Complaint to the financial ombudsman time limit

Ditzy_Mitzy

As others have said, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) time limit is six months from the date of the final response to the complaint.  The final response is the letter/email that enclosed or attached the FOS leaflet.  Something to be aware of, however, is that the FOS don't necessarily stick to their own rule with absolute rigidity.  They have discretion and I have seen them take on cases reported more than six months after the issuance of the final response letter.  Don't rely on that, though.  

Ergates

WinTogether said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

The bank’s response was wholly unsatisfactory, which is why I was in seek of more answers. They delayed their response (ignored me for ages) and wrote to me a week or so after the 6 months were up. Filthy tactics from Barclays.

That sounds like they did issue a final response more than six months ago then - to what extent did they make it clear that they wouldn't enter into further discussion and that your only option was to take it to FOS?

After they shut my account down with no notice, they did indeed gave me a date from which I need to complain the FOS. But post that, the customer relations team were still communicating with me and passing me around in an effort to answer the questions I was seeking answers to.

Rather than just run straight to the FOS, I was first attempting to to sort the issue out myself. Hence, for me it seemed natural to take their last letter as the reference for the “last correspondence”.

If you could indefinitely extend the time limit by continuing to ask them questions, there wouldn't be any point in having a time limit, as it would be practically impossible to determine when it ran from.

The long and short of it is:  You were giving a date by which you needed to raise the complaint with the FOS and that deadline has passed.  You can, obviously, still try.

eskbanker

One other thing to consider is that the FOS is the obvious place to go with an unresolved complaint, but it's not the only one, with court remaining an option if there's a financial loss arising from Barclays demonstrably acting unlawfully or in breach of their Ts & Cs?

born_again

TBH. No matter what the timescale to FOS is, & has already been covered.
The one fact that sticks out is "Shut down with no notice"
Banks do not take any decision to shut a account lightly, it takes a lot to get to the point of shut down, even when giving a 60 day notice.
In this case, I'm surprised they even continued any correspondence after final response. As they are simply not going to say anything, as it would drop into tipping off.

I doubt that even FOS would come to any decision other than backing Barclays. It would have to be a major mess up.

Not sure what sort of delay you are talking about. But they know the timescales & any investigation takes time. Complaints team have to talk to people involved, then look at all the evidence, then it will go to a manager or even  higher for a confirmed decision.
In our's that is as high as CEO in a immediate shut down & any complaint on such.

Personally You should be doing a SAR to CIFAS to see what they now hold on you.

WinTogether

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

The bank’s response was wholly unsatisfactory, which is why I was in seek of more answers. They delayed their response (ignored me for ages) and wrote to me a week or so after the 6 months were up. Filthy tactics from Barclays.

That sounds like they did issue a final response more than six months ago then - to what extent did they make it clear that they wouldn't enter into further discussion and that your only option was to take it to FOS?

After they shut my account down with no notice, they did indeed gave me a date from which I need to complain the FOS. But post that, the customer relations team were still communicating with me and passing me around in an effort to answer the questions I was seeking answers to.

Rather than just run straight to the FOS, I was first attempting to to sort the issue out myself. Hence, for me it seemed natural to take their last letter as the reference for the “last correspondence”.

But where are you quoting "last correspondence" from, as opposed to "final response", a defined term with specific meaning to the various authorities?

If they closed an account without notice, that usually signifies something fairly serious and AML legislation would often prevent them from discussing details, but if they advised you of the window within which you'd need to go to FOS, were you under the impression that continuing to ask them questions would extend this?

Nope, not to extend it, it was in the hope to get it sorted out myself.

eskbanker

WinTogether said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

The bank’s response was wholly unsatisfactory, which is why I was in seek of more answers. They delayed their response (ignored me for ages) and wrote to me a week or so after the 6 months were up. Filthy tactics from Barclays.

That sounds like they did issue a final response more than six months ago then - to what extent did they make it clear that they wouldn't enter into further discussion and that your only option was to take it to FOS?

After they shut my account down with no notice, they did indeed gave me a date from which I need to complain the FOS. But post that, the customer relations team were still communicating with me and passing me around in an effort to answer the questions I was seeking answers to.

Rather than just run straight to the FOS, I was first attempting to to sort the issue out myself. Hence, for me it seemed natural to take their last letter as the reference for the “last correspondence”.

But where are you quoting "last correspondence" from, as opposed to "final response", a defined term with specific meaning to the various authorities?

