Dealing with Financial Ombudsman

Ortives

eskbanker said:

This story seems remarkably close to one told in previous threads, under other freshly-created usernames:

which in turn seem remarkably close to one on which FOS published their decision at:

OP will presumably deny they're the same though....

You do realise that there are almost 7.8 billion people on this planet and not everybody has an account on this website right?

Do you also think I am mwb9999? This guy has also done the unthinkable by signing up and having his first post be his own topic.

eskbanker

Ortives said:

eskbanker said:

This story seems remarkably close to one told in previous threads, under other freshly-created usernames:

which in turn seem remarkably close to one on which FOS published their decision at:

OP will presumably deny they're the same though....

You do realise that there are almost 7.8 billion people on this planet and not everybody has an account on this website right?

Do you also think I am mwb9999? This guy has also done the unthinkable by signing up and having his first post be his own topic.

I can't see anything in what mwb9999 has posted that would suggest that they've created another alter ego to recycle an old story!

In the circumstances it seems natural for readers to draw our own conclusions about why you refuse to share the FOS DRNs....

dunstonh

Give us the DRN so we can view the decision. It will allow us to see how the complaint was considered, the reasoning and the tone.  The FOS is very liberal in its responses.   However, it is possible to read between the lines with a number of decisions. It would also show us the things you are not telling us.

Ortives

eskbanker said:

Ortives said:

eskbanker said:

This story seems remarkably close to one told in previous threads, under other freshly-created usernames:

which in turn seem remarkably close to one on which FOS published their decision at:

OP will presumably deny they're the same though....

You do realise that there are almost 7.8 billion people on this planet and not everybody has an account on this website right?

Do you also think I am mwb9999? This guy has also done the unthinkable by signing up and having his first post be his own topic.

I can't see anything in what mwb9999 has posted that would suggest that they've created another alter ego to recycle an old story!

In the circumstances it seems natural for readers to draw our own conclusions about why you refuse to share the FOS DRNs....

The threads you posted the links to were posted last year. Even if I humour you and pretend that you and I are the only people on this planet and, as you didn't post the thread, I must have done, how could I possibly be recycling an old story when FO only made a decision on my complaint last week?

The only similarities between the stories are that banks are closing ISAs before they mature (surely that isn't shocking?) and FO are making dodgy decisions (again, surely not shocking?) and case managers/call centre agents are providing people with incorrect information (yet again, surely not shocking as many businesses have this issue). The bank that closed my ISA are not Halifax btw.

On the first page of this forum alone, I see one other user who has had their bank account closed. Also me I suppose? Two topics are about cheques, so must have been posted by the same user. I mentioned a cheque, so those topics must have been posted by me? Two topics are about switching bank accounts. I guess as I mentioned that in this thread those two users must also be me?

To stick with mwb9999, I could probably find hundreds of threads with people asking questions about companies taking extra payment via direct debit on this site if I looked for them. Several years, I had a company take more than they were supposed to via direct debit before (they paid it back after going through their internal complaints procedure for months), so I must be mwb9999 as it is impossible for more than one person to be in a similar situation to somebody else according to you.

Providing the DRN is pointless as the ombudsman changed the nature of my dispute to fit their decision. The summary of my complaint, which they wrote is not the complaint I raised.

FO are aware of this and have instructed me to raise the complaint again.

notveryeducated

Let me guess, this bank is NatWest group? 

eskbanker

Ortives said:
The only similarities between the stories are that banks are closing ISAs before they mature (surely that isn't shocking?) and FO are making dodgy decisions (again, surely not shocking?) and case managers/call centre agents are providing people with incorrect information (yet again, surely not shocking as many businesses have this issue). The bank that closed my ISA are not Halifax btw.

As you might expect, I disagree - it is highly unusual for banks to close lengthy fixed-term ISAs before maturity!  I don't recall reading any other posts about that, although can't claim to have read everything posted on this forum.

However, that's just one aspect - another obvious similarity is all the fuss about method of repaying the balance, where each poster has a massive issue with the bank issuing a cheque rather than paying by electronic transfer, believing that the FOS instructed them to pay by a method of the poster's choosing.

