Crazy situation - Need some advice please (financial ombudsman situation)

masonic

Interesting context. Original disputed transactions were to Binance, whereas now it seems Coinbase transactions are being mentioned. Which would be a little embarrassing if OP has not used Coinbase. But if there were Coinbase transactions, these might be relevant to investigating the behaviour being complained about.

I think I understand the underlying issue though. When looking at the transaction history, the transactions keeps changing over time. This is because the view in the app is filtered by 1W, 1M, 6M and 1Y. It looks like custom dates can be selected, but instead of viewing specific calendar months or years, the view is based on the current date +/- a number of months or years. As time goes by transactions move between these buckets, leading to an inconsistency with what was seen previously. So on 31st December you'd see each calendar year in the 1Y view, but on 31st July, you'd get 1st Aug - 31st July.

Is that more or less the substance of the complaint?

Olenna

boingy said:

The important thing to understand about the ombudsman is that those "investigators" are there to weed out the weaker complaints and to deter the stronger ones. I had a 100% set-in-stone certainty of a complaint and the "investigator" still tried to dissuade me from taking it to the proper ombudsman. I stood firm and insisted and the ombudsman agreed. The bank apologised and compensated me. 

So don't take no for an answer. Ignore everything they say and insist that the case is elevated to the proper ombudsman. Those "investigator" people are like GP receptionists where their prime role seems to be to put you off disturbing the Doc rather than actually helping you.

You're seeing something that isn't there - it's just overwhelmed and poorly run like most stuff run at arms length to the British state.

Nebulous2

I've had responsibility for investigating complaints in care, not in finance, but the principles should be similar.

We always made an effort to deal with complaints at the lowest possible level. If a front-line manager had had a disagreement with a family, we would generally have tried to get them to provide further information to the family / apologise (if appropriate) and come up with a solution the family were happy with, before moving it on to someone else. 

It is possible, and to me not unreasonable, that that is what has happened here. The situation has been discussed with the member of staff, pointing out any errors, and they have been asked to make contact to put it right. Having to do that and seeing the work it takes, is useful learning for the member of staff, to avoid getting to that place in future.  

That shouldn't have happened if someone insisted the relationship had broken down irretrievably. To some extent it is a judgment call, as to which ones are worth trying to redeem, and which aren't, but I can certainly see an explanation for why it might have been handled as it was. 

boingy

Olenna said:

boingy said:

The important thing to understand about the ombudsman is that those "investigators" are there to weed out the weaker complaints and to deter the stronger ones. I had a 100% set-in-stone certainty of a complaint and the "investigator" still tried to dissuade me from taking it to the proper ombudsman. I stood firm and insisted and the ombudsman agreed. The bank apologised and compensated me. 

So don't take no for an answer. Ignore everything they say and insist that the case is elevated to the proper ombudsman. Those "investigator" people are like GP receptionists where their prime role seems to be to put you off disturbing the Doc rather than actually helping you.

You're seeing something that isn't there - it's just overwhelmed and poorly run like most stuff run at arms length to the British state.

No, I'm not. The "investigator" told me he saw no merit in my complaint and said there was no point escalating it to the ombudsman because they would say the same. I insisted that it be escalated and the ombudsman did not say the same. She agreed with me and upheld the complaint. It took three email exchanges with the "investigator" to get it escalated. (And you clearly haven't tried to get an appointment at my GP's surgery recently...  )

Nasqueron

boingy said:

Olenna said:

boingy said:

The important thing to understand about the ombudsman is that those "investigators" are there to weed out the weaker complaints and to deter the stronger ones. I had a 100% set-in-stone certainty of a complaint and the "investigator" still tried to dissuade me from taking it to the proper ombudsman. I stood firm and insisted and the ombudsman agreed. The bank apologised and compensated me. 

So don't take no for an answer. Ignore everything they say and insist that the case is elevated to the proper ombudsman. Those "investigator" people are like GP receptionists where their prime role seems to be to put you off disturbing the Doc rather than actually helping you.

You're seeing something that isn't there - it's just overwhelmed and poorly run like most stuff run at arms length to the British state.

