RE:- Channel 4 'Financial Ombudsman Service' Programme 12th March

hannahp · 4 July 2018 at 10:24AM

Following on from this programme:- Channel 4 'Financial Ombudsman Service' Programme 12th March 2018

(Quote)
UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION AT FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN FINDS STAFF WITH SEVERE LACK OF TRAINING JUDGING CASES MEANING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MAY NEED TO BE RE-EXAMINED

I wonder does anyone know if the F.O.S can be asked to look at any cases again or if indeed there are any further developments about this 'issue'?

I believe (not wishing to go in to detail) that I have had a wrong decision from the Ombudsman service and until I saw this programme felt that I had reached the end of the road regarding my PPI claim.

The following quote from channel 4 News release at the time says it all for me:-

Dispatches understands that this added pressure could have led to the bank being wrongly favoured. Our undercover reporter asked the investigator she was shadowing about it:

Undercover reporter: “So - like - if you’re under pressure, you’re more likely to meet your targets if you’re not upholding them?”

Investigator: “Yeah, because you just need to make one call to the consumer, rather than trying to persuade the business, which is actually a lot harder.”

Our whistleblowers told us they had had similar experiences:
Insider 2: “I have done it - had cases where I’ve not done full thorough checks.”

Insider 1: “I’m not proud to admit but I’ve done it myself – just taken a chance and just slung stuff through, with any old decision.
“Colleagues also admit they ‘fling it through’. This usually means in favour of the bank. It just makes it easier.”

Anyone with any information on the way forward for people like me who believe they have been affected by this I would be most grateful.

Nasqueron · 4 July 2018 at 10:35AM

If you feel your case was wrongly rejected by an adjudicator you are given 6 months to refer the case to the actual ombudsman, if you did that, your case result will be fine. If you didn't, what evidence do you have your case was affected?

hannahp · 4 July 2018 at 10:57AM

Nasqueron wrote: »

If you feel your case was wrongly rejected by an adjudicator you are given 6 months to refer the case to the actual ombudsman, if you did that, your case result will be fine. If you didn't, what evidence do you have your case was affected?

Hi thank you for your reply

I did have it looked at by the actual ombudsman, Hence my belief i had hit the end of the road

until I saw the programme about the FOS and the subsequent Parliament mention (I believe)

My case was originally upheld by the adjudicator and I was definitively told that if the Bank provided no further evidence for their case (which was unlikely at the late stage we were at) then the decision would not be overturned!
They did not provide any more evidence to my knowledge (I did ask?) and then it was overturned!:(

I had several key points (all of which I researched first on here and elsewhere) for my feeling the PPI had been miss sold and It would be too complicated for me at this point to put all of the relevant points on the forum and to be honest it has been a very trying time for me due to family commitments.

So I genuinely wondered if any one had further info on the Ombudsman and Parliament regarding the findings of the channel 4 programme that might help other people like me, rather than to debate my personal situation.

[Deleted User] · 4 July 2018 at 11:11AM

"Investigations" by TV shows often go nowhere I'm afraid because they are often just sensationalist journalism.

The fact that the programme was broadcast four months ago with no subsequent press coverage leads me to believe you are headed up a blind alley.

If, as you say, an actual Ombudsman has already looked at your case and not found in your favour, there is nowhere left for you to go. Ombudsmen are qualified and well trained individuals and even adjudicators deal perfectly well with run-of-the-mill cases. There is nothing in what you say which indicates you might be able to get your case re-opened yet again.

If the Bank never contested your case, how is it that an initial uphold was overturned? It sounds to me like your only complaint can be that FOS didn't fully explain why your case was finally rejected. However, I suspect you may have left essential information out of your posts which would make any such complaint invalid.

dunstonh · 4 July 2018 at 11:25AM

The Ch 4 programme was flawed. As is quite often the case with these types of programme. The conversations are often steered and what is shown is edited. And seeing as the FOS uphold over half of all complaints referred (with some firms at over 90%), there is no evidence of any widespread issues.

No service is infallible. However, anybody can appeal an initial adjudicator decision. Many do. However, very few adjudicator decisions are overruled. Its about 10% and most of those are in more advanced areas and not simple things like PPI.

It should also be noted that some of those appeals come from the financial firm as both sides have the right of appeal.

I am aware of a few cases where individual FOS staff members did have a bias but they were both against the financial firms and they had all their decisions reviewed (although for most it was too late as unlike consumers, banks couldnt go back and ask for the money back).

I wonder does anyone know if the F.O.S can be asked to look at any cases again or if indeed there are any further developments about this 'issue'?

No. The programme didnt lead to anything. Plus, the programme was about the lower skilled, mass employed adjudicators. Not the ombudsman. You had your case reviewed by an ombudsman.

For a bank to refer a PPI complaint would suggest that there was a flaw in the decision as most banks will accept the adjudicator decision in respect of PPI cases. Its only when the decision is against the normal expectation that they refer to an ombudsman.

hannahp · 4 July 2018 at 11:40AM

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

If the Bank never contested your case, how is it that an initial uphold was overturned? It sounds to me like your only complaint can be that FOS didn't fully explain why your case was finally rejected. However, I suspect you may have left essential information out of your posts which would make any such complaint invalid.

RE:- "If the Bank never contested your case, how is it that an initial uphold was overturned?"

The bank provided no more details and yet it was overturned.

