My experience of FOS - total waste of time - took 2 and a half years - first 'investigator' took over a year, asked us all sorts of explanations (obviously our situation then was outside their understanding but now the whole thing has blown up and reported in newspapers).After we sent loads of paperwork and answered every query, she sent us an e-mail saying she had been promoted and our case passed on - and we were asked the same questions again... - then that one went off on sick leave and we were passed on to somebody else who decided within 3 weeks to find in favour of HSBC. We spoke to this third person on the phone (answering same questions again) and informed him that we were leaving for a 5 day holiday (first holiday in 2 years) and that we would not be available for the next 5 days - came home after 5 days to find a letter sent by FOS on the day we left finding in favour of HSBC. Could have been the end of the story if my husband had not googled and found a solicitor who did a free first visit, thought we had a complicated but perfectly legal case. Subsequent visits by solicitor cost £5000, end result, HSBC wrote off - well what they claimed we owed due to swaps (in the region of £185,000 had we given up)..... Sounds like a good result, but for me, the pain of those years when they (HSBC) were being very aggressive and runined my life can never be compensated for. By the way, and very very important, whatever the FOS decide, never reply to it - it cancels your options to chase the case. They will e-mail you asking you to accept their decision etc, ignore and don't reply, they will phone you, just put the phone down. They want closure, you need to keep it open so you can chase it further. Don't sign and return any paperwork they send you after their 'final' decisions. Even if you feel deflated, don't close the case - things can happen in the future that allows you to have another go.

Are we talking swaps here or something else?

I didn't get my money back - the bank wrote off the 'debt'. The agreement was that if they did that, there would be no further claims. When I first took out what I thought was a straightforward loan ( had never heard of swaps at that stage) , I used my normal solicitor to check the papers before I signed, and he raised the alarm pointing out that they wanted me to sign over my house as well - and he said "That's not on". Signing over my house had never been mentioned at the bank meetings. The bank phoned me a couple of times saying "You haven't signed the papers about your house?" and I replied that in their paperwork it said to consult a solicitor before doing so, and that I had, and that the solictor advised me not to sign. Therefore it shows I was not accepting their terms from the beginning. From experience with FOS I have learnt that the 'contract' actually took place when I received a phone call from a representative a couple of days after I had received papers from the bank about the loan and having read the papers, the representative was told "This is not what I agreed to?" He assured me it was the same thing, to sign, and if there was a problem it could be sorted out by my bank advisor. So I signed. My signing the papers, if I understand the FOS properly, was not the contract - the phone call was - this is the call that allegedly was recorded but, due to techinical difficulties, the bank could not supply a recording or transcrip of - now that would not have gone down well in court. My new solicitor was as surprised as I was by the total turnaround by the bank - but they did push us to the limit - they won't give in if they think they can get away with it and that you will give in first - they are ruthless. Things for you to think about - the banks have to use 'due dilligence' when selling this sort of product (I certainly wasn't told I was being sold something - I went there for a straightforward loan). Swaps were never mentioned, or the risks, or the fact it was a gamble - therefore they did not do due dilligence in explaining everything to me -I would have walked out there and then and said "No thanks". Think back to when it first started for you - was it explained what the risks were - did you know it was a 'gamble'? Did you think you were securing a loan at the same rate for the life of the loan (I did). If you didn't, then the bank did not exercise due diligence. On the other hand, if you knew you were entering into a 'swap' and understood it all, then you don't have a leg to stand on (ie no case). I think this is a massive scandal - as far as I am concerned decent hardworking business people have been decieved, dreadfully decieved

It's like taking on the Maffia, isen't it -we know we are innocent - we trusted the banks we had been with for years and years - and basically what they have done is set up a dictatorship - we trusted them and they took us for everything they could. Even though my bank has written off what they said I owed, it will never make up for the 3 years of hell and, in my opinion, my partner's stroke due to the stress. The FOS - having dealt with them (one person who took 13 months to come backt to us was allegedly promoted and passed us on to another person who then immediately went on maternity leave, and passed us on to another (v sympathetic it seemed at the time) person we spoke to and explained we were having our first holiday in 3 years who then sent us a letter the day after that saying they had found in favour of the bank... (therefore cutting down our time to reply). We appeal, again the 'senior ???" says he/she finds in favour of the bank??? If they were so impartial why did the bank back down very quickly when we got a specialised solictor involved (he wasn't cheap but a snip compared to what the banks wanted). One of the bank 'managers' who got us into the swap thing - when we thought it was a totally straight forward loan was in my local paper - posing as having done a charity bike ride - if you see a headline in your papers "Pensioner knocks bank manager off bike and kicks him" -that'll be me...