If they closed an account without notice, that usually signifies something fairly serious and AML legislation would often prevent them from discussing details, but if they advised you of the window within which you'd need to go to FOS, were you under the impression that continuing to ask them questions would extend this?

Nope, not to extend it, it was in the hope to get it sorted out myself.

Sure, I get that, but when continuing discussions aimed at resolution, did you believe that (as a side-effect) the FOS referral deadline would be pushed back?

It doesn't really matter now though, in that if you've exceeded that deadline then, as above, all you can do is to try FOS anyway (the worst they can do is to say no) or be prepared to go legal if you have a strong enough case against Barclays that would stand up in court.  How far beyond the deadline are you, and are there any mitigating circumstances for missing it, other than misunderstanding the significance of the final response?

PHK

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

The bank’s response was wholly unsatisfactory, which is why I was in seek of more answers. They delayed their response (ignored me for ages) and wrote to me a week or so after the 6 months were up. Filthy tactics from Barclays.

That sounds like they did issue a final response more than six months ago then - to what extent did they make it clear that they wouldn't enter into further discussion and that your only option was to take it to FOS?

After they shut my account down with no notice, they did indeed gave me a date from which I need to complain the FOS. But post that, the customer relations team were still communicating with me and passing me around in an effort to answer the questions I was seeking answers to.

Rather than just run straight to the FOS, I was first attempting to to sort the issue out myself. Hence, for me it seemed natural to take their last letter as the reference for the “last correspondence”.

But where are you quoting "last correspondence" from, as opposed to "final response", a defined term with specific meaning to the various authorities?

If they closed an account without notice, that usually signifies something fairly serious and AML legislation would often prevent them from discussing details, but if they advised you of the window within which you'd need to go to FOS, were you under the impression that continuing to ask them questions would extend this?

Nope, not to extend it, it was in the hope to get it sorted out myself.

Sure, I get that, but when continuing discussions aimed at resolution, did you believe that (as a side-effect) the FOS referral deadline would be pushed back?

It doesn't really matter now though, in that if you've exceeded that deadline then, as above, all you can do is to try FOS anyway (the worst they can do is to say no) or be prepared to go legal if you have a strong enough case against Barclays that would stand up in court.  How far beyond the deadline are you, and are there any mitigating circumstances for missing it, other than misunderstanding the significance of the final response?

Normally,  in a case like this the FOS would say that as the OP continued to contact the firm involved them there was no reason they couldn't have contacted the FOS. 

The only possible counter argument  would be that they are vulnerable in some way which meant they made poor decisions or were not capable of understanding. Unless of course Barclays messed up and didn't give FOS rights (the term used to describe the wording that must be given about the FOS)

eskbanker

PHK said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

eskbanker said:

WinTogether said:

The bank’s response was wholly unsatisfactory, which is why I was in seek of more answers. They delayed their response (ignored me for ages) and wrote to me a week or so after the 6 months were up. Filthy tactics from Barclays.

That sounds like they did issue a final response more than six months ago then - to what extent did they make it clear that they wouldn't enter into further discussion and that your only option was to take it to FOS?

After they shut my account down with no notice, they did indeed gave me a date from which I need to complain the FOS. But post that, the customer relations team were still communicating with me and passing me around in an effort to answer the questions I was seeking answers to.

Rather than just run straight to the FOS, I was first attempting to to sort the issue out myself. Hence, for me it seemed natural to take their last letter as the reference for the “last correspondence”.

But where are you quoting "last correspondence" from, as opposed to "final response", a defined term with specific meaning to the various authorities?

If they closed an account without notice, that usually signifies something fairly serious and AML legislation would often prevent them from discussing details, but if they advised you of the window within which you'd need to go to FOS, were you under the impression that continuing to ask them questions would extend this?

Nope, not to extend it, it was in the hope to get it sorted out myself.

Sure, I get that, but when continuing discussions aimed at resolution, did you believe that (as a side-effect) the FOS referral deadline would be pushed back?

It doesn't really matter now though, in that if you've exceeded that deadline then, as above, all you can do is to try FOS anyway (the worst they can do is to say no) or be prepared to go legal if you have a strong enough case against Barclays that would stand up in court.  How far beyond the deadline are you, and are there any mitigating circumstances for missing it, other than misunderstanding the significance of the final response?

