parity4all
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Posts posted by parity4all
-
-
I agree that he did at least ask the questions, however, not sure it helped Corbyn that Neil claimed Corbyn supported the IRA. It is claimed by some that Corbyn has always supported a united Ireland.
Claimed by "some"..not "most".
-
Paid for an English teacher training course using Paypal. The payment was held for Payment review by Payal for just over 24 hours.
Experienced a lot of friction, stress and bother due to this. When I raised it as a complaint, Paypal didn't reply.
Raised it as a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The adjudicator told me FOS can only look at what's in the Paypal agreement. I disagreed, and told him that UK law, EU directives and regulator's rules apply.
The case was then looked at by an Ombudsman. Please see decision attached below:
There is no way I can accept this ombudsman decision (I still believe in the law of the land). For complaints about paypal, note that only 1 in 20 complaints are decided in favour of the consumer. 'Sour grapes'?, I doubt it.
Just started a blog giving all the details about this complaint, so others are aware:
https://financialombudsmanbiased.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/complaint-about-paypal/
-
Please see attached FOS Manager's email saying she has not seen any corrospondence from BOC (UK) where they've said it's a separate entity. (Attachment: fos-to-me.pdf)
It's worth noting though, after the Ombudsman got involved, BOC (UK) compliance team told the Ombudsman (see attachment boc-uk-compliance-to-fos.pdf ):
This customer has been with our Bank for a long period, with BOC (UK) LTD product and the Bank has previously mentioned to him in telephone conversations that any matters relating to Bank of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) needs to be dealt with by them.Funny that!, for one, they don't mention the 30 April 2014 email from Mr M, like FOS has done, but seem to rely on "telephone calls". The other, I've only spoken with them on the phone a couple of times in 2013/14. That was about the account opening. Jurisdiction never came up. If it did, would BOC (UK) have really gone on to assist me with BOC (Sri Lanka) issues as late as November 2015. (see attached email boc-lk-to-me.pdf)
By the way, BOC (Sri Lanka) had told me they "routed payments" through the UK branch (See boc-lk-to-me.pdf, page 1)
-
Still shocked by this decision.
When BOC (UK) issued their final response letter in May 2016 (after FOS became involved). They said:
As we informed you before , Bank of Ceylon (UK) Ltd is a subsidiary of Bank of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and is thus a separate legal entity....This was completely false. They had at no point told me the UK branch was a subsidiary or that it was a seperate entity. The final response letter was the first time they mentioned it.
Between the adjudicator issuing his conclusions and the complaint being passed to an Ombudsman, I was communicating with the Manager, Ms F (Because the adjudicator had been pulled off the case). I sent Ms F copies of nine emails; emails between me and BOC (UK), and vice versa, and also BOC (Sri Lanka) to me, where BOC (UK) has been copied. One of the emails from the Chief Operating Officer in BOC (UK) to me copied in BOC (Sri Lanka). It was sent on 30 April 2014 (see attached) and said:
May I kindly ask you to communicate direct with BOC [sri Lanka] branch with a [copy] to [Mrs P]* our Customer Services Officer [uK] for anything in relation to the above account in the future...During the ombudsman complaint, I asked Ms F for case file evidence that confirms if I was made aware about BOC (UK) being a subsidiary. She didn't respond to this. I asked her again, then she responded saying:
I’ve had a look through the case file, and I’ve not seen any correspondence where the bank refers to itself as a separate entity from Bank of Ceylon (Sri Lanka).I’ve attached a copy of an email dated 30 April 2014, which states to communicate directly with Bank of Ceylon [sri Lanka] branch for anything relating to the account in the future.
I’ve also attached all of the emails and additional information you’ve sent me to your case file, and can confirm that an ombudsman will be writing to you with their final decision shortly....
She was taking what the BOC (UK) Chief Operating Officer had said completely out of context. (see attachment) The officer who came to the UK branch on a secondment was finishing his tenure, and returning to Sri Lanka. He was basically saying copy in London customer services, and not him as usual.
I replied to Ms F saying this:
The email dated 30 April 2014 actually says:"May I kindly ask you to communicate direct with BOC [sri Lanka] branch with a [copy] to
[Mrs P] - our Customer Services Officer for anything in relation to the above account in the
future....."
