Sorry repeated reference to journalist due to continuing tiredness!

Sorry if I wasn't very clear last night - long day. Your understanding is correct in theory, and to the letter of marketing/publicity material. The problem is the actuality of what they do - something quite different (notwithstanding that individual staff members may have a sense of responsibility and justice). The very reason the FOS was set up was so that consumers without the means to access legal redress had a route by which to access their rights. The FOS know, perhaps better than anyone considering the nature of the complaints they receive, that if a disgruntled customer could walk away from what might otherwise be considered a small loss they would to avoid hassle. For larger losses they would use the courts if they had the means. So to then say customers can go to court if they don't agree with the FOS is ridiculous. There is a very strong class element to their workload as has been identified. I'm not sure whether I have previously provided the following link but I would recommend you check it out: Light Blue Touchpaper » Blog Archive » Financial Ombudsman losing it? There is an interesting radio interview here and also a submission to the current Hunt review of the FOS which is quite enlightening. The authors are a professor and ex-lawyer. Abolishing the FOS could only ever happen because of acknowledgment that they are not fit for purpose. Those who agree with this have an opportunity to sign the petition advised of. However, the purpose would still exist, so the FOS would need to be replaced. My personal view is that it should take the form of a statutory structured and funded consumer organisation sufficiently distanced from the private finance sector to be impartial and that it should have teeth. In theory the statutory FSA who set the regulations has since they have the power to close businesses down if necessary. However, they must first know. The finance sector funded and staffed FOS are supposed to notify the FSA of breached regulations according to a memorandum of understanding between the organisations - they don't. I have an acquaintance who has been contacted by a TV investigative journalist who is gathering information on the FOS, and have seen correspondence in which the journalist wrote to the FOS specifically asking about certain breaches of regulations (not forgetting this means suffering consumers) and inquiring whether the FSA had been notified. The very confident response from the FOS was 'no'! The FOS seem to think they can do whatever they like but as highlighted in the petition, they answer to no-one. If you need verification of this, check out parliament's website and search for the FOS to see the concern of some MP's about this very thing when it was being set up.

I'm really please for you - at last someone with a success story. Sadly rare though. Perhaps you managed to get an adjudicator with a conscience? As individuals some must surely have morals so I would hope there are more out there somewhere. Unfortunately, staff are under pressure and given carrots, to clear their desks as quickly as possible under normal circumstances. Although the FOS has admitted that it operates a staff 'bonus scheme', I am told by an acquaintance that a TV investigative reporter with a great interest in the FOS, has established that it is bound to a 'clear up rate'! It is more usually then in the financial interest of staff to try and 'get rid of complaints' as quickly as possible. So in addition to the overall structural problems there is a cultural endorsement of dismissing complaints using money as an incentive. After all, how could protracted dealings with awkward large companies possibility assist in securing a bonus of this nature? This if nothing else will ensure staff stay away from the big stakeholders and concentrate on the less significant (funding wise) smaller companies who are easier to frighten! Consumers need more safeguards and definitely more transparency. The Hunt review now taking place has asked this very question of those making submissions. I personally think the whole festering organisation needs replacing though.

Unfortunately all quite true. I know heaps of people affected including myself. If you do a search on parliaments website for the FOS you'll see they aren't accountable to anyone as this caused some MP's concern at the time they were being set up. All stats produced by the FOS are sparse (should never believe stats anyway too easy to dr - not paranoia, professional experience). They don't have to produce any for their internal complaints anyway. Since nothing is collated think it a great idea for people to have an opportunity to vote with their feet. The FOS don't really arbitrate, they have a pattern of perhaps getting near to doing their job with smaller financial businesses but since they are funded by their stakeholders (business) they tend to sideline complaints about bigger ones. They were set up to assist people without the means to access courts so know all too well people have no-where else to go and can feel secure in treating consumers appallingly. I'd recommend this particular website for more information. There is a revealing radio interview and a submission to the current Hunt review of the FOS written by a professor and an ex-lawyer Light Blue Touchpaper » Blog Archive » Financial Ombudsman losing it? Although may seem reassuring that a review taking place, note Lord Hunt hand picked by FOS board! Hope this helps

