Complaint to the financial ombudsman time limit

DullGreyGuy

PHK said:

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. 

In this particular case AmEx said they'd cancelled the card as they believed the customer had no intention of paying the bill rather than AML or such. What was disclosed was that they ran up the £23k balance in days of having the card plus then there is the undisclosed evidence that AmEx gave which the ombudsman says changed their mind on the need to close it without notice. 

Whilst legislation may be a reason why its given in confidence its not going to be the only one, cannot think of many things that a private individual would give the ombudsman that legally couldn't be passed on to their bank etc but the particular case highlighted that individuals as well as the FS company can given evidence in confidence.