As you can see Mr M also says "..with a [copy] to [Mrs P]". As you are aware [Mrs P] is an employee of Bank of Ceylon (UK). "
Also, his comments need to be taken in context of the situation. i.e. He was leaving for Sri Lanka for good, after finishing his secondment at Bank of Ceylon (UK). He would have been concerned that any email I send him may go unanswered.
As I pointed out in my previous email of 27 January 2017, Bank of Ceylon (UK), did go on to successfully handle/liaise with Bank of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in November 2015 (much later than 30 April 2014).
Therefore, I really cannot accept that we could equate what is said on the 30 April 2014 email with "As we informed you before , Bank of Ceylon (UK) Ltd is a subsidiary of Bank of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and is thus a separate legal entity...."
My email was sent 2 days before the ombudsman issued her decision. The ombudsman in her decision says:
In fact, he [says he] was invited to copy in the London customer services team with his communications to the branch in Sri Lanka.But then her explanation to this is:
It [bOC UK] told Mr N to copy in its customer services department, when he was having problems with Bank of Ceylon in 2014 – though that email also makes clear that he should communicate directly with Bank of Ceylon about the matter.Completely ignoring the remainder of that email. This is a typical example where the FOS picks out evidence that suits their pre-determined notions (and ultimate decision/outcome). The email actually says contact the SL branch for anything relating to THAT account and copy the UK branch. It doesn't tell me it's a subsidiary branch (or a separate legal entity). BOC (UK) went on to handle problems about BOC(SL) after April 2014. If they had told me they were a subsidiary and thus a separate legal entity, surely they wouldn't have handled the later support queries.
BTW, when I contacted the BOC (UK) branch about the international transfers, I was of the belief that the transfers originated in UK, because that's what the Halifax bank (recipient bank) had told me.
yep, the English language has many uses, but to use it in the manner FOS does. Shakespeare will be turning in his grave.
-
Back in September 2016, I made a SAR to the FOS, so I was able to get documents and call recordings relating to this complaint (after a lot of friction mind you). In one of the calls, a BOC (UK) employee tells the FOS, bank accounts need to be dormant for six years before closure, and that it applies to all customers (hear audio recording attached. check around 50 seconds in to the audio)
I think she is wrong. A dormant account is a dormant account. Different rules apply.
When a bank closes an account it needs to justify the reasons. BOC (UK) told me it was because the account was inactive and due to the strength of the banking relationship. However, the strength of the relationship was strong. I had been contacting BOC (UK) regularly, However, the ombudsman decided to leave that part out and focus on just the inactive element.
Anyway, in one of my emails to the FOS I said:
[bOC UK employee Mrs ..... ] has herself said to Ms [FOS staff member] that accounts need to be dormant for six years before closure, and that this applies to ALL customers. Clearly this was not the case with my account closure.In the final decision, the ombudsman says:
He understands that six years must pass before an account becomes dormant and is closed, but that did not happen in his case. He also has concerns about whether Bank of Ceylon (UK) kept to the banking conduct of business rules when deciding to close his account.This is not how I understood it, I was telling the FOS what the BOC (UK) staff member told FOS. I was merely saying that she said one thing but did something else, because clearly it hasn't been 6 years since October 2013. this part is indisputable.
The ombudsman here has clearly got the wrong end of the stick. Although, for someone who's been issuing decisions for some time now, it seems unlikely this was (amongst others) a genuine error. The errors seem very premeditated and calculated to redeem the bank of it's actions. Not to mention redeem the adjudicator on how he conducted the investigation.
The banking conduct of business sourcebook (BCOBS) is clear on when an account can be closed, I emailed FOS the link, and pointed to the relevant part. The ombudsman decision just says:
He also has concerns about whether Bank of Ceylon (UK) kept to the banking conduct of business rules when deciding to close his account.Then goes on to say:
The dormancy rules which Mr N refers to are to do with the circumstances in which an account may be closed and the proceeds passed to the Dormant Account Scheme (managed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme).Again, I didn't refer to the dormancy rules, the BOC(UK) staff member did.
-
Kindly learn to have some patience. When I post the full commentary, you can draw your own conclusions, rather than me having to spell it out for you.
We (consumers) often have to wait months on end for the Ombudsman to decide complaints. So, the least you can do is wait a couple of days (at most).
