Disagreeing with a Financial Ombudsman ruling: Any further redress?

Sharkfeed

Hello, I was hoping for some help, opinions and comments regarding a recent situation, perhaps someone else on here has been in a similar scenario and can chime in.

In summary I tried to claim for the fees I paid as a result of a packaged bank account that was mis-sold to me on the basis that I could get an overdraft. I took out the account in 2008 and it wasn’t until 2019 that I found out about the nature of this mis-selling, so then claimed directly. Whilst the bank admitted the mis-selling, I was denied on the basis that I brought the claim “out of time”. My bank said they sent me a letter in 2015 outlining that I could cancel the useless additions such as mobile phone cover etc and still keep the overdraft, thus putting me on notice that I didn’t have to pay the monthly fee. The importance of such a letter being that my bank say I had 3 years from receipt of this letter to bring the claim, so by 2018 and the fact that the claim was brought in 2019 means I am 1 year too late.

The only fly in their ointment is that I never received any such letter. The bank didn’t care, they said -they sent it, so tough luck paying some 11 years of fees, probably £1000 or so...

As such, I took my case to the Financial Ombudsman hoping for a more even handed review and having waited/chased for 18 months, last week I got an email rejecting my claim in what seems to have been a completely one sided, 5 minute determination.

In short, regarding the issue that my case hinged on, my not receiving this single letter, the FO said something to the effect of: “most correctly addressed mail arrives at the destination, so I believe the letter was delivered but the complainant didn’t know what it was”.
So not only am I a liar, as the FO clearly believes Royal Mail could never fail to deliver a single letter, but I am stupid to boot as I wouldn’t have recognised the letter that was in fact, in his opinion, delivered!

To say I was extremely annoyed at the manner in which my claim was denied is an understatement. His rationale was not only flawed (is it that outlandish to contemplate that a letter may not be delivered?!?!) but also actually quite offensive to me. I took out the PBA in good faith with a bank that readily acknowledges they mis-sold the policy and yet he rules by effectively calling me a liar/stupid, not giving me the benefit of the doubt in the process, in favour of the party with a readily acknowledged history of deception. The upshot of his decision is also that my bank only allegedly sending this 1 single letter in what was a 7 year period between 2008 and 2015 effectively absolves them.

The decision has completely wound me up for the last week, hence my reaching out for some assistance here. 

Does anyone see any redress for me please? For example, Is it possible to appeal the grounds of the FO decision or complain against him for the manner of his rejection? I do not believe that he has viewed my case objectively and in fact, as I say notwithstanding the ruling itself, his rationale for the same actually offended me.

Has anyone else had a similar FO ruling against them? If so what did you do about it?
I feel that I’ve been on the end of a raw deal here, as I say 18 months or so waiting and I do not doubt that the FO ruling took him all of 5 minutes to get through and reduce what is probably a large backlog of such cases.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

elsien

According to the MSE guide, 

The Financial Ombudsman Service's decision is usually made by an assigned case worker. If you disagree with the result you can ask for a formal decision to be made by one of the actual ombudsmen at the service. This usually takes several months as it involves a detailed investigation into your case.

Fewer than one in 10 cases end up with an ombudsman, and some of those are there because the finance company has requested it. After the ombudsman's decision, there is no further appeal process.

Full link here

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/fight-back-fos/

Thrugelmir

The bank fulfilled it's obligation by performing a mail shot to all it's customers. This it can evidence to the FO. The FO is not going to arbitrarily rule against the bank purely on the basis of your word. The world doesn't revolve around personal opinion unfortunately, be chaos if it did. You've reached the end of the road. Time to move on. In future read everything you receive properly and make timely decisions with regards to your own affairs. No one else is going to bail you out when it's too late. 

dunstonh

Whilst the bank admitted the mis-selling, I was denied on the basis that I brought the claim “out of time”.

That is a contradiction in terms.   If you are out of time to complain, the bank will not investigate your complaint.  Therefore it will not admit anything.   

 My bank said they sent me a letter in 2015 outlining that I could cancel the useless additions such as mobile phone cover etc and still keep the overdraft, thus putting me on notice that I didn’t have to pay the monthly fee. The importance of such a letter being that my bank say I had 3 years from receipt of this letter to bring the claim, so by 2018 and the fact that the claim was brought in 2019 means I am 1 year too late.

And banks have been sending these out yearly from that point.  

The only fly in their ointment is that I never received any such letter. The bank didn’t care, they said -they sent it, so tough luck paying some 11 years of fees, probably £1000 or so...

That is how it works in law.  If the letter was sent then you are deemed to have received it.

As such, I took my case to the Financial Ombudsman hoping for a more even handed review and having waited/chased for 18 months, last week I got an email rejecting my claim in what seems to have been a completely one sided, 5 minute determination.

To be fair, it would not be a 5 minute process but the decision probably took seconds rather than minutes.  They would have aske the bank the basis of the time bar and once the bank provided them the dates and evidence then it is a nailed on rejection of your complaint to overrule the timebar.

In short, regarding the issue that my case hinged on, my not receiving this single letter, the FO said something to the effect of: “most correctly addressed mail arrives at the destination, so I believe the letter was delivered but the complainant didn’t know what it was”.
So not only am I a liar, as the FO clearly believes Royal Mail could never fail to deliver a single letter, but I am stupid to boot as I wouldn’t have recognised the letter that was in fact, in his opinion, delivered!

You may not be a liar but your recollection may not be that you saw it.  They tend to be glossy letters.  So, maybe you thought it was marketing.   However, the FOS response is correct in law.

Does anyone see any redress for me please? For example, Is it possible to appeal the grounds of the FO decision or complain against him for the manner of his rejection? I do not believe that he has viewed my case objectively and in fact, as I say notwithstanding the ruling itself, his rationale for the same actually offended me.

The timebar has been correctly applied and the bank does not need to consider your complaint.    You taking offence is completely irrelevant to any decision making.

Has anyone else had a similar FO ruling against them? If so what did you do about it?

There is nothing you can do. Timebars are a legal mechanism.   You could in theory ask an ombudsman to review the case handlers decision but its as nailed on as you can get.  So, it would be a waste of time.  You cannot use the courts as timebars apply in law as well.

I feel that I’ve been on the end of a raw deal here, as I say 18 months or so waiting and I do not doubt that the FO ruling took him all of 5 minutes to get through and reduce what is probably a large backlog of such cases.

Just because you do not like the outcome does not make it an unfair one.   It is technically correct.

Sharkfeed

ok thanks for your responses.

[Deleted User]

Just FYI, the reason for the mail being deemed received is that a dishonest person could just lie and say they never got the letter and thus avoid the time bar. Banks have been sending annual statements of benefit to people with packaged accounts for years and the first letter triggers the 3 year rule, so even if you missed the first one, depending on when the second one was sent in 2016 you might have been barred anyway.

You can appeal to the ombudsman but you won't win the case purely on the basis of saying you didn't see the letter and they only overturn something like 1/10 cases usually where they believe the adjudicator has made a mistake on a technical issue. The bank providing proof they sent the letter is sufficient to trigger the time bar and the FOS won't overrule that as it's a legal rule.