Agree on the voice stress widgets, that stuff has to have been sold by people from the Gene Hunt school of policing. "But he SOUNDS like a dodgy geezer, guv!" As to false accusations, I can only speak for myself, and I'd go back to my earlier post- I ask questions, but people "hear" accusations. There doesn't seem to be a good way out of this, the obvious "I'm not accusing you of anything, I just need to understand..." always gets the other side riled up good an proper, and always seems to end in a complaint against me. Some "special" people find it an affront to their honesty that they can't just ask for a cheque and get one, and they can't understand I need to know a bit more if there's something obviously missing or wrong. Undisclosed driving bans are an unpopular one, because you just know somebody's going to say they didn't know they'd gone to court and been banned. I think turning real, provable, fraud cases over to the criminal courts has had an effect on accusations- I certainly got the full fire and brimstone about the offence of false reporting, don't say it if you can't prove it, it could be you in a court for wasting police time etc etc a couple of years ago in training. Now we get complaints about "dragging out" a claim for weeks because every time we find what used to be a reason to decline a claim, we give everyone a chance to explain it via a letter, which of course takes an extra couple of days c/o postie, rather than take the story as given, because nobody wants to be that guy who tried to write up a fraud case and got stuck on because the case failed. And we aren't allowed to decide on fraud based on supposition, opinion, or anything we worked out ourselves, we always have to apply for police reports/database disclosures to prove or disprove it, and that means a wait for the police to complete their enquiries, which takes months in some places. Not exactly helping the customer "journey" though, is it? If I try to shortcut anything, like not waiting for a police report because that police service takes forever, I get the claim kicked back down anyway. Frustrates the crap out of me some days, that the only way to be fair and not make unfounded accusations seems to be to take an unfairly long time. Answers on a postcard, but only ones that don't involve fraudsters getting away with it! The never EVER wrong? Yeah, we have them too. Sadly, they get everywhere. I try not to be one, I know we have them in the office, and sometimes we have them as policyholders too. My favourite was the chap who absolutely flat out demanded satisfaction under the Freedom of Information Act, and would not get off my phone until somebody with a legal authority in my company accepted notice of his FoI demand for X Y and Z unrelated to his claim. For those who don't know, FoI only applies to government-type places, not us, but could I explain that to him and explain his rights under the Data Protection Act might help him get information? Could I bunnies. Apparently I am a lowly peon who's not qualified to understand the complexities of FoI law (true, as far as it goes), get me someone who knows what they're talking about. I finally got a compliance officer to agree to talk to him. Cost me a bar of chocolate that did, and I never did get to find out what happened.

Hang on, after you had a case decided against you, appealed it, had the appeal turned down, and had a final response, you would think the case file at the insurer is going to do anything other than point to you being wrong? Naive at best, methinks! You choose not to take a full part in the FOS process, that won't weaken the insurer's position one bit. As to writs, if you get accused by *me* there will be evidence, enough that I'll have written a statement to the police for a fraud prosecution, which means you're unlikely to be accused by me, and far more likely to be accused by a behelmeted uniformed type. It may sound harsh, but fraud being criminalised is great- higher standard of proof so fewer "borderline" court cases, independent investigation by police, and no credible way to complain of being victimised by insurer when it's fraudster versus CPS in court. It takes the decision to go to court away from insurance people, which does take the sting out of any backlash on the case, and if the case is shaky, the police and CPS won't run with it. Most of the time in my experience, what people interpret as "being accused of dishonesty" is actually me trying to get them to prove a loss, to get a case clean enough to pass it for payment. To my claimants: Expensive stuff you don't have receipts for, can't describe to any degree of detail, was never in a photo, has no warranty, was never registered (guarantees etc) that you claim great sentimental attachment to, and was stolen in a burglary you never reported to the police, you said all that on a recorded call, and you want me to "just believe you"? Fine, I might, but nobody else will. Serving a writ on me personally for asking (and people have) just makes me go into "letter of the law, letter of the policy" mode. On really exceptional days, (ie if I smell rodent, and there's a letter threatening a writ/OFT/Watchdog/divine retribution to put me off the scent, as opposed to actual writ) I go into uber-helpful mode, and will offer to report the burglary/theft to PC Plod and co, offer to call mobile operators to block the stolen phone, and offer to call the shops they bought the stuff from to track down serial numbers to report the stuff as stolen too. After all, if I believe the loss is real, I should do everything in my power to mitigate the criminal's gain, shouldn't I? I really hate fraudsters. You can tell, can't you? I get writs against me or my employer now and again, never had one proceed after the company lawyer sends on the call recordings and notes to "put the case in context" for the issuing solicitor. I'm not always right, but so far I've been right when it matters.

Good work on your part! Wish more people would be constructive and help themselves like this. I work for the "other" side, for an insurance firm, and the FOS are just as much of a mystery to us. Before declining an insurance claim here (mostly cars in my department) somebody senior has to OK the whys and wherefores, and the FOS technical advice line keeps getting called if it's not a straightforward one (cynic me says it's not straightforward even if your claimant is in jail by now for defrauding his insurer!) So far, "apparently" based on certain FOS decisions, it's OK to lie about your driving record on an insurance application, spend thousands on "car bling" and expect us to magically know about it and repair/replace it because we once saw a fuzzy phone photo of some car that you say looks like yours that had not-the-same car bling on it, leave the keys in the ignition all the time, and expect us to pay out if it gets nicked. All three of those things (driving record, modifications, security) are specifically mentioned in the insurance policy, and I can understand maybe one speeding ticket in the last year not getting mentioned, just say so at renewal, but some people just take the mick, and some days the FOS swallows their story. Maybe part of the reason FOS have gotten so busy, slow, and a bit weird in the last few years is that each and every one of the folks I personally consider "no chance of being paid" seems to go to the FOS, partly because it's free, and some know it costs us £500 or so and think we'll pay a twenty grand car claim to get out of paying the £500. Really? Maths is not their specialist topic, I reckon:p In most cases, we've had solid grounds to not pay the claims, usually fraud, or serious misrepresentation. If it was mild, like an extra endorsement on the licence, or maybe little Jonny drives it a bit more than you said, we'd just charge a top-up premium to bring the policy up to the real world situation, probably what would have been paid if they'd told the truth/we'd known that (your POV varies here:) of course.) Some get overturned and we deserve it, usually because we didn't ask the right question at the right time, but it's a tiny minority because these days we only void where we're certain. These lovely people who've had their claim bounced will always write to the FOS in simple terms, their complaint never presents anything new, that might change our decision. Same happens with appeals in house, the appeals always comes down to "I disagree. Pay." without any evidence or reason. If there's anything else, it's accusations of victimisation, rudeness or lying. I work in an all-calls-recorded office, so proving what was said is easy. Victimisation is harder to prove or disprove, but the claims handler's position is often that they only started "victimising" them by questioning them, and then only when it became apparent they were a fraudster. Rudeness? Not if I want to keep my job, some people think challenging their changing stories, or asking for proof of something because the claimant keeps BSing us, is rude. I disagree. The perception in the car insurance part of the world is that the FOS is stacked against insurers these days, the three examples above being a reason to think that. I guess that what I want to say, rant apart, is if you're going to the FOS, follow Elmo's example- be sure, give FOS loads of help to overturn actual bad decisions, and try to get everything down in your complaint, so they don't feel the need to go back and forth asking questions. On my own account, please don't clag up the FOS in-tray on spec when you've been caught fair and square, and don't throw accusations about because it just annoys me. Annoyed me performs to job/contract and no more, things happen at deadline. Happy me will exercise discretion, things happen as fast as I can make them. And the best bit is, nobody can touch me for that, for I shall remain the very soul of non-apologetic, non-admitting-anything politeness. And the call recordings will prove it.