If YOU lot take too long, it's always lack of resources. If we don't post everything all at once (because it's too long), then you've already made up your mind. A proper analogy here would be: Shoot first, think afterwards.
-
That's true. Though, I could only base my opinion on what you presented here.
Oh!, I'm sure you know a lot more than what I've presented here.
I didn't even need a tinfoil hat to tell you that.
-
To me, it seems as though the Adjudicator and Ombudsman issued a reasonable and sensible decision in your case.
What exactly were you hoping to achieve?
Thanks for your input. I respect and value your opinion.
Although, I MUST say you've based your opinion on the OMBUDSMAN's VERSION of events and my INITIAL commentary only.
I'm yet to provide further evidence on this forum, which I will do shortly; Even though I doubt of ever persuading or convincing you (even AFTER providing this further evidence).
Final comment, you can see Ombudsman are under pressure to reach decisions quickly. Have a look at the two paragraphs:
As things were not settled, Mr N brought his complaint to this service where an adjudicatorinvestigated it. The ombudsman service does not cover Bank of Ceylon and so we could not
look into Mr N’s complaints about acts or omissions of that bank.
From the evidence, the adjudicator was satisfied that Bank of Ceylon (UK) had taken
reasonable steps to try to assist Mr N is his complaints to Bank of Ceylon. It was not in a
position to provide advice about the international transfers, as these were between
Bank of Ceylon and another UK bank.
Now go ahead and check the decision for DRN7913016 (see attached file).
As things were not settled, Mr V brought his complaint to this service where an adjudicatorinvestigated it.
From the evidence, the adjudicator did not consider that PayPal had treated Mr V unfairly or
acted outside the terms of the account. Because of that, the adjudicator did not recommend
that the complaint should succeed.
Don't tell me she's NOT using a template letter and changing a few words around. More to the point, how long do you think she spent writing the decision?, how long to review the file? The inconsistencies are so glaring, it couldn't have been long. Actually slightly longer for my complaint, because comments like
...something of a mis-match between the service Bank of Ceylon (UK) is prepared to provide and the service Mr N feels he could reasonably expect to receive.cannot be pulled out of thin air.
In answer to your question.
> What exactly were you hoping to achieve?
I was hoping for a fair, impartial and unbiased process, followed by a fair, impartial and unbiased decision. Are my expectations too high?
> To me, it seems as though the Adjudicator and Ombudsman issued a reasonable and sensible decision in your case.
my thought's on the reasonableness is pretty clear from the above. Sensible decision?, Not in the long-run.
-
Complaint was about Bank of Ceylon (BOC) United Kingdom (UK) branch.
After months of waiting in the assessment queue, my complaint finally ended up on an adjudicator's desk.
Adjudicator from what it seems to me went through the file so quickly he missed vital details I'd given on the form and via email. For example, I told the FOS I had further evidence to produce and also to contact me by email, as I was abroad.
He ignored both these.
He concluded that he had enough to issue a decision.
He then attempted to call me on the mobile (even though I said - contact me by email only.
I told the FOS a while ago and there was a 'case warning' added to the file about that.
He had ignored this warning or misunderstood it).
After he failed to contact me by phone, he went on to issue his conclusions in favour of BOC (UK).
His conclusions contained language such as "BOC (UK) have said ....".
So I had no alternative but to disagree with his conclusions and ask for the evidence he relied upon.
I also told him he hadn't contacted me even once to introduce himself before reaching his conclusions and that he failed to ask for the evidence I had specifically mentioned before.
He got back saying he will provide me the case file evidence only after I send him "further evidence". I then contacted his manager to complain. She asked him to send me the case-file evidence straightaway.
I then lodged a service complaint against the adjudicator, and his manager (removed) found that he had committed no wrong.
I escalated it to a senior manager and asked for the complaint to be looked at by a different adjudicator.
The senior manager found the Adjudicator (removed) could have done things better.
But he said the complaint could not be assigned to a different adjudicator.
In effect the conclusions stood even though it was made without considering all the evidence.
He offered for the complaint to be passed to an ombudsman, for review.
Of course, the review is based on what the adjudicator concluded.
Ombudsman wasn't going to start afresh.
Truth be told, in nearly 90% of cases ombudsman "rubber-stamps" the adjudicator's decision.
