Bank not advising of my rights to contact Financial Ombudsman Service following making a complaint

JohnSmith999

colsten said:

JohnSmith999 said:

jonesMUFCforever said:

JohnSmith999 - very interesting! Did you inform the bank that you had ''issues'' at the time - yes/no?
I suspect you did not so how were they supposed to know? Works both ways?

If I did, would you expect a bank to care?

Did you inform them? 

If no, why didn't you?

If yes, how did they react? And if they didn't react as you expected, what did you do about it, when and how? 

We need the full story to make meaningful comments. Although I doubt we will get all the relevant details as the bank won't be posting on MSE, not least because they would be prevented by data protection regulations from revealing personal information .

I must've mentioned it to a degree, but it was a conversation that lasted 10 minutes and was held 9 years ago. If you have a memory that good, then I'm glad for you.

When I contact them this time, I've set out an email that I'm ready to send as a complaint through their site, but I think bringing that up will just dilute the point I'm trying to make about their failing to signpost me to the FOS. Sometimes, less is more.

Herbalus

There doesn’t seem much hope for your original complaint subject matter, which is whether the bank acted reasonably by allowing you to make payments. This seems to have already been declined by the bank and the ombudsman.

This leaves you complaining about the complaint process itself from 9 years ago, which whilst you may have some moral high ground if the bank didn’t follow the process, but I don’t really see the value in this for anybody I’m afraid.  I’m not really sure what you’re trying to gain.

born_again

JohnSmith999 said:

jonesMUFCforever said:

JohnSmith999 - very interesting! Did you inform the bank that you had ''issues'' at the time - yes/no?
I suspect you did not so how were they supposed to know? Works both ways?

If I did, would you expect a bank to care?

I must've mentioned it to a degree, but it was a conversation that lasted 10 minutes and was held 9 years ago. 

Yes the bank would care...
But interesting that you can't remember if you did tell them or not on a 10 min call? but can remember the length of call (not that it would make any difference on payments already sent) But can remember that you were not advised you can take it further with FOS.

JohnSmith999

born_again said:

JohnSmith999 said:

jonesMUFCforever said:

JohnSmith999 - very interesting! Did you inform the bank that you had ''issues'' at the time - yes/no?
I suspect you did not so how were they supposed to know? Works both ways?

If I did, would you expect a bank to care?

I must've mentioned it to a degree, but it was a conversation that lasted 10 minutes and was held 9 years ago. 

Yes the bank would care...
But interesting that you can't remember if you did tell them or not on a 10 min call? but can remember the length of call (not that it would make any difference on payments already sent) But can remember that you were not advised you can take it further with FOS.

You can remember EVERY aspect of a 9-year-old phone call? I already said I must've done but can't remember exactly. And the length of the call is obviously approximate. And I don't need to remember the latter, as it needs to be in the letter, but nice trolling, fella.

colsten

Trolling?

Whatever next.

jonesMUFCforever

The bank would care and have protocols in place to put your symptoms on record (with your authority) which might have flagged up the transactions you now want to dispute.

born_again

JohnSmith999 said:

born_again said:

Yes the bank would care...
But interesting that you can't remember if you did tell them or not on a 10 min call? but can remember the length of call (not that it would make any difference on payments already sent) But can remember that you were not advised you can take it further with FOS.

You can remember EVERY aspect of a 9-year-old phone call? I already said I must've done but can't remember exactly. And the length of the call is obviously approximate. And I don't need to remember the latter, as it needs to be in the letter, but nice trolling, fella.

So by must have you mean you may of may not.... 
You had already stated that you did not recognise yourself at that time. 
Not trolling. Many years working in a bank. Given I take approx 50 calls a day. The odds are very slim. It really would have to be something special to make it stick out in my mind.
But I can remember plenty of them, thank you.

End of the day you will get no where with a complaint going back that far. How can you even prove that you were not told at the time?

eskbanker

Seems to me that this is all going down a bit of a cul de sac - the debate about the extent to which OP may or may not have advised the bank of the hard time he was going through is a moot point, in that a bank would only be obliged to deal differently with someone with a diagnosed mental health condition affecting their ability to act responsibly with their money, and even then it would be in the context of an explicit and formal agreement about how the account was to be managed (and by whom), rather than acting on a throwaway comment in a conversation, which, as born_again observes, was after the payments concerned anyway.

Likewise, mention or not of FOS in a conversation is irrelevant, in that if the bank accepted a formal complaint then they're obliged to issue a final response in writing, including availability of FOS escalation, as explained in the FCA handbook section that I linked to early on.

JohnSmith999

eskbanker said:
Likewise, mention or not of FOS in a conversation is irrelevant, in that if the bank accepted a formal complaint then they're obliged to issue a final response in writing, including availability of FOS escalation, as explained in the FCA handbook section that I linked to early on.

This is the point. They acknowledge it was a complaint and didn't do any of this. Had they done so, I would've gone to the FOS.

born_again

JohnSmith999 said:

eskbanker said:
Likewise, mention or not of FOS in a conversation is irrelevant, in that if the bank accepted a formal complaint then they're obliged to issue a final response in writing, including availability of FOS escalation, as explained in the FCA handbook section that I linked to early on.

This is the point. They acknowledge it was a complaint and didn't do any of this. Had they done so, I would've gone to the FOS.

So they never replied to your complaint?