Irresponsible lending-FOS

dackster86

Hi how many times can you or how many complaints can you put in with the FOS at the same time about irresponsible lending.
many thanks

[Deleted User]

If you have complained to the original lender and had it refused and/or got a deadlock letter, you can refer the case to the FOS if applicable. That could mean multiple complaints, all of which will be looked at independently. Presuming you aren't trying to do multiple complaints about the same company and same lending of course.

MalMonroe

You could submit one complaint about multiple financial institutions' irresponsible lending. (Multiple institutions, one problem).

As you can submit complaints online, you will be led by the questions you are asked during the application process.

The Financial Ombudsman will expect that you have contacted each organisation before complaining to them. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/how-to-complain

And the Ombudsman will respond with whatever he/she thinks appropriate for your complaint. (i.e. acceptable or not)

Sandtree

MalMonroe said:

You could submit one complaint about multiple financial institutions' irresponsible lending. (Multiple institutions, one problem).

As you can submit complaints online, you will be led by the questions you are asked during the application process.

The Financial Ombudsman will expect that you have contacted each organisation before complaining to them. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/how-to-complain

And the Ombudsman will respond with whatever he/she thinks appropriate for your complaint. (i.e. acceptable or not)

Have to say I have only ever seen one financial listed on any Ombudsman Decision and the online form doesnt give you the facility to add multiple companies.

If you've complained about multiple products with a single financial institute then these can be bundled but I dont think the ombudsman will deal with a complaint about Barclays and New Day under a single file... for a start it makes a mess of the invoicing for having a complaint escalated.

Having looked at some "irresponsible lending" complaints on the ombudsman site (eg Decision Reference DRN4872412 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)) the results generally dont go in the favour of the consumer as long as some form of affordability checks were done before lending... the ombudsman doesnt seem to opinion on the appropriateness of such checks or the outcome.

martinjn

I started off with Barclays and while doing so realised that most of my other creditors shouldn't have lent me money either so I've raised all mine separate. 

FOS upheld my Barclays complaint just this week but I think ill be rejecting it as I don't agree with the outcome the FOS has put forward.  I think ill be moving on to the small claims court now. 

MikeJXE

martinjn said:

I started off with Barclays and while doing so realised that most of my other creditors shouldn't have lent me money either so I've raised all mine separate. 

FOS upheld my Barclays complaint just this week but I think I'll be rejecting it as I don't agree with the outcome the FOS has put forward.  I think I'll be moving on to the small claims court now. 

Not sure why I'm looking at this but it intrigued me

Are you actually saying people borrow money then blame the company for lending it to them ?

Can't get my head round that 

born_again

Each complaint will have to separate. As the situation will be different. So there will be no board brush that will cover all cases.

But agree with the above.

phillw

MikeJXE said:
Are you actually saying people borrow money then blame the company for lending it to them ?

It goes back to when door step lenders were charging 10000% APR and then rolling over loans, so originally you might have borrowed £100 but ended up paying £2000 and still owing more than that.

To lend responsibly, a creditor must be confident that you can repay the debt:

• In full and on time
• Without having to borrow more money
• Without falling behind on your existing commitments, and
• Without causing you financial hardship

If you already have ten loans and servicing them leaves you with no money, then anyone lending you any more money is irresponsible.

It's not irresponsible to lend money to people who then lose their jobs, or decide later that the loan is a bit expensive and maybe they should have borrowed elsewhere or gone without.

DullGreyGuy

martinjn said:

I started off with Barclays and while doing so realised that most of my other creditors shouldn't have lent me money either so I've raised all mine separate. 

FOS upheld my Barclays complaint just this week but I think ill be rejecting it as I don't agree with the outcome the FOS has put forward.  I think ill be moving on to the small claims court now. 

Then you reject it and it goes to an ombudsman to review the case.

You are free to go to court if you want but the Ombudsman is more customer leaning than the court and so your prospects of success are lower (ignoring the chances of them settling on a without prejudice basis to avoid defense costs)

~Brock~

MikeJXE said:

Not sure why I'm looking at this but it intrigued me

Are you actually saying people borrow money then blame the company for lending it to them ?

Can't get my head round that 

There are certain websites that positively encourage this type of behaviour, and i can't get my head around it either because the complainant is effectively saying "I shouldn't be allowed out without wearing my mittens because I have no individual mind and can't be trusted to make my own decisions".

I also suspect that it is a very short-sighted approach because I'm sure any lender who receives such a complaint will immediately mark the customer as never to be welcomed back in the future.

I could understand the idea of irresponsible lending when it applied to the practices of payday lenders etc due to the constant re-lending, but it seems to have spread across to normal types of loan of the type that people take out for cars, home improvements etc.

superbigal

I do hope that when people win these cases, that at the very least they do have to have paid back the actual capital they borrowed and used ?