FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE [Merged]

eskbanker

nilequeen said:

FOS are fundamentally flawed and should be disbanded. They make terribly outrageous decisions that are bank centric, no care of duty toward complainants.

Not sure how your bitter rant is meant to help OP, but in this case they have sided with OP and upheld the complaint, albeit not to the extent that OP was hoping for.

nilequeen said:

why are they still allowed to operate?

Their existence and remit is set in legislation, so it's a matter for Parliament.  The Treasury select committee hold them to account and if they're not looking to mandate significant changes then they clearly disagree with your opinion, and are obviously likely to be better informed.

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6490/the-work-of-the-financial-ombudsman-service/

nilequeen said:

Anybody who challenges their underhand practices is then restricted to rep.

No idea what that means?

DullGreyGuy

nilequeen said:

FOS are fundamentally flawed and should be disbanded. They make terribly outrageous decisions that are bank centric, no care of duty toward complainants.
why are they still allowed to operate?
. Anybody who challenges their underhand practices is then restricted to rep. Not to be trusted

As someone who seems more cases from the otherside of the fence... they are arguably too customer focused.

Matching sets - cheapo policy states no cover for undamaged elements of a matching set - FOS states insurer should contribute 50% towards undamaged

S75 - says there must be a direct D-C-S relationship - FOS dont totally ignore this but there are cases of non-traditional payment processors and card machines not technically being the suppliers etc which the FOS have acknowledged may legally disallow S75 but they've upheld the complaint saying the customer would have been unaware


As always, your own experiences colours. At the end of the day they uphold 37% of the complaints but given the bank/insurer is being charged £750 for the FOS to look at the complaint they must be fairly confident they are in the right before allowing it to go to the FOS

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:
given the bank/insurer is being charged £750 for the FOS to look at the complaint they must be fairly confident they are in the right before allowing it to go to the FOS

But in terms of 'allowing' a complaint to go to FOS, surely an institution is simply closing it off according to the rights and wrongs of the applicable Ts & Cs and any other relevant circumstances, rather than taking a view about how likely an individual is to escalate to FOS?  Or in your experience is there any truth in the occasionally made assertion that a complainant can threaten an institution along the lines of 'I know this will cost you £750 if I take it to FOS, so settle at less than that'?  Or somewhere in between?!

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
given the bank/insurer is being charged £750 for the FOS to look at the complaint they must be fairly confident they are in the right before allowing it to go to the FOS

But in terms of 'allowing' a complaint to go to FOS, surely an institution is simply closing it off according to the rights and wrongs of the applicable Ts & Cs and any other relevant circumstances, rather than taking a view about how likely an individual is to escalate to FOS?  Or in your experience is there any truth in the occasionally made assertion that a complainant can threaten an institution along the lines of 'I know this will cost you £750 if I take it to FOS, so settle at less than that'?  Or somewhere in between?!

There can be the consideration that the customer is asking for £50 compensation for wasting their time... you feel you havent wasted that much of their time but are you willing to pay £750 + the time and effort to deal with the ombudsman to defend that? The counter argument is not wanting to open the floodgates such that everyone complains because they know they'll get £50 just to be made to go away.

Obviously for somethings there is a right and wrong... for many other things like complaints about timing, things we've asked the customer to do, our choice of hold music (had 2 of those go to the Ombudsman) etc its much more shades of grey... yes it'd been great if we could have put the family in an rental house straight away, we aim to do it within a week but we paid for a hotel room for 2 weeks and their costs and they were being picky with the alternative house so really in the grey zone. 

Ditzy_Mitzy

DullGreyGuy said:

nilequeen said:

FOS are fundamentally flawed and should be disbanded. They make terribly outrageous decisions that are bank centric, no care of duty toward complainants.
why are they still allowed to operate?
. Anybody who challenges their underhand practices is then restricted to rep. Not to be trusted

As someone who seems more cases from the otherside of the fence... they are arguably too customer focused.

I'd agree.  The FOS seem to be erring on the side of the customer more, if anything, of late.  

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
given the bank/insurer is being charged £750 for the FOS to look at the complaint they must be fairly confident they are in the right before allowing it to go to the FOS

But in terms of 'allowing' a complaint to go to FOS, surely an institution is simply closing it off according to the rights and wrongs of the applicable Ts & Cs and any other relevant circumstances, rather than taking a view about how likely an individual is to escalate to FOS?  Or in your experience is there any truth in the occasionally made assertion that a complainant can threaten an institution along the lines of 'I know this will cost you £750 if I take it to FOS, so settle at less than that'?  Or somewhere in between?!

No fee is charged in relation to the first 25 cases referred to the FOS, in relation to a particular firm, in any calendar year.  A small firm generally won't get anywhere near 25 referrals in such a period, and larger ones often prefer to absorb the referral fees rather than setting precedents for terms and conditions being circumvented - in reference to fighting back against unwarranted, erroneous or vexatious complaints.  The other problem, for the customer, is that FOS referrals are quite complicated to do, and often take significant time to be acted on.  One would have to have a lot of time on one's hands in order to make a FOS referral over £100, for argument's sake, worthwhile.  

eskbanker said:

nilequeen said:

Anybody who challenges their underhand practices is then restricted to rep.

 No idea what that means?

Anyone who challenges the FOS is doomed to spend the remainder of his or her days putting on a series of performances of The Mousetrap, Noises Off, Abigail's Party, King Lear and Aladdin in a crumbling Victorian theatre in a half-forgotten seaside resort in Lincolnshire.