Ombudsman

Chezzgol

I was wondering if anyone had a similar experience and if so what their outcome was, or if they took it further?

I referred an issue to the Financial Ombudsman, initially it was dealt with an investigator and then progressed to an Ombudsman as I did not agree with the result from the investigator.  Both the investigator and Ombudsman appear to have overlooked vital evidence in my claim.  There are points stated in the provisional decision that I have received, then contradicted themselves within the same documentation?  
Whilst I am waiting for the Ombudsman to respond to my reply, has anyone any pointers? Thanks

eskbanker

If you've already had a decision from the ombudsman and have reverted with queries, it's perhaps too late in the process to be seeking guidance, in that the ombudsman will presumably issue their final decision shortly, and once they do, that's the end of the line:

If you don't want to accept the ombudsman's decision, you don't have to. But it does mean our involvement has come to an end and the business doesn't need to do anything. You may still be able to take legal action against the business, but we won't be involved in this. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect

As it says, you do have the option of legal action but FOS is generally regarded as being more sympathetic to consumers than a court will be, given that they're required to consider broader issues of fairness rather than solely the letter of the law.

Obviously complaints to financial institutions, and then FOS, vary hugely, so other complainants' experiences are unlikely to be directly relevant to yours, but you might choose to share details of it on here if you're looking for informed guidance before it's too late....

amyfairweather

The investigators are there just to give an opinion and try to prevent the service being overwhelmed.

That much has become evident from the Santander “free forever” controversy.

The problem is they word it as if that opinion is gospel with only a footnote sentence that you can send it to an actual ombudsman.  In other words, what you actually wanted in the first place.  By that point though, many just give up thinking that they’ve lost, whereas in reality, the process hasn’t even begun.

eskbanker

amyfairweather said:

The investigators are there just to give an opinion and try to prevent the service being overwhelmed.

That much has become evident from the Santander “free forever” controversy.

The problem is they word it as if that opinion is gospel with only a footnote sentence that you can send it to an actual ombudsman.  In other words, what you actually wanted in the first place.  By that point though, many just give up thinking that they’ve lost, whereas in reality, the process hasn’t even begun.

Not sure that's a fair representation - the explanatory FOS page linked above is clear about their process and the fact that complaints can be escalated from the initial adjudication.  It's hardly uncommon for organisations to use a hierarchical escalation process rather than everything always being dealt with from the get-go by the most senior staff as a matter of course.

However, none of this is relevant to OP, who is unhappy with the conclusions of the ombudsman after escalation....