Normally,  in a case like this the FOS would say that as the OP continued to contact the firm involved them there was no reason they couldn't have contacted the FOS. 

The only possible counter argument  would be that they are vulnerable in some way which meant they made poor decisions or were not capable of understanding. Unless of course Barclays messed up and didn't give FOS rights (the term used to describe the wording that must be given about the FOS)

Yes, I wouldn't want to give OP false hope that there's much prospect of convincing FOS to accept the complaint, but they've effectively got one go at giving it their best shot, however futile it might turn out to be!

OP - what's your desired outcome here, from FOS or court, i.e. are you looking for compensation, or reimbursement of tangible losses, and/or something else?

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

TBH. No matter what the timescale to FOS is, & has already been covered.
The one fact that sticks out is "Shut down with no notice"
Banks do not take any decision to shut a account lightly, it takes a lot to get to the point of shut down, even when giving a 60 day notice.
In this case, I'm surprised they even continued any correspondence after final response. As they are simply not going to say anything, as it would drop into tipping off.

I doubt that even FOS would come to any decision other than backing Barclays. It would have to be a major mess up.

Not sure what sort of delay you are talking about. But they know the timescales & any investigation takes time. Complaints team have to talk to people involved, then look at all the evidence, then it will go to a manager or even  higher for a confirmed decision.
In our's that is as high as CEO in a immediate shut down & any complaint on such.

Personally You should be doing a SAR to CIFAS to see what they now hold on you.

Randomly came across an Ombudsman case where AmEx immediately closed a persons account without notice. The customer was refusing to repay the £23k balance whilst the complaint was ongoing and was demanding that AmEx reopen their account and expunge the CRA records of non-payment. 

The ombudsman's letter was unusual, it was straightforward that AmEx was free to choose who they want as a customer and the CRA record was factually correct and so wasnt going to entertain those parts of the complaint. They stated they had sent a provisional decision that the instant closure without notice wasnt correct however and so was going to uphold the complaint but with a much lower resolution. AmEx however objected and provided "further evidence in confidence" and in light of this the Ombudsman changed their mind and accepted without notice was appropriate.

They go on to point out either complainer or the complained about can submit evidence in confidence which cannot be shared with the other.

So to circle back to this case... the ombudsman will consider if "no notice" was appropriate or not even if they agree the closure was legitimate but also the OP may still not get to know the reasons no matter the outcome. 

PHK

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

TBH. No matter what the timescale to FOS is, & has already been covered.
The one fact that sticks out is "Shut down with no notice"
Banks do not take any decision to shut a account lightly, it takes a lot to get to the point of shut down, even when giving a 60 day notice.
In this case, I'm surprised they even continued any correspondence after final response. As they are simply not going to say anything, as it would drop into tipping off.

I doubt that even FOS would come to any decision other than backing Barclays. It would have to be a major mess up.

Not sure what sort of delay you are talking about. But they know the timescales & any investigation takes time. Complaints team have to talk to people involved, then look at all the evidence, then it will go to a manager or even  higher for a confirmed decision.
In our's that is as high as CEO in a immediate shut down & any complaint on such.

Personally You should be doing a SAR to CIFAS to see what they now hold on you.

Randomly came across an Ombudsman case where AmEx immediately closed a persons account without notice. The customer was refusing to repay the £23k balance whilst the complaint was ongoing and was demanding that AmEx reopen their account and expunge the CRA records of non-payment. 

The ombudsman's letter was unusual, it was straightforward that AmEx was free to choose who they want as a customer and the CRA record was factually correct and so wasnt going to entertain those parts of the complaint. They stated they had sent a provisional decision that the instant closure without notice wasnt correct however and so was going to uphold the complaint but with a much lower resolution. AmEx however objected and provided "further evidence in confidence" and in light of this the Ombudsman changed their mind and accepted without notice was appropriate.

They go on to point out either complainer or the complained about can submit evidence in confidence which cannot be shared with the other.

So to circle back to this case... the ombudsman will consider if "no notice" was appropriate or not even if they agree the closure was legitimate but also the OP may still not get to know the reasons no matter the outcome. 

This is very true. 

The information given in confidence relates to information they can’t pass on due to legislation. For example, evidence of money laundering as to pass it on would potential alert other people in the launder chain. 

Of course, if the person is being used as a money mule they might not even realise that they were doing it. But would be “guilty” of not checking the source of funds. 

Not saying the OP (or the Amex case) is money laundering it’s just an example.