Financial Ombudsman - Can they disregard the FCA Rules and the Law of the Land?

Ricecrispies

Since 2023 I have been attempting to resolve an issue with a business and the FOS.

I sent a copy of my complaint letter, together with supporting documentation to the FOS.  As instructed by the FOS I included all aspects of my complaint so that the FOS would have a complete picture.

I was surprised to find shortly before the final decision, in an email from the Investigator, that only one aspect of the case had been investigated.  The Ombudsman chose which aspect he was investigating, without consultation with me, and the case was not upheld.  I complained to the FOS that the Ombudsman had overlooked a very important point.  It was not mentioned in the final decision, and that was that the business had broken the Law of the Land.

When I complained, I was told in an email from an Ombudsman Manager:-

'On 22 August you also queried 'how can a bank accept a payment into a dissolved company's bank account?  Is this unlawful?' so it is evident you had some concerns here.  But this was a few lines in the context of several pages of submissions about the issue we were looking into and at no point did you ask us to raise this as a further complaint.'

In the final decision the Ombudsman mentioned two minor points I could bring again as separate complaints.  As the Ombudsman had also overlooked two major points I added them and submitted my complaints, each individually.  I thought the Ombudsman must not know the law and that was the reason he had not mentioned it in his final decision.

The new Investigator would not accept the two major points that the Ombudsman had originally omitted.  The Investigator said that the law had been 'considered'.  She had asked the Ombudsman, in person, for clarity after reading his final decision.  I couldn't believe this so read the FCA rules.  I found the Ombudsman had failed to follow the FCA rules, and the Law of the Land.

Amongst other FCA rules the Ombudsman did not comply with:-

DISP 3.5.3G06/04/2008
Where two or more complaints from one complainant relate to connected circumstances, the Ombudsman may investigate them together, but will issue separate provisional assessments and determinations in respect of each respondent.

The second major complaint was a recorded telephone conversation with the business informing me that there were no restrictions on the account, when in fact, I later found that the company had been struck off.  The FOS have the dated recording.  This incorrect information resulted in a large payment into the account which the Treasury subsequently took.

I have spent hours going through the FOS complaints procedure (twice) and eventually contacting the Independent Assessor.  The Independent Assessor assessed the facts immediately and wrote to the FOS asking them to make clear my 'legitimate enquiries'.  She also told me that the business had broken the Law of the Land.  I had asked the FOS about the law on a few occasions but they never answered my question.  The Independent Assessor has limited powers so she is unable to do any more.

The new Investigator says:-

'The final decision covered as follows:-

Barclays wrongly advising you that an account in the name of the limited company could be retained when the limited company was due to struck off the companies register.

-  As a result, the account was closed, and legal costs were incurred to reinstate the company and reclaim monies from the Treasury.

As these points and their associated concerns have already been addressed, we will not comment further.  That includes any costs involved in the account closure.  The Ombudsman has addressed the banks actions following the account closure in his decision and therefore I'm not in a position to comment further on this, be that the restoration of the company and/or any other associated costs.'

I fail to see how advice given; accepting money into a dissolved bank account; wrong facts given in a telephone conversation; are associated to 'advice given'.  These are three totally different mistakes made by the business.  I do not know what is meant by 'the Ombudsman has addressed the banks actions following the account closure' as there was no action from the bank following the account closure.

I am concerned.  Of course I would like my case to be investigated, it cost 5 figures to restore the company.  My concern now is that there appears to be a cover up within the FOS.  I have given the FOS all the facts, including the laws that have been broken and the contradictions in emails.  They reply, but ignore my questions.  I have given them every opportunity to respond to my very clear emails which have been answered by a number of different people.  They all fail to give me answers, or they say that they are unable to comment.  Unaccountability leads to a position of complacent, unchallenged supremacy.

My complaint was regarding the actions of a bank.  The Ombudsman is funded by banks.  I wonder if I am just unlucky or has anyone else had a similar experience?

Grumpy_chap

Ricecrispies said:

Since 2023 I have been attempting to resolve an issue with a business and the FOS.

I sent a copy of my complaint letter, together with supporting documentation to the FOS.  As instructed by the FOS I included all aspects of my complaint so that the FOS would have a complete picture.

I was surprised to find shortly before the final decision, in an email from the Investigator, that only one aspect of the case had been investigated.  The Ombudsman chose which aspect he was investigating, without consultation with me, and the case was not upheld.  I complained to the FOS that the Ombudsman had overlooked a very important point.  It was not mentioned in the final decision, and that was that the business had broken the Law of the Land.

When I complained, I was told in an email from an Ombudsman Manager:-

'On 22 August you also queried 'how can a bank accept a payment into a dissolved company's bank account?  Is this unlawful?' so it is evident you had some concerns here.  But this was a few lines in the context of several pages of submissions about the issue we were looking into and at no point did you ask us to raise this as a further complaint.'

In the final decision the Ombudsman mentioned two minor points I could bring again as separate complaints.  As the Ombudsman had also overlooked two major points I added them and submitted my complaints, each individually.  I thought the Ombudsman must not know the law and that was the reason he had not mentioned it in his final decision.

The new Investigator would not accept the two major points that the Ombudsman had originally omitted.  The Investigator said that the law had been 'considered'.  She had asked the Ombudsman, in person, for clarity after reading his final decision.  I couldn't believe this so read the FCA rules.  I found the Ombudsman had failed to follow the FCA rules, and the Law of the Land.

