Shock at Fin Ombudsman Decision

born_again

nossa_2 said:

Born forget it will not waste my time with FOS

But a unresolved case means FOS have to make a judgement. Not sweep it under the carpet like the 1st one.

Funny but you just said you will raise another complaint in answer to another user...🤷‍♂️Which is exactly what I said 🤦‍♀️

Ditzy_Mitzy

born_again said:

nossa_2 said:

Born forget it will not waste my time with FOS

But a unresolved case means FOS have to make a judgement. Not sweep it under the carpet like the 1st one.

Funny but you just said you will raise another complaint in answer to another user...🤷‍♂️Which is exactly what I said 🤦‍♀️

It doesn't work like that.  A formal complaint to a regulated firm requires said firm to acknowledge the complaint as soon as is practicable and to respond within eight weeks.  If it is not possible to provide a final response at the eight week point, the complainant (if eligible) gains the right to report the matter to the FOS.  

The point, however, is that @nossa_2 has no right to prevent Sainsbury's responding to his second complaint within the eight week period.  If a response is sent within that timeframe, FOS rights will be issued with the letter.  The recipient then has the right to report to the ombudsman, or to go back to the company if he remains unhappy.  

The FOS presently have lead times of over a year for certain classes of complaint.  @nossa_2 is right that involving them would be a complete waste of time for £100.  Nothing to prevent another complaint to Sainsbury's, however. 

eskbanker

Surely a second complaint to Sainsburys will effectively be a complaint about complaint handling and would therefore be liable to rejection by FOS for the same reason as the first?

born_again

@Ditzy_Mitzy
It's not a case of stopping them of responding. It is the refusal to allow them to close the complaint. Thus forcing it to go to FOS.

As to if they reopen the old case. A lot depends on timescales & exactly the basis OP makes the complaint. Certainly on the basis of non payment should be a new complaint. 

TripleH

If you have confirmation from them that they agree they will pay you £100. Go to small claims court, submit your claim with that as your evidence and claim any fees. Job done?

nossa_2

Thank you all for your comments and advice but I am surprised that no one has been shocked by the ombudsman's inability to deal with this - I still say why would any institution bother to pay their offer of resolution if the consumer has no rights with the ombudsman and would have to take the legal route? An institution could offer a generous resolution and then sit watching their customer strive to receive the offer knowing the ombudsman (after months waiting) will just throw it out - there is something failing in this supposed consumer champion  

VohnnyJegas

nossa_2 said:

Thank you all for your comments and advice but I am surprised that no one has been shocked by the ombudsman's inability to deal with this - I still say why would any institution bother to pay their offer of resolution if the consumer has no rights with the ombudsman and would have to take the legal route? An institution could offer a generous resolution and then sit watching their customer strive to receive the offer knowing the ombudsman (after months waiting) will just throw it out - there is something failing in this supposed consumer champion  

But they don't do that, which suggests you're an outlier.  Whether that's because the story is a work of fiction or because you have just fallen between the cracks, I will leave to the imagination of the reader.

nossa_2

Outlier? Please explain.

My complaint about a financial institution regulated by FCA my logical brain sends me to FOS.

nossa_2

VohnnyJegas said:

nossa_2 said:

Thank you all for your comments and advice but I am surprised that no one has been shocked by the ombudsman's inability to deal with this - I still say why would any institution bother to pay their offer of resolution if the consumer has no rights with the ombudsman and would have to take the legal route? An institution could offer a generous resolution and then sit watching their customer strive to receive the offer knowing the ombudsman (after months waiting) will just throw it out - there is something failing in this supposed consumer champion  

But they don't do that, which suggests you're an outlier.  Whether that's because the story is a work of fiction or because you have just fallen between the cracks, I will leave to the imagination of the reader.

VohnnyJegas please elaborate on "outlier" where would you assume to take a complaint about an FCA regulated company

eskbanker

VohnnyJegas said:

nossa_2 said:

Thank you all for your comments and advice but I am surprised that no one has been shocked by the ombudsman's inability to deal with this - I still say why would any institution bother to pay their offer of resolution if the consumer has no rights with the ombudsman and would have to take the legal route? An institution could offer a generous resolution and then sit watching their customer strive to receive the offer knowing the ombudsman (after months waiting) will just throw it out - there is something failing in this supposed consumer champion  

But they don't do that, which suggests you're an outlier.  Whether that's because the story is a work of fiction or because you have just fallen between the cracks, I will leave to the imagination of the reader.

nossa_2 said:

Outlier? Please explain.

My complaint about a financial institution regulated by FCA my logical brain sends me to FOS.

nossa_2 said:

VohnnyJegas please elaborate on "outlier" where would you assume to take a complaint about an FCA regulated company

The term 'outlier' was being used to highlight that your situation is very unusual, i.e. that in the vast majority of cases, an institution offering a payment will go through with it, rather than needing to be taken to FOS.

It's completely understandable to escalate a complaint about a regulated financial institution to FOS, but unfortunately they're not obliged to deal with complaints about complaints, on what is effectively a technicality, as discussed in another thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79209846/#Comment_79209846

So, in this particular case (which is undoubtedly unusual), you don't have access to recourse via FOS and would need to pursue via MCOL (aka small claims).