In this case even though I sent in new evidence to the Ombudsman
she ignored it (or interpreted it in favour of the bank) so that the adjudicator's decision stood.
After all, you can't have an ombudsman reverse an adjudicator decision that was the result of serious procedural irregularities.
By the way, FOS takes at least a month to below
-
Made a complaint to FOS about paypal. Just got a reply. Seems like the adjudicator's provisional conclusions. He's found paypal had done no wrong.
Here's what it says on the bottom of his email:
what happens nextIf you don’t want to take your complaint further, you don’t need to reply.
But if you don’t agree with what I’ve said, please let me know why by 6 February 2017. I’ll look at any new information you give me and let you know what I think.
Notice the change in font size, when it says "But If you don't agree with what I’ve said, please let me know why by 6 February 2017. I’ll look at any new information you give me and let you know what I think."
I had to really strain my eyes to read this.
Surely this is a nudge tactic by the FOS to close-off complaints.
-
Compensation increased from £500 to £750.
remove his adverse credit file ratings
convert outstanding balance of overdraft to interest free loan
agree reasonable repayment plan for the interest free loan.
-
Until MP's experience this poor level of service I seriously doubt things will change for the better.
Absolutely.
I've recently contacted my MP about FOS bias issues,
basing decisions on (the bank's/businesse's) hearsay evidence,
not sharing evidence relied upon,
not giving me adequate opportunity submit all documents,
lack of updates from the adjudicator,
not respecting my communication needs amongst other things.
You can use the writetothem website to find out your MP, then send email/letter from within that site:
Or use theyworkforyou website. Can write to your MP from there also:
-
Of course, you didn't really need these recordings did you, because you have been here since 2009 and so you know that you should be recording your own calls every time. Don't you.
I've subscribed to the CAG email newsletter since 2010, and always made it a point to read it. Must have missed the "warning" (in small print, mind you) on the right hand side of it each time or not quite understood "creditors" to mean all "banks" (even if you are dealing with the bank not on the basis of a loan, mortgage account etc.).
On the other hand, the 'Big Inflation coming' warning has got across more than sufficiently, and that only became newsworthy recently.
For anyone interested in recording calls. Here are some CAG posts I found interesting:
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?34-Can-I-legally-record-telephone-calls
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?380-Telephone-Call-Recording
Or you can search the CAG forums for keywords: "record telephone call"
and a bunch of results come up.
-
1
-
-
Made a subject access request to Santander. One of the acknowledgement letters they sent says this (in bold):
Please note that some documents, such as company internal policies and procedures, promotional materials, terms and conditions etc contain no personal data and therefore do not fall under the remit of subject access request.If anyone here has made a subject access request to Santander, can you please check the Acknowlegement letters to see if it says the same. If it appears can you include a scanned copy of the letter on this forum.
The ICO has told me:
Santander may provide such information as a standard paragraph as it is simply a means of reminding people that such information does not fall within the scope of a SAR.Santander acknowledgment letter also says this about call recordings:
many of our customer contact numbers are taped for monitoring and training purposes only, by the telephone advisors individual log in and not by a customers name or account number. These records may be time limited. Where located, calls will be provided either as typed transcripts or data on a CD-ROM; please contact us if you anticipate any difficulties with this. Where no calls are available we will provide you with accompanying notes.
Santander did send me call recordings, but one of the recordings had a bit missing from the dialog. I've reported it to the ICO. They've just got back to me after 2 months and said I need to ask Santander for the missing data. I'll probably do that, and let everyone know if Santander does locate the "missing data".
BTW, about storing call recordings under telephone advisor's login (and not by customer name or account number). I'm pretty sure the Data Protection Law says if a living individual can be identified from the data, then it's classed as personal data. Here's the quote from the ICO website:
It is important to note that, where the ability to identify an individual depends partly on the data held and partly on other information (not necessarily data), the data held will still be “personal data”. -
You are entitled to case file used to produce an outcome bar commercial, security, underwriting details etc.
This is a direct quote from the Independent Assessor....
I've also been told this by the IA as well.
Had similar experience to OP on many occasions. First time blanket refusal about giving me a copy of a swift message sent between banks. I told the adjudicator to send me a redacted copy (redacting all commercially sensitive details). She then contacted the bank, bank send her a redacted copy, which she forwarded on to me. See it here.
On another complaint, an adjudicator, (incorrectly) refused to send me bank account transaction history (which were not commercially sensitive at all). I complained to her manager, and the manager sent me the transaction screenshot immediately.
Another complaint - adjudicator issues decision, without ever contacting me or seeing all my evidence. I ask to see specific evidence he relied on to come to his conclusions. I spell out the conclusions and the evidence I need to see. he then tries a fast one by saying in order to ensure "completeness" he would like to see MY EVIDENCE that I had intended to send at the outset. Only then he can send me the case file evidence. Emailed his manager straightaway. Manager arranged case file evidence to be sent to me immediately.
No surprises. Adjudicator had relied on what the bank "said" (hearsay evidence), before coming to his conclusions.
-
own thread created
Please change the header of this post. the complaint wasn't about PPI. It was about a debit card payment while abroad. The retailer put the payment through using Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC), when I specifically told them I choose to pay in local currency. I chose not to tick the box to say "pay using DCC" nor sign below that option. In fact I wrote on the receipt "PAY in local currency please". Retailer ignored all this and put it through using DCC.
I complained to HSBC, they dragged their heals, and when I asked for an update, didn't respond. After the ombudsman got involved they had said, they didn't intervene as it would damage my relationship with the retailer.
Ombudsman decided that HSBC should have taken up the matter with the retailer on my behalf.
-
Ombudsman =-= never found any finding agsinst in respect of HSBC in the many times I complained to them on any subject
yep, latest figures shows PPI success rate is somewhat high (61%), but banking and credit is a derisory 13%, for HSBC.
How many complaints did you have against HSBC and what were they for. e.g. banking and credit, general insurance, PPI, mortgages and home finance, investments, life & pensions and decumulation.
Mine were both banking and credit. not successful in one, success in the other one.
-
Definitely worth persevering.
Adjudicator refused to uphold my complaint about HSBC even-though I had pin-pointed her to the visa card regulations. She told me those regulations only applied to the retailer and not the bank.
I requested for complaint to be passed to an Ombudsman. Ombudsman looked at the case and overturned the adjudicator decision. You can see the decision here:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=80586
Most of the time decisions are not overturned:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar14/dealt.html
The annual report from 2014 above says:
In 89% of final decisions, ombudsmen reached the same basic conclusions as the adjudicators who handled the cases in the earlier stages. This was a very similar proportion to the previous year. Where ombudsmen came to a different conclusion, there was either a finely-balanced judgement call or, more often, new facts came to light at a very late stage.
New facts didn't come to light in my complaint. Guess it was finely balanced.
-
Those proposals were implemented - so you do have group charging for the bigger businesses.
As for right of appeal to a court. That would run totally against the idea of having an Ombudsman service. The idea is that they are an alternative dispute resolution provider. The very crux of that is that they are an alternative means of resolving disputes.
If people want to go to court, then they can do so. A lot decide not to - because an Ombudsman offers a less formal, free and normally quicker alternative.
Soon after posting, realized that there has been another consultation in 2015/16:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/PB-2016-17-consultation.pdf
About the right of appeal to court. I'm not suggesting using the Courts in place of an Ombudsman. Just being able to appeal a decision of the Ombudsman to a Court, will be enough. Not many people will do it, due to cost, the complexity of the legal system etc. But I think having the ability to challenge a decision of the ombudsman will make the FOS take more care with their decisions. Decisions will soon stop being based on hearsay evidence (of banks), evidence produced by customers will start being taken in to consideration etc.
See this article, and especially the comment:
You will never get justice until you have a separation of powers. In the case of FOS this would mean a right of appeal to the courts. At a stroke FOS will be dragged into the rules of natural justice, precedent - both binding i.e. from a higher court or persuasive from a lower court. Rules of evidence would need to apply and hearsay would not be accepted. FOS would then need to have an eye to the rejection by the courts of their decisions on appeal. This is of course the reason why FOS would fight to retain their lack of appeal procedure for the adviser but are happy to keep it for the client. The system is wrong, unjust and bias towards the consumer. If one is ever asked to justify fees - ask what fee one needs to command in order to compensate for the exclusion of advisers rights to natural justice? -
seem to remember someone (on another website) suggesting ombudsman should chase after the money, rather than trying to gloss over complaints. i.e Ombudsman becoming poachers as opposed to gamekeepers.
I would add that there would need to be a right of appeal to a Court(s) of any Ombudsman decision. This way, there's a strong check on each and every Ombudsman decision.
The FOS did run a consultation on reforming the funding model back in January 2012, with the intention to change the case fee structure. Have a gander: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/pdf/Case-fees-feedback-statement.pdf
The gist of it is that they suggested, increasing the number of free cases from 3 to 25, while businesses that generate the most of FOS work (businesses most complained about) pay case fees based on the work generated. FOS says it
means that a business that produced 10% of our work should expect to contribute around 10% of our costs.I think the free cases figure is now 25 (starting April 2013), apart from this I don't know what else has changed. The previous idea about gamekeepers turning to poachers sounds promising though.
-
I received a reply from the Fos with the words Where there incomplete evidence. After doing some research on 3300 Final decisions I found over 25% had the same wording. Has anyone else received a final reply with these words included
Adjudicators/ombudsman use template letters. So you will see the same wording across many replies and decisions. Adjudicators have targets to meet. You will not hear from them for ages, then suddenly a string of emails/letters with words like "after carefully reviewing the file, I have concluded..".
these letters/emails will attempt to shake off much of the complaint, by picking out certain points saying:
1) it wasn't something we investigated" ;
2) it's not within the FOS remit/jurisdiction",
3) you did not raise the issue at the start of the complaint (even when the adjudicator has clearly investigated it for months)
4) the business hasn't had the opportunity to investigate this part, so you need to raise it with the business first.
(bear in mind that for issues encountered with the business while the complaint is ongoing at fos. Adjudicator can incorporate these 'fresh' concerns to your complaint with the consent of the business. Adjudicator will tell you this will speed things up. I beg to differ. In my case, it didn't make the slightest difference. In fact it complicated things. Best to go through the usual procedure, and make complaint to bank/business even if it means waiting eight weeks. At least it will mean the complaints are kept separate, and the adjudicator cannot try and do a fast one by offering you compensation to close off both complaints with one strike.)
I think fos works in a very ad-hoc manner. Manager routinely go through complaint statistics. Senior managers (SM) do the same. SM put pressure on manager when targets are off, they in turn go after adjudicators. Adjudicators start 'reviewing' complaints. Due to the pressure to close off cases, evidence is missed, facts muddled-up, letters look the same.
Yep. you couldn't make it up. (well, if you are the FOS, you could)
-
FOS publishes complaints data for every six months: http://www.ombudsman-complaints-data.org.uk/
The latest figures for 01 Jan to 30 Jun 2016 tells us success rate for customers:
--------------Overall -------------banking and credit
Barclays ---- 47% --------------- 31%
HSBC --------49% --------------- 13%
Natwest ----- 47% --------------- 26%
RBS ---------- 53% --------------- 27%
Lloyds-------- 34% ------------------11%
Santander----30% ---------------- 32%
The overall success rate for four of the six banks above are similar, except Lloyds and Santander.
But it's pretty obvious that success rate for 'banking and credit' complaints are particularly low for HSBC.
So be ultra careful when looking at just the overall success rate, because the PPI success rate inflates it (you can see the PPI figures in one of the two links above). PPI success rate for HSBC is a whopping 61%.
-
Of course. time is a factor in all this. But please also consider (take in to account) those that will go through the same anguish, if the OP don't complain to the proper organisation. Raising it here is a start but it may not be enough.
Yes, it's 30 pounds. but this may well be a lot of money for someone going on a small low budget holiday after a long time.
The citizens advice consumer service can tell you if the Financial Ombudsman service or any other organisation will be able to help. Their website address is:
If you make a complaint to citizens advice consumer service they will automatically inform trading standards about this, so you don't have to.
They should also be able to tell you what your next port of call should be. e.g. lastminute.com (as bravofly is part of the group - dont know if they are part of lasminute.com or lastminute.comGroup), ABTA, Financial Ombudsman service or another organisation.
-
Does this mean we have to keep screenprints of each and every webpage when making a booking?.
If so, I'd be choosing not to use sites like bravofly.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Theresa May to seek snap election for 8 June
in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
Posted
never forgotten is great. THen there is digging up something from 20-30 years ago in an act of desperation, to make oneself look/sound superior (to regain lost credibility by slating the opposition)