No, I'm not. The "investigator" told me he saw no merit in my complaint and said there was no point escalating it to the ombudsman because they would say the same. I insisted that it be escalated and the ombudsman did not say the same. She agreed with me and upheld the complaint. It took three email exchanges with the "investigator" to get it escalated. (And you clearly haven't tried to get an appointment at my GP's surgery recently...  )

boingy said:

Olenna said:

boingy said:

The important thing to understand about the ombudsman is that those "investigators" are there to weed out the weaker complaints and to deter the stronger ones. I had a 100% set-in-stone certainty of a complaint and the "investigator" still tried to dissuade me from taking it to the proper ombudsman. I stood firm and insisted and the ombudsman agreed. The bank apologised and compensated me. 

So don't take no for an answer. Ignore everything they say and insist that the case is elevated to the proper ombudsman. Those "investigator" people are like GP receptionists where their prime role seems to be to put you off disturbing the Doc rather than actually helping you.

You're seeing something that isn't there - it's just overwhelmed and poorly run like most stuff run at arms length to the British state.

No, I'm not. The "investigator" told me he saw no merit in my complaint and said there was no point escalating it to the ombudsman because they would say the same. I insisted that it be escalated and the ombudsman did not say the same. She agreed with me and upheld the complaint. It took three email exchanges with the "investigator" to get it escalated. (And you clearly haven't tried to get an appointment at my GP's surgery recently...  )

The first level staff who investigate complaints are the adjudicators, they are fully qualified to handle complaints and indeed, something like 9/10 cases where someone refers their complaint to the ombudsman after an adjudicator has ruled, the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator. You undoubtedly had a bad case, people make mistakes as we're all only human but yours is the 1/10 case where the ombudsman disagrees. The adjudicator is not there to put off complaints or deter anything

boingy

Nasqueron said:

The first level staff who investigate complaints are the adjudicators, they are fully qualified to handle complaints and indeed, something like 9/10 cases where someone refers their complaint to the ombudsman after an adjudicator has ruled, the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator. You undoubtedly had a bad case, people make mistakes as we're all only human but yours is the 1/10 case where the ombudsman disagrees. The adjudicator is not there to put off complaints or deter anything

Except that's exactly what they tried to do and their job title is definitely Investigator. I have a whole bunch of correspondence from one of them. It's in their signature and they also refer to it in various places in the body (eg "As an Investigator and as noted above, my role is...")  I had to press to even find out whether I could insist it went to an Ombudsman.

I don't know whether your 9/10 :stat is accurate but you should be wondering how many upholdable complaints do not make it through to the proper Ombudsman because the investigator succeeds in deterring the complainant. 

masonic

boingy said:

Nasqueron said:

The first level staff who investigate complaints are the adjudicators, they are fully qualified to handle complaints and indeed, something like 9/10 cases where someone refers their complaint to the ombudsman after an adjudicator has ruled, the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator. You undoubtedly had a bad case, people make mistakes as we're all only human but yours is the 1/10 case where the ombudsman disagrees. The adjudicator is not there to put off complaints or deter anything

Except that's exactly what they tried to do and their job title is definitely Investigator. I have a whole bunch of correspondence from one of them. It's in their signature and they also refer to it in various places in the body (eg "As an Investigator and as noted above, my role is...")  I had to press to even find out whether I could insist it went to an Ombudsman.

I don't know whether your 9/10 :stat is accurate but you should be wondering how many upholdable complaints do not make it through to the proper Ombudsman because the investigator succeeds in deterring the complainant. 

I've had experience of both adjudicators and investigators (there are current vacancies for the latter). I think adjudicator is the old title, with investigators popping up from around 2017. It currently seems to go apprentice > investigator > senior investigator > ombudsman > ombudsman leader. My experiences have been good all round, but there is no doubt that there are some bad apples in the service, and we've seen blow by blow accounts of some shocking cases here in the forum. The trouble is, people are very easily put off persevering when an adjudicator/investigator behaves inappropriately, and while ombudsman decisions are published, service complaints aren't. Typically when a customer expresses dissatisfaction with the conduct of an investigator, the case is passed on to another investigator or ombudsman (in an unofficial capacity). This usually avoids the need to trigger a formal ombudsman review for misunderstandings, incompetence, and personality clashes.

If someone has done an analysis of ombudsman decisions and found a 10% overturn rate, then this would suggest the total proportion of bad adjudications would be much higher as none of the ones where the customer had been fobbed off, or where they'd passed it on to someone else for further adjudication, would be included.

While I've not had any problems with the service, I can tell the difference between investigators who diligently explore all of the issues and work hard to put the customer back into the position they'd have been in, vs those who need chapter and verse of T&Cs, legislation etc quoted to them before they'll even consider there has been a service failing. Some consumers are just not able to advocate for themselves to the extent required to deal with the most difficult individuals.

