What's the Point of Financial Ombudsman?

eskbanker

wwfacp wrote: »

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

I have no idea.

It isn't difficult to find, it'll be on the ombudsman decision that was issued to you and to Halifax. As all such decisions are published, locating and posting its number will obviously help posters on here see what's being said by FOS in their own words rather than your version of events, as there must be differences between these to cause the apparently illogical situation you've arrived in....

OceanSound

A Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) senior staff member whistleblower has come forward and highlighted the numerous backlogs and delays there . Suffice to say, it's not all 'if you lost you'd feel FOS is a waste of time’, whereas ‘if you won you'd think they are doing a good job’:

The whistleblower, a senior staff member at the FOS who wishes to remain anonymous, alleges that:
• Consumers sending complex complaints to FOS can wait 10 months before a file is even picked up and examined.
• The waiting time for pension disputes is seven months.
• Wronged consumers can wait up to two years until their claims are finally adjudicated.
• The number of unresolved general claims (non-PPI) that remain unresolved a year after being received now stands at 15,551.
• Managers expected case handlers to resolve 4.5 complaints a week, but the real figure is 1.7.

SonOf

OceanSound wrote: »

A Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) senior staff member whistleblower has come forward and highlighted the numerous backlogs and delays there . Suffice to say, it's not all 'if you lost you'd feel FOS is a waste of time’, whereas ‘if you won you'd think they are doing a good job’:

All those things are to do with timescale. Not quality of the review.

keiran

"• Managers expected case handlers to resolve 4.5 complaints a week, but the real figure is 1.7."

Seems like a ridiculously low number of expected resolved cases at 4.5 complaints, never mind 1.7 ...

Does the bar need to be set so extremely low?

OceanSound

SonOf wrote: »

All those things are to do with timescale. Not quality of the review.

Read full article from link posted. here are the relevant parts (if you can't be bothered to do that):

However, the service has been beset with problems in recent years. In 2018, an undercover reporter for Channel 4’s Dispatches found that staff with inadequate training or financial competence were judging cases – sometimes without, it claimed, properly reading case files.

.....

Previously the adjudicators worked in specialised areas such as mortgages or pensions, [but now] the investigators are expected to be able to handle complaints across most areas, although the board has since acknowledged this was unfeasible and rowed back on this.

eskbanker

OceanSound wrote: »

Read full article from link posted. here are the relevant parts (if you can't be bothered to do that):


.....

You chose to precis the article in post #33 with a summary about timescales, so it's hardly surprising that SonOf's response addressed what you elected to share in that post.

The other bits you've now decided to quote still don't really make any sort of cohesive supported case that the decisions made by FOS are flawed - it's not exactly a 'hold the front page' exclusive revelation that FOS are stretched but that's obviously different from trying to construct a supportable argument that the quality of outcomes is demonstrably affected, which is what OP was trying to do.

janpaul

Similarly As to the initial thread, the Financial ombudsman agreed that I was in the right. My case was for a £100k shortfall against a lying financial advisor at Fairstone. Fairstone agreed to pay up and the advisor has lost his license now and been fired. But then they went quiet and never paid up. Now it has been awaiting the final Ombudsman decision for 12 months. Has anyone had similar?
I sent a follow up email today asking for a timeline, and they are out of the office until February 2020!

janpaul

Similarly As to the initial thread, the Financial ombudsman agreed that I was in the right. My case was for a £100k shortfall against a lying financial advisor at Fairstone. Fairstone agreed to pay up and the advisor has lost his license now and been fired. But then they went quiet and never paid up. Now it has been awaiting the final Ombudsman decision for 12 months. Has anyone had similar?
I sent a follow up email today asking for a timeline, and they are out of the office until February 2020!

OceanSound

jack_pott wrote: »

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

If the one you are favouring isn't the best, just add 'one of the' in front.

Anyway, Qatar are the Asian football champions. Probably long way away from becoming world champions. My point, best from a bunch of the worst is never best of the best.

OceanSound

janpaul wrote: »

...
I sent a follow up email today asking for a timeline, and they are out of the office until February 2020!

Definitely noticed this.

However,the longest I've experienced an adjudicator going on leave was for 3-4 weeks. Wouldn't surprise me if they've now started going on leave for two months in one go.In fact, when it comes to the Financial Ombudsman nothing would surprise me.