I can only tell you the experience my neighbours daughter and son in law have had. There are 4 houses where I live - nice quiet area but close to town. My neighbours built all the houses, we live in their original house, and they own 3 fields around us. Their daughter & son in law decided to build a house in the field directly in front of me, marked out the area, put in planning and moved a caravan onto the site. Planning was refused on the grounds that the land was liable to flooding. It was pointed out that the land had been built up when planning was allowed for 45 houses the opposite side of my house (not land owned by my neighbours but the developer was allowed access through their land on the condition he built up the land - using land removed from his development - and it is now level ground with me - so if it ever floods I will have a waterfront property...). This was done 10 years ago, and I've never seen any flooding there. The son in law pointed all this out when the site was inspected and was told (honestly) "Well it could flood in a 1000 years?" To which he replied, "If the house is safe for 100 years I'll be more than delighted". One of our neighbours objected to the house. We were actually contacted by e-mail (I have no idea how they got our e-mail address, but it does start with the house name so pretty obvious I suppose) to ask if we wanted to object. We didn't. Nice family, and as far as we were concerened, if they were lucky enough to be given the land to build on, good for them. However, this approach by e-mail made me think, and by virtue of Google, checked the council meeting minutes - guess what - this area is designated as an area that can absorb more housing ..... I told the son in law this, and he said that he was told by the planning officer that if they wanted to build 10 'affordable' houses there, there would be no problem!! So possible flooding does not matter in that case? All this did happen before our council were exposed as having put most of their money into the Icelantic Bank...and have now sold off their housing stock to an institution that gets huge grants to take on council housing. Don't know how long ago the planning you are talking about took place - might well be worth re-submitting - different strokes these days. They should also check if any council members own any land around them - we've had two charged with 'insider interests'. My husband and many others work for a charity (when I say work I mean unpaid) - they've had the lease on a building for many years, now the council had decided to up the rent to an almost impossible rate. I am sure it has nothing to do with the building being in a very desirable designated development seafront area - surely not.. One of the tactics they have used to get them out of the building is to send a letter saying the building was not being upkept as it had a growth on it - now you know if you live in certain sea areas, you will get a growth of some lichen - it does no harm - but the letter said it was the reason that the 'terms of the lease' were not being upheld and therefore they would be terminating the lease. Everybody involved went out armed with cameras, took pictures of all the council places which all had similar growths and send them with a letter (fortunately we have a solicitor who is v good and works for nothing for the charity) - no more heard from the council about that... Best thing your friend can do is keep a record of everything - if he is told something verbally, write it down and send it as a letter asking whoever told him to confirm that was the conversation - time of day, dates, it's all important -very useful if somebody else applies for planning.

Update on my October 2010 posting on this thread. Appealed FO decision, again FO find in favour of bank. Found a solicitor. Nothing heard from bank re payment of overdraft (I was beside myself with worry as to what the final amount due would be with interest added) so solicitor contacted the bank and a meeting arranged. Meeting seemed to be a total waste of time, bank not moving on anything, repeating constantly that the FO found in their favour. Meeting ended abruptly as there seemed no point to it and bank informed that we would be taking the matter to court. A week later solicitor receives a phone call from bank rep saying he would contact by a certain date with optons (??). He never gets back to the solicitor but I receive a phone call from the bank saying that they had decided to write off the outstanding overdraft and take no further action. I ask for this in writing as I really can't believe what I am hearing...... I now have it in writing, there are certain conditions of course re not taking further action which is acceptable. Three years of hell, and it's now over. I hope it cheers you up - it seems they will push you to the limit - so be strong and never give up. I am still in total shock.

And I intent living to at least 100 years....

I should really be in bed, but then I get so angry about the whole situation, I find myself on the pc just trying to work out the legal jargon for this and that. Whatever, if I lose my case, which I am quite resigned to now - I don't have paperwork - I trusted my bank - I am going to be a thorn in their side as long as I live - I owe them that -lol

Thanks for reply, very sensible not to put e-mails on here - but you get so angry and incensed don't you! Sometimes you don't think straight when you have so many things you want to get off your mind so to speak

I am in the same boat, having ended up with an HSBC swap product which I didn't want, and to cut a long story short, it was closed (I dispute permission was given to close - had said they could close it if it was of no cost to me) and I now owe £80,000 (a lot more when they add the interest for the past 2 years). Currently my case is with the FO - it has taken nearly 2 years for them to make a decision (which has gone against me). The first FO employee to take the case phoned after a many months to say she was near a decision, then she wrote to say she had been promoted and the case passed on someone else who eventually got in touch, but then she was taken ill and the case passed on again... My head is spinning at the moment trying to google and get any sort of information/evidence I can for my appeal, but the FO seem to base their findings on existing paperwork/taped calls (the recording of one very very important phone call (in my favour) cannot be produced due to 'technical reasons'....) There is a lot more to my story - like a lot of you I've been hardworking and can't believe the position I find myself in - as far as I am concerned (yes I am bitter right now but will go down fighting) I feel I have been robbed by my bank of 37 years of not just £80,000+ but also a retirement. If anyone else in the same position wants to pick my brain re what happened, and what I am now learning about how the FO works (which is not a lot I am afraid), please feel free to e-mail me on - sorry site says I need to have 20 counts or greater to include the e-mail address.