Not that any of the above is necessarily relevant to the OP, who likely is going to find the FOS will not be able to deal with the subject matter of their complaint.

Section62

masonic said:

boingy said:

Nasqueron said:

The first level staff who investigate complaints are the adjudicators, they are fully qualified to handle complaints and indeed, something like 9/10 cases where someone refers their complaint to the ombudsman after an adjudicator has ruled, the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator. You undoubtedly had a bad case, people make mistakes as we're all only human but yours is the 1/10 case where the ombudsman disagrees. The adjudicator is not there to put off complaints or deter anything

Except that's exactly what they tried to do and their job title is definitely Investigator. I have a whole bunch of correspondence from one of them. It's in their signature and they also refer to it in various places in the body (eg "As an Investigator and as noted above, my role is...")  I had to press to even find out whether I could insist it went to an Ombudsman.

I don't know whether your 9/10 :stat is accurate but you should be wondering how many upholdable complaints do not make it through to the proper Ombudsman because the investigator succeeds in deterring the complainant. 

I've had experience of both adjudicators and investigators (there are current vacancies for the latter). I think adjudicator is the old title, with investigators popping up from around 2017. It currently seems to go apprentice > investigator > senior investigator > ombudsman > ombudsman leader.

....

Maybe it has changed, but a couple of years ago when I asked an investigator whether they were an adjudicator they said both roles exist - complaints were triaged and the simple ones given to investigators, more complex ones to an adjudicator.

If that was true then perhaps the then adjudicator role has become the 'senior investigator'?

masonic

Section62 said:

masonic said:

boingy said:

Nasqueron said:

The first level staff who investigate complaints are the adjudicators, they are fully qualified to handle complaints and indeed, something like 9/10 cases where someone refers their complaint to the ombudsman after an adjudicator has ruled, the ombudsman agrees with the adjudicator. You undoubtedly had a bad case, people make mistakes as we're all only human but yours is the 1/10 case where the ombudsman disagrees. The adjudicator is not there to put off complaints or deter anything

Except that's exactly what they tried to do and their job title is definitely Investigator. I have a whole bunch of correspondence from one of them. It's in their signature and they also refer to it in various places in the body (eg "As an Investigator and as noted above, my role is...")  I had to press to even find out whether I could insist it went to an Ombudsman.

I don't know whether your 9/10 :stat is accurate but you should be wondering how many upholdable complaints do not make it through to the proper Ombudsman because the investigator succeeds in deterring the complainant. 

I've had experience of both adjudicators and investigators (there are current vacancies for the latter). I think adjudicator is the old title, with investigators popping up from around 2017. It currently seems to go apprentice > investigator > senior investigator > ombudsman > ombudsman leader.

....

Maybe it has changed, but a couple of years ago when I asked an investigator whether they were an adjudicator they said both roles exist - complaints were triaged and the simple ones given to investigators, more complex ones to an adjudicator.

If that was true then perhaps the then adjudicator role has become the 'senior investigator'?

Could be.     

Ergates

boingy said:

Olenna said:

boingy said:

The important thing to understand about the ombudsman is that those "investigators" are there to weed out the weaker complaints and to deter the stronger ones. I had a 100% set-in-stone certainty of a complaint and the "investigator" still tried to dissuade me from taking it to the proper ombudsman. I stood firm and insisted and the ombudsman agreed. The bank apologised and compensated me. 

So don't take no for an answer. Ignore everything they say and insist that the case is elevated to the proper ombudsman. Those "investigator" people are like GP receptionists where their prime role seems to be to put you off disturbing the Doc rather than actually helping you.

You're seeing something that isn't there - it's just overwhelmed and poorly run like most stuff run at arms length to the British state.

No, I'm not. The "investigator" told me he saw no merit in my complaint and said there was no point escalating it to the ombudsman because they would say the same. I insisted that it be escalated and the ombudsman did not say the same. She agreed with me and upheld the complaint. It took three email exchanges with the "investigator" to get it escalated. (And you clearly haven't tried to get an appointment at my GP's surgery recently...  )

That doesn't suppport your claim that "The important thing to understand about the ombudsman is that those "investigators" are there to weed out the weaker complaints and to deter the stronger ones. " - which is suggesting that the purpose of the FOS is to prevent claims being upheld.