Dear Forum members Thought you might be interested in a petition to abolish the Financial Ombudsman Service. Its available at: Petition to: Abolish the Financial Services Ombudsman. If link doesn’t work can be copied and pasted into browser. Please forward link to any other people you think will support this campaign. Thanks

Dear daydream1234 Who is your legal expenses insurer and what does the policy say? You need to be very careful about clocking up expenses because regardless of what you were told at the point of sale, i.e. by broker, insurers don't have to be bound by it. They'll refer back to policy wording - which can be very vague. If you have a policy and it states that they cover after the event I'd be really interested in purchasing the same one. If only to take my previous legal expense insurer and broker to court. Please do advise and 'good luck'! drwigglesworth

Hi MPG How did you get on with 1st Quote then? I suspect they said they would send the policy documents out but that you'll find yourself waiting and waiting! I've made a formal complaint about my case to the Financial Services Ombudsman and hope they will investigate as I strongly suspect the matter to big of much bigger significance. My understanding is that it is would be regarded as misselling if you are charged for a policy you are not permitted sight of. Also I wonder at the legality of them misusing personal information as provided by customers to facilitate payment of premiums for chosen insurance but then to take it upon themselves to use this to 'add' this legal expenses insurance provided by some other company. I've reported this the the Information Commissioners Office. Also, how lucrative would it be if they are taking this additional £1 a month out of all their customers accounts - who, as an individual would take much notice or even think about whether they had been provided with a policy! Readers, please make sure that as many people as possible know about this. Good luck mpg and cheers

Hi Pugsley Thank you for your response. I would definitely chase up your legal cover policy document to make sure you in fact do have it, and that it's the type of cover you require (just as important believe me) in case you need it in the future. It tends to be too late then as you found with your breakdown cover. I was really interested in your experience of not having breakdown cover given what I read yesterday on the following link: 1st Quote - Review - 1st Quote but not my 1st Choice For ease of reference here's the text which I've copied direct from source: "No beating about the bush here. This company is possibly one of the worst insurance companies going. You may think this unfair, but I have had the dubious pleasure of working for them. The company has just one aim - to make money. Customer service and satisfaction do not come into it at all. They want your money, and will tell you what you want to hear to make you part with it. OK, their quotes may be cheaper than a lot of others and this is fine, until you have to make a claim. There were, when I left, 5 people working in the claims department. 5 people to service a client base of several thousand. Is it any wonder you wait for months to get repairs authorised and claims settled? The quotes staff are little better, in the motor department there are around forty staff members all trying to reach target figures, and be the best selling salesman for the month. To achieve this aim, they will assure you your policy has breakdown cover, when in fact it does not, that your vehicle is garaged, alarmed and will do less than 5000 miles a year, regardless of the true facts, in order to beat your best quote. If they do persuade you to part with your money, your credit card number will be written down, and passed around the office until it reaches someone qualified to take the payment. You will be very lucky if your documents are sent to the right address, and if by some miracle they are, the likelihood is that your details will be wrong anyway. And don't even think about complaining, you will be left on hold until they think you have given up and more than likely cut off. In short. Steer clear of this company. Believe me, I know!" I so wish I could contact the author is this damning confession. Thanks again for your response. Please also inquire of any family and friends not part of this forum to see if they purchase any insurance products from 1st Quote and whether they have been sent relevant information. Best wishes and good luck!

