the 'best', the PHSO is second from worst.

eskbanker

OP, is this your case?

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/253514/DRN0359598.pdf

It does seem to be remarkably close to what you describe, except that the ombudsman didn't uphold the initial complaint and didn't (on the basis of what's published) insist on payment by bank transfer:

I can see Halifax has said it will send a cheque to Mr B’s registered UK address for the balance on his accounts. And if this isn’t suitable I hope Mr B is able to contact the bank to make alternative arrangements.

If this one isn't yours, what's the DRN for your one?

boo_star

eskbanker wrote: »

OP, is this your case?

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/253514/DRN0359598.pdf

It does seem to be remarkably close to what you describe, except that the ombudsman didn't uphold the initial complaint and didn't (on the basis of what's published) insist on payment by bank transfer:If this one isn't yours, what's the DRN for your one?

Ouch. Busted ?

DragonQ

The FO got us something like £500 compensation for the fact that TSB:


a) didn't pay us the cashback advertised on their website for taking out a new mortgage
b) took our first mortgage payment before telling us when it would be and how much it'd be, which would've caused us to have a permanent mark on our credit file if we weren't defensive about keeping cash in our bills account
c) subsequently sent a letter providing false information about the first mortgage payment
d) didn't reply to our complaint for over 8 months
e) didn't add our mortgage to online banking for over 8 months

Their eventual offer (which actually came after the FO ruling, that's how slow they were) was £150, which wouldn't have even covered the missing cashback. So yeah, the FO does have a purpose.

eskbanker

DragonQ wrote: »

So yeah, the FO does have a purpose.

Trouble with FOS is that they will polarise opinions by either supporting or rejecting consumer complaints, with very little middle ground (much like binary referenda!).

I'm sure that many consider themselves to be capable of being objective but the strong suspicion remains that those who've had a result out of FOS think they're doing a good job, whereas those who've lost will feel that FOS is a complete waste of time, by virtue of being convinced enough of the strength of their case to warrant FOS escalation in the first place....

See this thread from last year for a lengthy debate going over this ground:

Do you trust Financial Ombudsman?

wwfacp

eskbanker wrote: »

OP, is this your case?

Not mine. It's completely different. For starters, just from skim-reading that, that customer had all of their accounts closed. I just had an ISA closed and opted to close my other account myself as I lost all trust in the bank when they gave me less back than I put in due to the early closure fee exceeding the interest earned.

If this one isn't yours, what's the DRN for your one?

I have no idea.

boo_star wrote: »

Ouch. Busted ?

It's completely different from my case.

DragonQ wrote: »

Their eventual offer (which actually came after the FO ruling, that's how slow they were) was £150, which wouldn't have even covered the missing cashback. So yeah, the FO does have a purpose.

But what would have happened if they refused to pay the £500 though? Would you have had to raise another complaint with FO, which would completely ignore the findings of your previous complaint, like I did?

Edit:

I've also seen some completely bonkers decisions from FO that make very little sense.

1st case: Raging alcoholic customer went to his bank drunk and verbally abused every single staff member he saw while trying to make a withdrawal. He was asked to leave, refused and was escorted out by security.

That happened three times in the space of a week. After the third incident The bank gave him notice that they would be closing his account. The bank naturally had a term that they can close a customers account for any reason. FO rule that it wasn't fair to close the guy's account because of his behaviour when he was drunk, despite there being several incidents in a short period, and the bank were instructed to pay him money in compensation.

Huh? Why? The bank had every right to close the guy's account.

2nd case:

A bank's system has a problem and fails to send a payment for a bill, despite the customer having more than enough funds in the account to pay for it. The bank admit there was a problem with their system and offer the customer the standard £50 as an apology. The customer incurs penalties far exceeding £50 for late payment.

FO rule that giving the customer £50 was enough to make up for their mistake, despite the fact that the mistake cost the customer significantly more.

Surely the 1st case should have lost while the 2nd case won?

DCFC79

eskbanker wrote: »

Somewhat more than 'some similarities', the story is pretty much identical across the two threads, and also includes a repeated phrase, granted not a massively unusual one but IMHO significant when combined with all the other info:

Admittedly I didn't go into that much detail.
Thanks.