Perhaps it is all just coincidence and there are multiple posters who were told that their accounts with a bank were being closed and surmised that this was because they each happened to have a five-year ISA approaching maturity, and in each case they were unhappy with repayment by cheque, and in each case they went to FOS, and every time they did so they felt it necessary to sound off volubly about FOS incompetence, etc, etc....

Ortives said:
how could I possibly be recycling an old story when FO only made a decision on my complaint last week?

By your own admission this has been to FOS more than once during that time - I'm simply joining the dots and highlighting that this appears to be a continuation of a story that's been posted multiple times under different identities.

Ortives said:

Providing the DRN is pointless as the ombudsman changed the nature of my dispute to fit their decision. The summary of my complaint, which they wrote is not the complaint I raised.

How convenient!

Ortives

eskbanker said:

Ortives said:
The only similarities between the stories are that banks are closing ISAs before they mature (surely that isn't shocking?) and FO are making dodgy decisions (again, surely not shocking?) and case managers/call centre agents are providing people with incorrect information (yet again, surely not shocking as many businesses have this issue). The bank that closed my ISA are not Halifax btw.

As you might expect, I disagree - it is highly unusual for banks to close lengthy fixed-term ISAs before maturity!  I don't recall reading any other posts about that, although can't claim to have read everything posted on this forum.

However, that's just one aspect - another obvious similarity is all the fuss about method of repaying the balance, where each poster has a massive issue with the bank issuing a cheque rather than paying by electronic transfer, believing that the FOS instructed them to pay by a method of the poster's choosing.

Perhaps it is all just coincidence and there are multiple posters who were told that their accounts with a bank were being closed and surmised that this was because they each happened to have a five-year ISA approaching maturity, and in each case they were unhappy with repayment by cheque, and in each case they went to FOS, and every time they did so they felt it necessary to sound off volubly about FOS incompetence, etc, etc....

Ortives said:
how could I possibly be recycling an old story when FO only made a decision on my complaint last week?

By your own admission this has been to FOS more than once during that time - I'm simply joining the dots and highlighting that this appears to be a continuation of a story that's been posted multiple times under different identities.

Ortives said:

Providing the DRN is pointless as the ombudsman changed the nature of my dispute to fit their decision. The summary of my complaint, which they wrote is not the complaint I raised.

How convenient!

I found a few on other websites such as personal blogs and The Student Room. Unfortunately I am not allowed to post links here due to being new. Pretty easy to find by performing a search on Google though.

I am also assuming from notveryeducated's post in this thread that they experienced an issue similar to mine with NatWest.

Reading the threads you posted, we all have different issues in regards to the cheque. One person was overseas when the cheque was sent, another had the cheque sent to their old address. I wouldn't have had such a problem receiving a cheque, but my issue is that it never arrived (I am assuming they never actually sent it) and they refuse to issue another.

You're mistaken. The issue in regards to my bank retaining the money in my ISA was not with FO before. I raised a complaint about the my bank account being closed. That is a separate issue from the bank keeping my money after closure.

The ombudsman altering my complaint is actually extremely inconvenient as I have to start over from the beginning after waiting 10 months for a decision to be made

Tildaplum

Can I go back to your original first post - what is it you want from this forum - what are you asking us to do?

Ortives

Tildaplum said:

Can I go back to your original first post - what is it you want from this forum - what are you asking us to do?

In summary, my question is:

Are FO correct in saying that I need to raise a brand new complaint with them because the ombudsman I was originally assigned didn't read the complaint, made up a complaint of their own and then made a decision based on the complaint they created themselves?

Somebody on the last page said that there should be an appeals process, but for some reason FO are not giving me access to it and want me to start the dispute over from the beginning instead.

Tildaplum

I don't know and I don't think anybody on here knows for certain either

however if that is what the ombudsman are saying then nobody on here can overrule them - I would just start the complaint over again.

Annoying I know but it is probably your best course of action