what after the financial ombudsman

the_gardener_2

I have had a long running dispute with  Al Rayan bank regarding on line access and very poor customer service.    The ombudsman has partly upheld the complaint but despite being escalated to the ombudsman it is not the result I wanted.   Does accepting the outcome and the payment deny me the opportunity to take matters to court.       

molerat

No it doesn't stop you but accepting the outcome resolution would be frowned on by the court.  Also what financial loss have you suffered  to be claiming through the court ?

born_again

Do not think a court would cover online access & poor customer service. How would you put a value on that, that you have lost?

Banks do not have to have online access. Poor customer service is very subjective.

Even as you have found. it is not something FOS can force a bank to do. They can not force a bank to change internal procedures.

Band7

Proper courts will only be interested if a law was breached. So you'd need to start by identifying which law(s) Al Rayan has not complied with.

fatbelly

You can't go to the ombudsman after court

But you can try a court claim after the ombudsman 

DullGreyGuy

the_gardener_2 said:

I have had a long running dispute with  Al Rayan bank regarding on line access and very poor customer service.    The ombudsman has partly upheld the complaint but despite being escalated to the ombudsman it is not the result I wanted.   Does accepting the outcome and the payment deny me the opportunity to take matters to court.       

No, but you'd have to declare any award already received and take that off of your financial losses that you are claiming as damages.  Note that the court, other than for injuries, redominately deal with special damages, ie where you can substantiate you have had a financial loss as a consequence not just minor inconvenience etc.

Band7 said:

Proper courts will only be interested if a law was breached. So you'd need to start by identifying which law(s) Al Rayan has not complied with.

No, courts also consider things like breach of contract, common law things like the torts not just breaches of law (plus there are a host of things that the law says a court must opine on - eg the transfer of insurance risk from one insurer to another)

Band7

DullGreyGuy said:

Band7 said:

Proper courts will only be interested if a law was breached. So you'd need to start by identifying which law(s) Al Rayan has not complied with.

No, courts also consider things like breach of contract, common law things like the torts not just breaches of law (plus there are a host of things that the law says a court must opine on - eg the transfer of insurance risk from one insurer to another)

Courts will always rule with reference to one or more laws. They do not have the discretion to effectively create laws were none exists, or where they disagree with existing laws.

DullGreyGuy

Band7 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Band7 said:

Proper courts will only be interested if a law was breached. So you'd need to start by identifying which law(s) Al Rayan has not complied with.

No, courts also consider things like breach of contract, common law things like the torts not just breaches of law (plus there are a host of things that the law says a court must opine on - eg the transfer of insurance risk from one insurer to another)

Courts will always rule with reference to one or more laws. 

Certainly not, if I sell my services for £1,000 with 30 days payment terms and the buyer doesnt pay on time the judge isnt going to quote any law.

If I claim £1 as damages for you and your mates wandering across my garden for some game you'd organised this would come under the Tort of Trespass to Land for which there is no statute for the judge to quote but instead they'd likely quote something like League Against Cruel Sports v Scott which isnt statute but a previous' judges ruling that the organisors of an event can be held liable for the actions of the participants of the event. 

Band7 said:
They do not have the discretion to effectively create laws were none exists, or where they disagree with existing laws.

 They cannot change statute, agree with that but the beauty of a common law system is that where no statute exists they are free to make decisions. Thats exactly why as per the above a statute isnt quoted but instead a previous court case and so in certain ways they can.

They also get to be the ones to interpret the statute and some of those can be fairly wide, like on the consumer credit act for example you have Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v Alfred Truman (a firm) [2005] EWHC 583 which opined on the fact the CCA says there has to be a direct relationship between Debtor, Creditor and Supplier but the case acknowledge the reality is there are other parties involved like the suppliers Merchant Acquirer that enables them to accept cards and the card network company themselves but that this 5 party transaction didnt invalidate the claim  

the_gardener_2

Thanks for all the replies.   He is the issue.   The account in question is a legacy account and a legacy interest rate.   My argument would be that denying my access has caused me loss due to a poor interest rate when many other products are available with much hight rates  

p00hsticks

the_gardener_2 said:

The account in question is a legacy account and a legacy interest rate.   My argument would be that denying my access has caused me loss due to a poor interest rate when many other products are available with much hight rates  

How and why are you being denied access ? 
What do the T&Cs for that particular legacy account say about access  and are those being met or not ?

masonic

the_gardener_2 said:

I have had a long running dispute with  Al Rayan bank regarding on line access and very poor customer service.    The ombudsman has partly upheld the complaint but despite being escalated to the ombudsman it is not the result I wanted.   Does accepting the outcome and the payment deny me the opportunity to take matters to court.

It would probably be better to reject the Ombudsman decision if you intend to pursue through the court. The bar will inevitably be higher, but there have been instances where complainants have been unlucky at the FOS and not had their complaints properly understood. You could certainly take Al Rayan to court for the return of your money, and perhaps reclaim any costs associated with you being unable to access the funds, such as bank charges or costs associated with the failure of a house purchase. It would be really surprising if you provided such costs to the FOS and they didn't award you compensation to cover these. If you were willing to share the decision (which will be published online in due course anyway), perhaps more detailed help could be given.