Amongst other FCA rules the Ombudsman did not comply with:-

DISP 3.5.3G06/04/2008
Where two or more complaints from one complainant relate to connected circumstances, the Ombudsman may investigate them together, but will issue separate provisional assessments and determinations in respect of each respondent.

The second major complaint was a recorded telephone conversation with the business informing me that there were no restrictions on the account, when in fact, I later found that the company had been struck off.  The FOS have the dated recording.  This incorrect information resulted in a large payment into the account which the Treasury subsequently took.

I have spent hours going through the FOS complaints procedure (twice) and eventually contacting the Independent Assessor.  The Independent Assessor assessed the facts immediately and wrote to the FOS asking them to make clear my 'legitimate enquiries'.  She also told me that the business had broken the Law of the Land.  I had asked the FOS about the law on a few occasions but they never answered my question.  The Independent Assessor has limited powers so she is unable to do any more.

The new Investigator says:-

'The final decision covered as follows:-

Barclays wrongly advising you that an account in the name of the limited company could be retained when the limited company was due to struck off the companies register.

-  As a result, the account was closed, and legal costs were incurred to reinstate the company and reclaim monies from the Treasury.

As these points and their associated concerns have already been addressed, we will not comment further.  That includes any costs involved in the account closure.  The Ombudsman has addressed the banks actions following the account closure in his decision and therefore I'm not in a position to comment further on this, be that the restoration of the company and/or any other associated costs.'

I fail to see how advice given; accepting money into a dissolved bank account; wrong facts given in a telephone conversation; are associated to 'advice given'.  These are three totally different mistakes made by the business.  I do not know what is meant by 'the Ombudsman has addressed the banks actions following the account closure' as there was no action from the bank following the account closure.

I am concerned.  Of course I would like my case to be investigated, it cost 5 figures to restore the company.  My concern now is that there appears to be a cover up within the FOS.  I have given the FOS all the facts, including the laws that have been broken and the contradictions in emails.  They reply, but ignore my questions.  I have given them every opportunity to respond to my very clear emails which have been answered by a number of different people.  They all fail to give me answers, or they say that they are unable to comment.  Unaccountability leads to a position of complacent, unchallenged supremacy.

My complaint was regarding the actions of a bank.  The Ombudsman is funded by banks.  I wonder if I am just unlucky or has anyone else had a similar experience?

Are you the customer who inadvertently paid money to the defunct business?
Are you the Shareholder / Director of the defunct business into whom's account the money was transferred?
Why was the defunct business receiving funds?

PHK

This doesn't seem to be a consumer rights issue?

You'd be better seeking legal advice, you have to remember the FOS was setup by parliament to act as an informal dispute resolution service. Your concerns seem to be more suited to a court. 

fatbelly

You can ask a court to rule on an issue after FOS has considered it.

You can't do it the other way around

born_again

Ombudsman is not a court of law. They will be looking to see if the bank has followed correct procedures, they have to work to.

So they look at any of their rules being broken.

A bank account is never fully closed, they can be reopened by payments being made to them or a CPA requesting funds from them.

If you made the payment to the company, then all the bank can do is request funds back. If there is no reply to that request, then there is nothing they can do. It is user error.

Agree with @PHK this is not consumer rights. It is a legal matter. So would be better at some where like legal beagles

outtatune

What makes you think that it's unlawful for a bank to accept money into the account of a dissolved company?

And you keep on repeating the unusual phrase 'Law of the Land'. Do you just mean 'the law'? Or is the 'Law of the Land' some particular kind of law that's different from English & Welsh law?

HappyHarry

OP, would you be able to post the Ombudsman's decision reference (DRN-*******) so we can take a look and comment more appropriately?

MyRealNameToo

Ricecrispies said:

But this was a few lines in the context of several pages of submissions about the issue we were looking into and at no point did you ask us to raise this as a further complaint.'

This is a major part of your problem, you've waffled, included a lot of unnecessary details and descended into long detouring rants meaning some poor investigator has to try to work out from the pages of words you send what are actually the salient points. 

If it's more than a page in length, it's too long. If it's more than half a page you should be looking to cut it back. 


Secondly, to answer your other question, no the FOS doesnt have to blindly follow the law. Search for S75 decisions and you will often see them explain that they are legally obliged to find fair decisions and their decisions may well be different to what a court of law would decide.

Ricecrispies said:
My complaint was regarding the actions of a bank.  The Ombudsman is funded by banks.  I wonder if I am just unlucky or has anyone else had a similar experience?

Ombudsman has to be funded by someone and so they are funded by financial services companies but they have a legal duty and so are far from biased towards the FS companies... most would argue because they can diverge from what the law strictly states that they are much more customer leaning. 

Plenty of people who write dozens of pages of complaint will be in the same boat but it was a self inflicted problem

Agree with the others that the DRN reference would be useful, I assume its https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5244681.pdf

TELLIT01

I wouldn't worry about the terminology used, such as 'considered'.  The way these terms are used in legal communication isn't necessarily the way they are used in normal speech.

Alderbank

outtatune said:

What makes you think that it's unlawful for a bank to accept money into the account of a dissolved company?

And you keep on repeating the unusual phrase 'Law of the Land'. Do you just mean 'the law'? Or is the 'Law of the Land' some particular kind of law that's different from English & Welsh law?

The expression Law of the Land (note the capitals) is widely used by Freemen on the Land.

That movement asserts that their rights under Magna Carta state that individuals are only bound by laws they consent to and are thus exempt from legal obligations like paying Council Tax or complying with statutes.

user1977

Yes, it's when somebody starts banging on about Admiralty Law that you really need to slowly back away from them...