Santander free forever bank account changes

GeoffTF

amyfairweather said:

So, it's yet another 'investigator' (aka Santander fanboy ) response.

What is the Facebook fantasy here? What happens when you apply for a job at the FOS? Is the first question you are asked "What is the fairest and best business bank in the UK?" Do you immediately get shown the door if you fail to answer "Santander!"

Lightning360

I still don't understand how people are fighting it. The terms and conditions you agreed to are really clear about it 

Smurrfmo

If you're in a dispute with another party and you can't seem to work things out, don't take the law into your own hands; you take 'em to court.

Section62

Lightning360 said:

I still don't understand how people are fighting it. The terms and conditions you agreed to are really clear about it 

It isn't just the letter of the T&C's, whether they are being applied fairly is also relevant.  The FOS investigator(s) make this point.  Fairness is subjective - the investigator(s) have expressed their view on what is fair, other people will have different ideas about fairness.  It may be that an Ombudsman (or court) will have the view that promising one thing, then doing another (even if allowed by the T&C's) is not fair.

Since it costs the complainant nothing but a few minutes to ask for a final decision from the Ombudsman, there's no good reason not to.

Renfrewman

Section62 said:

Lightning360 said:

I still don't understand how people are fighting it. The terms and conditions you agreed to are really clear about it 

It isn't just the letter of the T&C's, whether they are being applied fairly is also relevant.  The FOS investigator(s) make this point.  Fairness is subjective - the investigator(s) have expressed their view on what is fair, other people will have different ideas about fairness.  It may be that an Ombudsman (or court) will have the view that promising one thing, then doing another (even if allowed by the T&C's) is not fair.

Since it costs the complainant nothing but a few minutes to ask for a final decision from the Ombudsman, there's no good reason not to.

No good reason? That's not for you to decide for someone else. If someone decides not to take it further that's for them to decide not you. You have no clue about any other individuals personal circumstances.

Section62

Renfrewman said:

Section62 said:

Lightning360 said:

I still don't understand how people are fighting it. The terms and conditions you agreed to are really clear about it 

It isn't just the letter of the T&C's, whether they are being applied fairly is also relevant.  The FOS investigator(s) make this point.  Fairness is subjective - the investigator(s) have expressed their view on what is fair, other people will have different ideas about fairness.  It may be that an Ombudsman (or court) will have the view that promising one thing, then doing another (even if allowed by the T&C's) is not fair.

Since it costs the complainant nothing but a few minutes to ask for a final decision from the Ombudsman, there's no good reason not to.

No good reason? That's not for you to decide for someone else. If someone decides not to take it further that's for them to decide not you. You have no clue about any other individuals personal circumstances.

"there's no good reason not to" in the context of Lightning360's "I still don't understand how people are fighting it."

However - if you consider it to be necessary - I'm happy to explicitly add "For those who want to", rather than believing people will use common sense and take that as implied from the context.

Of course nobody has to take their case further if they don't want to.  Though they should probably do so with some understanding how FOS operates, and that an investigator opinion is not a final decision. Though that too is entirely up to the complainant.

amyfairweather

Renfrewman said:

Section62 said:

Lightning360 said:

I still don't understand how people are fighting it. The terms and conditions you agreed to are really clear about it 

It isn't just the letter of the T&C's, whether they are being applied fairly is also relevant.  The FOS investigator(s) make this point.  Fairness is subjective - the investigator(s) have expressed their view on what is fair, other people will have different ideas about fairness.  It may be that an Ombudsman (or court) will have the view that promising one thing, then doing another (even if allowed by the T&C's) is not fair.

Since it costs the complainant nothing but a few minutes to ask for a final decision from the Ombudsman, there's no good reason not to.

No good reason? That's not for you to decide for someone else. If someone decides not to take it further that's for them to decide not you. You have no clue about any other individuals personal circumstances.

Why the attitude/aggression?

Do you fear an Ombudsman may take a different viewpoint than the junior investigator?  If so, why?

Section62 is correct, the complainant has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

GeoffTF

Section62 said:

Though they should probably do so with some understanding how FOS operates, and that an investigator opinion is not a final decision.

The FOS says that there are special casework processes for dealing with a large number of complaints about the same issue (but does not go into further detail). Individual caseworkers are unlikely to be giving their individual opinions. There will be a team dealing with this, and it will not be all Indians with no chiefs.

Section62

GeoffTF said:

Section62 said:

Though they should probably do so with some understanding how FOS operates, and that an investigator opinion is not a final decision.

The FOS says that there are special casework processes for dealing with a large number of complaints about the same issue (but does not go into further detail). Individual caseworkers are unlikely to be giving their individual opinions. There will be a team dealing with this, and it will not be all Indians with no chiefs.

Agreed, although that doesn't change the fact an investigator opinion is not a final decision.

born_again

amyfairweather said:

Why the attitude/aggression?

Do you fear an Ombudsman may take a different viewpoint than the junior investigator?  If so, why?

Section62 is correct, the complainant has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Yet you say amyfairweather said:

So, it's yet another 'investigator' (aka Santander fanboy ) response.

You seem to be unable to accept, that any response from FOS that does not suit your view point has to be a "Fanboy" 
Sadly that says a lot about you 🤷‍♀️

Only thing that I pick out of the FOS reply is in the background section where they mention taken out in 2006 with Santander. Which is wrong. As it was with Abbey National.
Still it is only a small point & does not alter the outcome.