Financial Ombudsman Service

masonic

xlnc99 wrote: »

Also it seems a main point of this complaint not being upheld was because i didnt reapply for loans with sunny. It was just the one loan and no further loans.

Doesnt make any sense

One paragraph of the Ombudsman decision against Sunny I posted above could give you some insight:
"Sunny needed to take reasonable steps to ensure that it didn't lend irresponsibly. In practice this means that it should have carried out proportionate checks to make sure that Mr A could repay the loans in a sustainable manner. These checks could take into account a number of different things, such as how much was being lent the repayment amounts and the consumer's income and expenditure. With this in mind, in the early stages of a lending relationship, I think less thorough checks might be reasonable and proportionate"

Was the repayment plan unaffordable for you, given the details you provided about your income and expenditure?

Willing2Learn

xlnc99 wrote: »

FOS is useless, always side with the companies. Had a few complaints with them and dead end.

The FOS has bought payday loan companies to their knees. They are impartial and just try and make decisions that are a fair application of legislation, guidance and the regulatory framework.

masonic

xlnc99 wrote: »

All other payday loan companies upheld my complaint before even going to the FOS! Which means they felt they were in the wrong. Sunny did not for some reason.

So you've tried this with a number of companies?

I'd imagine for some companies it is less hassle and cheaper to just let you off the hook rather than properly investigate the complaint and give you an explanation as to why they have rejected it, leaving themselves wide open to a FOS case fee whether or not your case was upheld or rejected. Whereas when you get as far as the FOS, the matter is going to be investigated and the FOS has no vested interest in the outcome.

So it would be worth bearing in mind that you can't rely on all loan companies being so ready to pay you off in order to make the complaint go away, and if they don't there can be no such bargaining at the FOS stage.

BoGoF

masonic wrote: »

So you've tried this with a number of companies?

A look at their posting history is 'interesting'

They are a fully signed up member of the tin-foil hat brigade.

xlnc99

masonic wrote: »

One paragraph of the Ombudsman decision against Sunny I posted above could give you some insight:
"Sunny needed to take reasonable steps to ensure that it didn't lend irresponsibly. In practice this means that it should have carried out proportionate checks to make sure that Mr A could repay the loans in a sustainable manner. These checks could take into account a number of different things, such as how much was being lent the repayment amounts and the consumer's income and expenditure. With this in mind, in the early stages of a lending relationship, I think less thorough checks might be reasonable and proportionate"

Was the repayment plan unaffordable for you, given the details you provided about your income and expenditure?

In terms of income and expenditure then yes it would afforadable based just on that. But that should not alone be good enough. As explained before i had 20k worth of credit card payments all struggling to make min payments with missed payments. Loads of defaults and one ccj for outstanding payday loans for as little as 100 pound. That should be more then enough for sunny to look and see clearly he aint paying back other loans and credit cards how can he afford to pay us back

xlnc99

masonic wrote: »

So you've tried this with a number of companies?

I'd imagine for some companies it is less hassle and cheaper to just let you off the hook rather than properly investigate the complaint and give you an explanation as to why they have rejected it, leaving themselves wide open to a FOS case fee whether or not your case was upheld or rejected. Whereas when you get as far as the FOS, the matter is going to be investigated and the FOS has no vested interest in the outcome.

So it would be worth bearing in mind that you can't rely on all loan companies being so ready to pay you off in order to make the complaint go away, and if they don't there can be no such bargaining at the FOS stage.

Yes all 4 companies upheld my complaint. Worth mentioning i was not asking for a refund of sunny loans as it was oustanding. Just to pay back what i took out without interest.

masonic

xlnc99 wrote: »

In terms of income and expenditure then yes it would afforadable based just on that. But that should not alone be good enough. As explained before i had 20k worth of credit card payments all struggling to make min payments with missed payments. Loads of defaults and one ccj for outstanding payday loans for as little as 100 pound. That should be more then enough for sunny to look and see clearly he aint paying back other loans and credit cards how can he afford to pay us back

The requirement is that it should be affordable and the borrowing sustainable. Sustainability can only be judged based on a longer term relationship, which you did not have.

Payday loans are commonly taken out by people with poor credit histories and while I don't think it is wise for anyone to touch payday loans, they are permitted to lend to people with poor credit histories provided they check the borrowing is affordable, which you say it was.

You may be overestimating how much information can be gleaned from a single search of a credit reference agency, and the extent to which conclusions can be drawn from the data. You will obviously have a perfect view of your personal circumstances, but the lender will not.

So I think the FOS was right to reject your complaint and agree that the Ombudsman will probably agree with the initial case handler. Looking on the bright side, you can consider yourself fortunate that in 4 out of 5 complaints, you got a favourable outcome even though those complaints probably shouldn't have been upheld either.

Willing2Learn

@xlnc99 - What I don't get is how you have arrived at the conclusion that the FOS is "useless" and that they "always side with companies". If you were to hang around the "Loans" board you would soon see that it is the other way round. Obviously, you just didn't have good arguments to prove your case. Because if you had, then you would have got your capital back from Sunny...

Mc228

I have a case open with the FOS. I filled in the form online on the 10th of August 2019 and was assigned an investigator on the 10th of January 2020.

Marricked

Mc228 wrote: »

I have a case open with the FOS. I filled in the form online on the 10th of August 2019 and was assigned an investigator on the 10th of January 2020.

Thanks to all posters but especially this one. Looks like I'll be waiting a canny while.

I've only had one previous encounter with the FOS and it was fantastic - someone wrote my car off and the insurance company offered an unfair settlement amount. Phoned the FOS, they liaised with the insurance company and I had thousands added to the settlement offer within hours to make it the fair payout I deserved.

If by that time I still remember this post exists I'll update this post with the date I first get contact from the FOS and then how long it takes to resolve.

On a side note - the complaint with Barclays has been sitting there now for over 3 months and I just received a letter from them saying it is still to be allocated and I'll get an update in due course!