Is your broker 1st Quote Insurance? If so please check whether they have added 'legal protection' to your household policy - renewal notices will contain 1 sentence advising you that an extra £1 a month will be taken to cover this. If so, have you EVER been sent a policy for this so called legal protection? Their renewal notice advising of the so called cover will state that it is to be sent in a separate post. I have used 1st Quote as a broker for my contents insurance (Folgate) since 2003. In 2005 1st Quote added legal protection at an additional £1 a month but their letter advised that the policy would be sent in a separate post. It never was. Again in 2006 the renewal advice for my contents insurance contained the same sentence regarding the legal protection and fee - also that policy would be sent in a separate post. It wasn't. We recently had cause to make a claim against our so called legal protection (have never claimed on contents) but guess what? Not covered.Of course, 1st Quote, General Legal Protection (provider) and Groupama (underwriter) all stuck together like glue. We have established that 1st Quote did not even set up a policy for us in 2005 but they maintain that they didn't take the extra £1 a month either. This is actually quite crucial as this covered the start of the dispute we wanted to pursue legally. They maintain that they did set one up in 2006 but of course the provider has been able to argue that the incident preceded the policy. Groupama have of course got behind General Legal Protection - both of which presenting a distorted interpretations of contractual terms in order to solidify their position. Our counter argument that we were NEVER afforded the opportunity to even inspect the policy has been refuted by 1st Quote who stated in writing that they have no reason to believe that it was never sent to us. A Data Subject Access request resulted in our being able to see that the very person from 1st Quote stating this had 2 days earlier rang General Legal Protection to inform them that we had not been sent a policy! There is more but I won't go on. Please if you are customer of 1st Quote could you check you policy and let me know whether they have added the legal protection at an extra £1 a month but not sent you a policy. Thanks in advance to all.

Is your broker 1st Quote Insurance? If so please check whether they have added 'legal protection' to your household policy - renewal notices will contain 1 sentence advising you that an extra £1 a month will be taken to cover this. If so, have you EVER been sent a policy for this so called legal protection? Their renewal notice advising of the so called cover will state that it is to be sent in a separate post. I have used 1st Quote as a broker for my contents insurance (Folgate) since 2003. In 2005 1st Quote added legal protection at an additional £1 a month but their letter advised that the policy would be sent in a separate post. It never was. Again in 2006 the renewal advice for my contents insurance contained the same sentence regarding the legal protection and fee - also that policy would be sent in a separate post. It wasn't. We recently had cause to make a claim against our so called legal protection (have never claimed on contents) but guess what? Not covered.Of course, 1st Quote, General Legal Protection (provider) and Groupama (underwriter) all stuck together like glue. We have established that 1st Quote did not even set up a policy for us in 2005 but they maintain that they didn't take the extra £1 a month either. This is actually quite crucial as this covered the start of the dispute we wanted to pursue legally. They maintain that they did set one up in 2006 but of course the provider has been able to argue that the incident preceded the policy. Groupama have of course got behind General Legal Protection - both of which presenting a distorted interpretations of contractual terms in order to solidify their position. Our counter argument that we were NEVER afforded the opportunity to even inspect the policy has been refuted by 1st Quote who stated in writing that they have no reason to believe that it was never sent to us. A Data Subject Access request resulted in our being able to see that the very person from 1st Quote stating this had 2 days earlier rang General Legal Protection to inform them that we had not been sent a policy! There is more but I won't go on. Please if you are customer of 1st Quote could you check you policy and let me know whether they have added the legal protection at an extra £1 a month but not sent you a policy. Hope this makes sense as I'm in a bit of a rush. Thanks in advance to all.

Only just come across this thread so not sure if matters resolved or not. Reading this horrendous story it seems to me that both the council and court procedures are prejudicial to people with mental health disabilities. I'm fairly sure that depression constitutes a legal disability and so the Disability Discrimination Act would apply. This act tends to scare organisations somewhat so it might be worth contacting the Disability Rights Commission or some such organisation to ask their advice and whether they would take the case on for you.

Hi Everyone Can anyone tell me whether it is illegal to have more than one insurance for the same thing? I seem to have about 3 lots of legal protection insurance (one with buildings insurance, one with contents and one with car)! If not, can all be activated? I have 50, 000 on each so could this mean I have a 150, 000 to go at? I tried to activate one recently (without realising I had more) but am currently locked into battle with them as they maintain the 'incident' occured before I took the policy out. I'm arguing that it didn't they're just clinging on to the history I outlined by way of background to the case before it became a legal matter. Anyway as well as pursuing the matter with them I'm now wondering about the others. Taking the matter on may seem more appealing if costs could be spread between them. Does anyone happen to know about this stuff? Cheers Debbie PS great forum!