Financial Ombudsman Claims

19andrew92

Since following the debt camel site and raising multiple affordability complaints, I have recently come up against the six year issue several times; it is like companies use this clause to their advantage and as the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) Investigator have favoured the company, I have requested that it has been raised with an Ombudsman and have recently had feedback that the Ombudsman has agreed with the Company and FOS Investigator.

I have noted that the main reason that the FOS cannot investigate under exceptional circumstances is because I have not made the claim 3 years from when I knew that I could make a complaint. It is noted that I have contacted several of my credit/ bank companies to note financial difficulty and the FOS and company are saying that I should have known at that time that I was aware of my right to make an affordability claim.

I would refute this, as without the Debt Camel website, I would have not known about my right to make an affordability complaint, nor would I have known the responsibility of lenders when it comes to irresponsible lending. I do accept that companies make you aware of the FOS but from recollection, I cannot think of any time they have made me aware of my right to make an affordability complaint.

Does anyone have advice on how I can challenge the above? Or examples of similar situations with positive outcomes?

Hope this makes sense!

retiredbanker1

If the ombudsman has ruled against you then you are stuffed unless you want to risk some of your own money by taking them to court. Small claims would be your cheapest option if the claims are relatively small - you would get your fees back should you win.

dunstonh

Since following the debt camel site and raising multiple affordability complaints, I have recently come up against the six year issue several times; it is like companies use this clause to their advantage and as the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) Investigator have favoured the company, I have requested that it has been raised with an Ombudsman and have recently had feedback that the Ombudsman has agreed with the Company and FOS Investigator.

The 3 & 6 year rule has been around 35 years.  It largely mirrors the timebars in law except there is no long stop with the FOS.

If a complaint falls foul of 3&6 then it is obvious that companies are going to enforce that.   And the FOS will enforce it too unless the firm volunteers to waive it or the FOS feels that the timebar was incorrectly applied.

Does anyone have advice on how I can challenge the above? Or examples of similar situations with positive outcomes?

You sound like you have already challenged it.    The adjudicator/investigator is the first attempt you have.  You can appeal their decision to an ombudsman if you feel it is an incorrect decision but the ombudsman ruling is final as far as that service is concerned.      You could set aside funds and pay for a judicial review (loser pays - that would almost certainly be you).   You also have access to the courts but timebars apply to them as well.

DullGreyGuy

Having had an Ombudsman's decision your only recourse left is the courts however there too the Act of Limitations applies and you will have to show the bank broke the law rather than simply that it was unfair and so its a much higher hurdle rate for this type of complaint. 

19andrew92

I am accepting of the Ombudsman's decision and I do not intend to take this particular one any further.

However, I have several affordability complaints - one of which is currently with an Investigator at FOS rather than an Ombudsman. The Investigator is of the view that when I noted financial difficulty with the lender, I should have known at that point that the lending was irresponsible and at that time made a claim for affordability. Without the Debt Camel website, I would never have known that you can make affordability complaints, as I do not feel that companies make you aware of all of your rights when it comes to irresponsible lending.

I am looking to challenge how at the time of making the complaint re financial difficulties, I did not know about irresponsible lending. Thus being the reason that I am making the complaint out with the 3 year period.

retiredbanker1

Ask yourself one question - why would you apply for credit knowing you were going to find the repayments difficult?

(Before you dig yourself into a hole - do you remember what your inputted on the applications? In this digital world the lenders certainly will have this information - make you sure you are consistent when replying).

19andrew92

I don't think anyone can foresee significant changes in their lives which have an adverse impact on their finances and ability to repay. The issue being that lenders knowingly continue to increase limits, even although they can see that an individual is experiencing hardship (or poorly managing money) which results in hardcore borrowing. Sadly, banks make monies off individuals like that through fees and charges; albeit not much but it is still money to them.

I really do not see the point in lying in these applications, as you say, these things are all kept digitally and I am more likely to delete these things rather than a lender.

I do appreciate what you are saying though

retiredbanker1

19andrew92 said:

 The issue being that lenders knowingly continue to increase limits, even although they can see that an individual is experiencing hardship (or poorly managing money) which results in hardcore bor

Is this fact or your opinion? - did you at any time contact them to say you were struggling or at any time did you refuse their offer of an increased limit.

Algorithms see how you run an account and make judgements accordingly - if you were paying minimum or more than minimum every month and on time there is no reason why they would offer you increased limits.

Moving on now times have changed - affordability is a core thing in today's banking - if you have not cleared the borrowing completely (at some stage) within last 3 years or just pay minimum I would expect them to contact you to see in what way they can 'help' you.

19andrew92

If you read the original post, you will see that I noted that I advised the lenders of financial difficulty. Additionally, there is no mention of increased limits. I was talking in general terms in the part of the comment that you have quoted. 

Your comments are appreciated but back to the original post, I have requested that the matter is escalated to an Ombudsman. 

DullGreyGuy

19andrew92 said:

However, I have several affordability complaints - one of which is currently with an Investigator at FOS rather than an Ombudsman. The Investigator is of the view that when I noted financial difficulty with the lender, I should have known at that point that the lending was irresponsible and at that time made a claim for affordability. Without the Debt Camel website, I would never have known that you can make affordability complaints, as I do not feel that companies make you aware of all of your rights when it comes to irresponsible lending.

I am looking to challenge how at the time of making the complaint re financial difficulties, I did not know about irresponsible lending. Thus being the reason that I am making the complaint out with the 3 year period.

Then when the investigator says they won't uphold your claim you say you don't accept their decision and it will go to an Ombudsman for review. You will get your chance then to respond to specific mistakes you feel the investigator has made

Nasqueron

19andrew92 said:

I am accepting of the Ombudsman's decision and I do not intend to take this particular one any further.

However, I have several affordability complaints - one of which is currently with an Investigator at FOS rather than an Ombudsman. The Investigator is of the view that when I noted financial difficulty with the lender, I should have known at that point that the lending was irresponsible and at that time made a claim for affordability. Without the Debt Camel website, I would never have known that you can make affordability complaints, as I do not feel that companies make you aware of all of your rights when it comes to irresponsible lending.

I am looking to challenge how at the time of making the complaint re financial difficulties, I did not know about irresponsible lending. Thus being the reason that I am making the complaint out with the 3 year period.

The simplest way to think about the purpose of the rule is that without the time bar rule, anyone could say they didn't know there was the possibility of an affordability complaint until say today when they found this post and therefore could start a complaint about an issue 20 years ago. Under the rule, you have 3 years from knowing you had a reason for complaint, or could reasonably have known and six years from when the account was opened - whichever applies, both have to be met to dismiss the complaint.

When you were in trouble, that was the point to make the complaint or indeed, within three years if you were having trouble in the immediate aftermath.

These days, responsible lending is a huge part of banking and many banks have actively reduced balances on credit cards for example and been much tighter on lending for affordability reasons. I suspect their paperwork even 6+ years ago would have given you all the details of how to make a complaint or ask for financial help which they would point to.

The other reason for the rules is to stop try it on complaints (note I am not saying you are doing this, just a general point) where someone sees a site like debt camel and decides actually they'd like to try and get some free money and puts in a spurious complaint about something long ago - with the year rules, these at least can be dismissed