FOS vs Small Claims

xlnc99

Again i repeat it - Although the decision is not legally binding, it can be used in court as evidence. So the bank or whoever will say the FOS already decided aginst the consumer. Now the judge has to be 'impartial' but he is human so clearly will be influenced by that decision.

As for the funding model - its simple. They get moeny from the business whom the complaint is made, quite a big chunk of money per case. In return they help them out but not upholding complaints against them (unless of course tehy are too serious to ignore). Win win for everyone apart from the consumers who get robbed by the FOS and also in court because they know the other party will use the fake FOS decision against them.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097999#Comment_82097999

Do you have any actual evidence that any judges have been influenced by FOS cases?

And if you're trying to assert that the FOS funding model leads to them favouring financial institutions then that just sounds like another unfounded allegation - bear in mind that there's no incentive for FOS to do so, in that the institutions have no choice in paying the case fees, i.e. it's not as if there's any motivation for FOS to 'help them out'.

xlnc99

there is vey little cases about small claims that you can find online so its hard to find 'evidence' and also most consumer dont even go to court after a FOS rejection because they dont know their rights or probabbly dont bother knowing the FOS already rejected it. So i am not saying this from a evidence point of view, rather its a common senes and logical point of view.

Just when the a lawyer in court says something to the JURY that is not allowed to try and influence them and a judge orders them to forget that as last comment - but they wont, its already influenced them. Same as a judge - he is human so a FOS decision will hold weight one way or another.

Not unfounded, completley founded and although its a working theory - the maths and the stats add up. Again my eplanation is all in my thread

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82098014#Comment_82098014

So you're effectively accepting that you're just making it all up then…

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097974#Comment_82097974

No, which is why the recommendation is always to go to the FOS first because you can go to court after if you wanted to.

I only know a single case however that went to court and won after losing in the FOS, I know many more where they also lost in court. Its a relatively small number overall however as most accept they arent in the right before continuing on to the courts.

We'll ignore the edge cases where the consumer won but went to court anyway because the FOS limits were below their losses.

xlnc99

@eskbanker - You are funny i grant you that

@MyRealNameToo - can you share these cases, it would be good to read and investigate beacuse i have found little ot nothing about small claims after FOS decisions

xlnc99

BTW - my experience with FOS was not for me, i was doing it on behalf of someone vunerable. I can tell you right now, they investigator behaved like she did not have a clue..

Thsi is not sour grapes, i have no issue in rejection or accepting the decision and it did not personally effect me so i was impartial but i do have a relationship with the person who the complaint was for.

My issue was not that the complaint was not upheld, i explained clearly to the investigator that you have not given me reasons why and you hae not even investigated the actual complaint i set out, you have investigated something different. Give me reasons why then i can make an informed decision to accept or reject. Her only comeback was ,i looked at all the evidence and made my decision based on that. The only same line repeating - did not answer any of my questions, such as did you even listen to the call recordings? She did not answer as i told her i would send them to her but she never responsded. Two or three times i asked before giving up and making a complaint. Is it that difficult to get answers and transparency? That is all i asked for

Furthermore, go to REED website, they are recuriting for FOS staff - they qualifactions you need to become an investigator are a joke, my nephew can apply and hes just out of school

I would love to hear any positive stories about FOS - but i dont from aynone

Nasqueron

People give bad reviews on line far more than good reviews, this is a fact - research shows typically 5-10% of satisfied customers leave a review, but 30-40% of unsatisfied ones do. If a case is referred to the FOS and gets an approval, there is a 1 in 20 - 1 in 10 chance of them posting a good review; if they reject, it's 3 in 10-4 in 10 chance of giving a bad review. This is probably even more weighted towards the bad with something like the FOS unlike an online store sending a review request. I would suspect it's more like 5% good review, 40% bad

You need to understand most people are not financially savvy nor do they understand complex financial law. They also do not understand how finances work, how the FOS operates or even what they cover.

If someone sees Martin banging on about packaged bank accounts and thinks they'll get hundreds or thousands in refunds and the case is time barred in law under the 6/3 year rules, the FOS won't change that, so the person gives them a bad review.

Without looking at every case, every type of case/which area it falls in, and what the reject reasons are or even if it's something they are even allowed to look at, talking about good or bad reviews or uphold rates is meaningless.

If you go to court, the firm will rock up with a good lawyer and you will have to convince a judge that the firm has done wrong with case law and arguments that support your view.

Anyone with sense will complain to the firm, then use the FOS as it's free for them, use the ombudsman if they don't agree with the first line and then consider if court is worth it - but if 2 independent specialist reviewers say no, going to court seems like a waste of time to me.

xlnc99

Fair assement i agree with people leaving bad reviews with bad experiences in general and people who hae positive outcomes go about and live their life without sharing outcomes or posting about them - This is very true and holds weight all complaints.

I also agree with your assesment of people not knowing the complex nature of even knowledge to counteract FOS, financial issues, verdicts etc.

THE FOS have stated themselves the difference with them and court - they are not allowed to cross examine like you an do in court (i read this in one their findings). Also, when it comes to disclousure stage you will get more information as ordered by the court then companies give you regatding the complaint and SAR.

But answer me one question - Can you tell me exactly what qualifations the FOS who are making these decisions impacting peoples life have? We know the qualifactions a judge or solicitors have and they are legally binding.

I have yet to find what exact qualifactions the FOS investigators have and based on my very small and little research it seems anyone can apply for a job to investigate

dunstonh

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097212#Comment_82097212

You better not take the legal route with that attitude. You will come off in a bad light in front of the judge.

The fuzz is the obvious option. No cost to use for the consumer. No risk involved. And in the vast majority of cases, they get the right outcome. If you don't like their response, you still have access to the courts. At least you're going in with the knowledge that you've been declined by the FOS and the probability is the courts won't rule in your favour.

 i dont believe FOS is a viable option based on past experience.

Most people go through life without ever having to raise a complaint with the FOS. You appear to have done it at least once previously and I'm wondering whether to do another one. Either you are very unlucky, or perhaps you are the problem.

Can you tell me exactly what qualifations the FOS who are making these decisions impacting peoples life have?

They range from virtually none to being barristers. However, qualifications are largely irrelevant because the FOS applies FCA rules and guidelines and operates on fairness to the consumer. By default, that gives them a bias against financial firms. Albeit a small one.

As it happens, the FOS is about to be neutered somewhat because of consumer abuse and the FOS itself starting to go outside of its remit so it's been reigned back in again.

it seems anyone can apply for a job to investigate

Which is entirely logical. They go through a six-month Investigator Academy before they take on their own caseload

Applicants typically need demonstrable strengths in:

• Clear written and verbal communication, including explaining decisions in plain English.
• Customer-facing experience, particularly handling difficult or upset customers.
• Analytical problem-solving and sound, evidence-based judgement.
• Ability to assess substantial, sometimes conflicting, information and reach fair, reasoned outcomes.
• Organisation, resilience, attention to detail, and the ability to meet deadlines and workload targets.

there are also different tiers of investigators. the newer ones will not handle the more complicated cases. Specialist investigators do require past experience or qualifications in the area that they are dealing with. and the ombudsman themselves typically have a legal or regulatory background.