We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
FOS vs Small Claims
Comments
-
I have wondered about that point.
Life in the slow lane0 -
Its been done to death in the other thread… no, cash convertors scheme is a conditional sale agreement and so not regulated by the FCA whereas pawnbroking is a credit agreement and so in scope of the FCA and therefore the FOS
You had the option to turn off the hold music and no, neither of them were upheld but did cost nearly a grand in FOS fees
3 -
I have looked at the Cash Converters website.
They seem to offer
- Pawnbroking, regulated by the FCA
- Log book loans, as a credit broker
- Buyback, avoids the need for a loan
- Sell your items
I strongly suspect the Buy Back is not regulated.
0 -
Oh dear, you really don't understand what profit means, do you?
Fortunately they publish their annual audited accounts, which explain both their revenue and costs in detail, so you can peruse them to your heart's content in order to learn some meaningful facts rather than basing conspiracy theories on TrustPilot reviews…
The reason it's free to consumers is because that's how it's been legally constituted, and of course nobody would try to argue that 'free to consumers' means that there is no cost involved in its provision, so there's no subterfuge here in the well-known fact that costs are borne by the financial institutions, as that's how it's designed to work!
0 -
The problem here - you are all buying into their 'free service' nonsense. I have explained clearly its not free, its merley a cover up. I have provided all the evidence and backed up everything with Facts and sources, even from their own website.
The point i am making is simple - I would suggest bypassing the FOS and go stragiht to no claims only if its smaller then 10k, which is basically a tiny cost and give you more chance of winning imo. Remember the FOS is not legally binding, court is.
The only problem is the FOS has some leeway for cases over 6 years and the court dont, so there are small advantages with the FOS but the disadvantages outweight these heavily
1 -
But the court will rubber stamp a FOS Ombudsman decision without hearing the case using form N322A as laid out in the Financial Services and Markets Act thus making it a court order and opening up the other avenues of recovery even though a court wouldnt have necessarily come to the same conclusion.
0 -
You seem to have some sort of comprehension issue with the word 'free'!
Everyone knows it's free for consumers to use the service.
Everyone knows that the cost is borne by the financial institutions.
It's not difficult to understand?
Do you believe there's no cost involved in running the NHS because you don't have to pay at the point of using it?
P.S. FOS ombudsman decisions (as opposed to adjudicator ones) are legally binding:
If a consumer accepts our final decision, then the decision is legally binding on the financial business
0 -
I think we're talking about two slightly different things. My understanding is that N322A is for when you win at FOS, accept the Ombudsman's decision and the company doesn't pay or comply, so you can get the court to enforce it.
What I'm talking about is the other way around — if FOS rejects your complaint and you then decide to take the company to court yourself. Surely the FOS rejection doesn't automatically become a court decision against you? The company could obviously mention it and use it to support their argument, but the judge would still have to consider the actual legal claim and evidence for themselves. That's the bit I'm more concerned about — whether losing at FOS could realistically put you at a disadvantage if you later went to court.
1 -
NHS is a perfect example. They have their own faults and you dont think tehy are doing their back alley, handshake contract deals on the side - but that is ok because we get a service and the service benefits us. I can therefore overlook the bad and immoral side to that. FOS does not benefit us as again, i go back to only 30% of cases are upheld.
As your legally binding - you are trying to confuse people with what you are saying, without giving the full context. Its only legally binding IF you accept their decision. If you are planning on taking the third party to court - then clearly you would not be accepting the decision of the FOS would you? Therefore, it is not legally binding So, that comment is irrelevant.
0 -
Your opinion about either organisation's conduct is irrelevant - the point is about the funding model.
And you seem to be arguing against yourself on the issue of legally binding - the consumer has all the power and can accept a favourable outcome that'll be legally binding on the financial business, or can choose not to accept it and take the matter to court if they prefer.
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456K Spending & Discounts
- 248K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.9K Life & Family
- 263.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards