When Banks don't Act on FOS Findings

I still don't think you should be demanding this is escalated to an Ombudsman. You should demand the Adjudicator sets a hard deadline for TSB to formally accept of reject the decision, after which time they will have been deemed to reject it and it will be passed to an Ombudsman and the subsequent decision will become enforceable through the small claims court, using bailiffs if necessary.

You might also ask the Adjudicator to advise on the best wording for a Notice Before Action you are planning to draft in anticipation of this enforceable decision.

Nobody seems to be considering that the Ombudsman might equally increase the amount awarded.

Cotta wrote: »

I think the adjudicator has outlined an Ombudsman verdict could be less favourable than their own offer. This was even made clear to me when I was reluctant to accept the offer.

It could be less favourable, identical, or more favourable. All that can be summised from the Adjudicator's focus on 'less favourable' is that she wants to discourage you. That could be for altruistic reasons (aside: :rotfl:), or she could be covering her behind. It's worth noting the FOS will look very bad if this gets into the public domain, and Ombudsman decisions are all published. One way to make it less bad is to come down on TSB like a ton of bricks so that other firms aren't encouraged to frustrate the process at every opportunity in future, like TSB has done in this case.

But for an Ombudsman to be correctly primed, it needs to be TSB who causes this case to darken their doorstep.

I'm keen not to go to the Ombudsman, however this weekend we're moving into week 5, how much harder does the deadline need to be?

There is no deadline at the moment, based on what you've shared with us. That's the problem - complete incompetence being taken full advantage of by TSB.

Ridiculous!

I'd reply to the email stating that closure is premature given that:

1. The FOS adjudicator verbally advised that TSB were unlikely to accept her decision.
2. No payment has yet been received.

Given the nature of everything that's gone before, this complaint can only be closed off once actual resolution has been achieved, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to insist that the complaint is kept open until it's actually sorted out one way or another.

While doing so, I'd also take the opportunity of asking FOS for a definitive statement on how long they have given TSB to make payment, as it's not in anyone's interests to let this drag on even further....

Cotta wrote: »

I'm going to draft an email shortly, the only thing I can think of is that my case has breached an SLA.

On the subject of the FOS deadline I'm worried that something vague has been sent by FOS that as Masonic indicated TSB are taking advantage of. I cannot imagine a deadline would have been above 4 weeks.

I agree with masonic that there is precious little evidence that the adjudicator formally advised TSB of a deadline in writing (unless you know differently?), and is prepared to just wait and see, hence her vague statements about mid February.

When her manager said last week that another week's grace would be appropriate, it now seems more likely that this meant that FOS would wait another week rather than actually writing to TSB formally advising that the compliance deadline had been extended to (say) 16 January.

I can't see how this is sustainable and so do feel that it's time to push FOS for a specific timetable (to be imposed in writing on TSB) as to how this will be resolved, as opposed to their apparent expectation that it'll just be allowed to rumble on indefinitely.

On thinking further about this, another option could be a simple email along the lines of:

Dear adjudicator,

I note your statement regarding closure of my complaint and understand this to mean that you no longer intend to take any further action on it, despite the fact that it remains unresolved.

Therefore, please advise me of the name and contact details of your manager, who I believe is aware of the circumstances of this case and the need for further action.

Regards,

Cotta