There are lots of details I left out

as I explained why in my post/s

One detail if it makes any difference ? Is that we had the actual mortgage amount of £30,000 in the bank in cash and we both had full time jobs,so could afford a mortgage, but felt that we would keep the £30.000 as rainy day money, It is my contention defaulting on a mortgage would count as 'rainy day' ! and render PPI pointless, but we weren't told it was optional and therefore took it!

It was the ombudsman opinion that that this money was earmarked for other purposes ? and yet we did actually use the money to pay off the mortgage a few years later

So along with other factors the process was (in my opinion) potentially flawed, hence my interest in the Channel 4 programme.

I agree it can be 'sensationalist journalism' and that 'The fact that the programme was broadcast four months ago with no subsequent press coverage leads me to believe you are headed up a blind alley.'

However many things come to light often years after someone first raises the alarm a good example of this would be "brain injuries in American football players" the "Karen Silkwood" case another, so lack of progress doesn't necessarily mean no problem.

So thanks, for reply I'm just hoping (rightly or wrongly) that someone may have more info on the situation, rather than my personal situation

foxtrotoscar_2 · 4 July 2018 at 12:29PM

I have enough money in my bank accounts to rebuild our home if it is totally destroyed. Does that then render my Buildings insurance as being missold. I suggest it does not.

Placida · 4 July 2018 at 12:47PM

Didn’t the FOS non-executive board appoint Richard Lloyd ( former Which? Director)to lead an independent review into its complaints handling process?
The review was due to be completed by the end of June and published in the summer. Lloyd is also required to present his findings to the Treasury Select Committee before the Summer Recess.

Extract from the document published by FOS, in relation to the review!s parameters;;The review will assess the evidence presented by Dispatches in respect of each of the issues raised in the programme, to consider whether there are any matters of substance which should be addressed, although it will not be restricted to the issues raised in the programme.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org/publications/pdf/independent-review-terms-of-reference.pdf

dunstonh · 4 July 2018 at 12:57PM

The bank provided no more details and yet it was overturned.

Which means they felt there was a fundamental flaw in the adjudicator decision and didn't need to add any more.

One detail if it makes any difference ? Is that we had the actual mortgage amount of £30,000 in the bank in cash and we both had full time jobs,so could afford a mortgage, but felt that we would keep the £30.000 as rainy day money, It is my contention defaulting on a mortgage would count as 'rainy day' ! and render PPI pointless, but we weren't told it was optional and therefore took it!

As it is MPPI, then you have fewer issues compared to loan and credit card PPI. A number of things that work with loan and credit card PPI do not work with MPPI. There is no issue having savings with MPPI. If you are holding back large amounts in savings and not clearing the mortgage then it usually means the savings are important to you and you want that buffer. So, having the insurance means you dont have to use your savings if the worst happens.

People who say they were not told it was optional often cant prove it and there is little or no evidence to support it. The FOS usually look at the application form and check the wording on it to see if it says it is optional or not. Or any other paperwork issued that may support your allegation.

It was the ombudsman opinion that that this money was earmarked for other purposes ? and yet we did actually use the money to pay off the mortgage a few years later

Years later is not the same as point of sale. As MPPI is effectively pay as you go and not an upfront payment, there is no problem with having it for a couple of years.

Your reasons for complaint work better with loan and credit card PPI. Not that strong with MPPI.

hannahp · 4 July 2018 at 2:16PM

I thank you all for your replies :T

Even the ones that seem to be debating the merits of my 'case'.

I said I didn't really want to cover the ins and outs, as I have seen on the P.P.I (M.P.P.I) forum many discussions with people about the merits of their individual cases and in the main this won't help me because over a 2/3 year period there was way too much info and correspondence for anyone (including myself) to come to any sort of definitive decision.

That was after all the F.O.S job and I could spend the next few weeks correcting some of the assumptions made and clarifying some of the ambiguous areas, but there is no point really as it wouldn't get my case re-examined by anyone with any power to pass a financial judgement.

A big thanks to Placida who provided the info/link and I shall look forward to reading the report when it is published.
This is the sort of info I was looking for.

I came on to simply ask if anyone had any more info on whether anything has come of the TV programme's accusations

and I simply don't want to waste any time debating.

My last comment on this subject is 'foxtrotoscar' "I have enough money in my bank accounts to rebuild our home if it is totally destroyed. Does that then render my Buildings insurance as being missold. I suggest it does not" how on earth is this constructive or helpful?
We are not discussing destroyed buildings, of course it is prudent to have Buildings insurance! and of course it would not be rendered mis-sold! the two are not comparable or indeed is it helpful to thread to post that sort of flippant comment!

NCC-1707 · 4 July 2018 at 4:08PM

hannahp wrote: »

My last comment on this subject is 'foxtrotoscar' "I have enough money in my bank accounts to rebuild our home if it is totally destroyed. Does that then render my Buildings insurance as being missold. I suggest it does not" how on earth is this constructive or helpful?
We are not discussing destroyed buildings, of course it is prudent to have Buildings insurance! and of course it would not be rendered mis-sold! the two are not comparable or indeed is it helpful to thread to post that sort of flippant comment!

Both are insurance products that mean you don't have to fork out from your savings is the point being made. You consider one as being missold but not the other?

RE:- Channel 4 'Financial Ombudsman Service' Programme 12th March

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free