Thanks Locutus - thats what I thought, but with the Ombudsman pushing quite hard that it should now be dropped I wasn;t sure if I was missing some legality

Hi Ericsbrother, thanks for the reply.I already have a small claims court case open against the Ombudsman, I was actually wondering if it was still valid now that the ICO has ruled that they did break the law but that they will not pursue the matter. The Ombudsman are putting a lot of pressure on me to just cancel the case, but I still maintain that they are in the wrong and I should be compensated for that.

First my apologies if this is in the wrong Forum, as it is to do with the Communication Ombudsman this one seemed appropriate. OK, this is quite a long problems that I am going to try to summarise so my apologies if I haven’t included everything I needed and please ask questions if you need more information. BackgroundAround 3 years ago I had a problem with Three in which they broke the terms of my contract, they also stole £30 from my bank account after the contract was cancelled. Three refused to allow me to make a complaint and so I took the matter to the Ombudsman. I provided proof of the theft of the £30 by providing my bank statements that showed the money going out and never coming back in. I showed details of how Three had failed to uphold their end of the contract and I showed my repeated attempts to complain to Three and how I never got a reply. My case After waiting over a year for the Ombudsman to rule on the case I was informed that they were finding in favour of Three on all claims, I asked for a review as I knew for a fact that Three were in the wrong, I waited another month and was told that after the review they were still siding with Three, but that I had the option to take the matter to court if I wished. I suspected at this point that my case had not been investigated properly – since simple matters like the theft of £30 from my account had been found in Threes favour. I decided that I would take the matter to court but realised that without proof that the matter was not investigated that Three could simply claim that the Ombudsman had already ruled on this matter and I would likely lose the case. To this end I requested a SAR report from the Ombudsman – to which they informed me I could only make payment via cheque which I was unhappy about but I sent them a cheque immediately. This was in August 2012. Where the problems began The required 40 days passed and I still had not received my SAR report, I contacted the Ombudsman again and they claimed to have never received the cheque. I sent a second cheque which they also claimed not to have received, I sent a third cheque, this time via recorded delivery – and this time I got a reply to my letter but still no SARS report, they claimed not to have received a cheque again. Now in February 2013, and having waited 7 months for a SAR report I decided to take the matter to the ICO ICO ruling number 1 The ICO ruled that they could not say for a fact that the Ombudsman had received the cheque, and thus could not uphold my complaint. They did however order the Ombudsman to give me bank details I could make a BACS payment to, and that once that payment was made they would need to get a SAR report to me in 40 days. I did this and the Ombudsman confirmed receipt of my payment. Further issues 40 days came and went and I received no SARS report. I contacted the Ombudsman and gave them an extra 10 days to get it to me but got no reply. After the 10 days I contacted the ICO again and they asked me to give the Ombudsman a 14 day ultimatum to get the SAR report to me. I did this, and copied the ICO into my communication to prove I was chasing this. The Ombudsman refused to reply. ICO ruling number 2 The ICO, seeing that I had now waited 64 days for my SAR report (from the date they could confirm I sent payment) decided that I did have grounds to complain. They also advised that I could begin a court case for my financial loses and compensation for the Ombudsman breaking the law. I gave the Ombudsman an extra week to reply and then began the court proceedings. Ombudsman finally replies A few days after issuing the court case the Ombudsman finally replied saying that they had sent my SAR report to the wrong address and saying that they would send it out again. They claimed to have done nothing wrong (despite the fact that they admitted breeching section 4 and 6 of the DPA) and insisted that I end the court case as “they are not legally responsible for their rulings”. I replied that I have not begun the court case about their ruling but that it was instead about them breaking the law and is for compensation for my financial losses as a result of that – including the fact that I could not begin a claim against Three and expect to win in court without my SAR report. SAR report finally arrives My SAR report finally arrived and as I suspected proves that my case was not investigated. None of the questions I raised were actually asked of Three – and the “evidence” that the ombudsman accepted that Three had done things (like reply to my complaint and send me back the money they stole) amounted to nothing more than the notes on my Three account that said they had done this – they could provide no actual letter or emails to this end nor any proof of a payment actually being made, yet the Ombudsman still found in their favour. Once I have finished with my Ombudsman issues I shall begin my claim against Three. ICO final ruling The ICO has finally ruled that the Ombudsman did break section 4 and 6 of the DPA – but that at the moment they will not take the matter further, but will review this if they get further complaints. Court case And now we get to the crux of the matter – the Ombudsman are now again trying to get me to cancel the case as criminal charges are not being pursued against them and they have provided me with my SAR report. I maintain that they still broke the law and I should be allowed compensation for that fact. Whilst I accept that I can now begin my court case against Three, so no longer wish to claim for my financial losses for that, I still feel that their conduct in breaking the law in this case deserves to be punished. Do I still have a case for this in the courts, or will I now be ruled against since the ICO is not pursuing the criminal case and the Ombudsman has now sent me my SAR report, if 40 days too late? There is still the issue of the Ombudsman having provided my details to an unknown third party? When I raised the case everything that I claimed was true at the time (i.e. I had not received a SAR report) – and whilst I accept that their actions since then mean that I now have one surely I still have grounds to win most of my case against them?

Thanks Grumpy – I’ll give that a try, but if they are prepared to lie to the Ombudsman then I see no reason why they wouldn’t send me false details too – particularly as they now have nothing to lose from it as the Ombudsman has refused to look at the matter further. I spoke to the bank this morning but they don’t hold call records this long. They were able to confirm that there is no record of a call on my accounts – but even if I was able to get the Ombudsman to reopen the case (which they say they will not do) I doubt they would accept that as proof that I did not call them (I could after all have been making a non account specific call). I appreciate the feedback that has been given, maybe I should have come here earlier, but these are all based on gathering information then (presumably) taking the proof to the complaints team or Ombudsman, both of which have refused to look at the matter further – really what I was looking for was if there is an authority over the Ombudsman I can go to, as I really don’t feel the Ombudsman investigated this matter at all?

Thats a good idea - I wish I had thought of it, I'll ask anyway but it is over 2 years ago now. If the don't can I get the Ombudsman to reopen the investigation - they have said they they refuse to look into it further

OK, now this has been going on for well over 2 years now so I doubt I can remember everything that has happened but I'm basically looking if I have anywhere left to go. I had an account with 3 in which I never once used over my monthly allowance - after 18 month (into a 24 month contract) I contact 3 and asked if I could reduce my contact and pay less as I was never anywhere near my monthly allowance. 3 agreeded to lower my bill by £10 a month if I paid a £5 admin charge - which I agreed to. That month my bill was correctly charged the new balance plus the £5 admin fee (which came to £25). The next month however I was also charged £25 which I could not understand and presumed that they had accidentally charged me twice for the downgrade. I contacted 3 but the man was very rude and insisted that there was no mistake. I was left with no choice but to make a complaint to 3. I tried to follow 3's complaint procedure - however 40 days after complaining I had heard nothing - I hadn't even been given a complaint number. As a method of last resort I contacted the CEO direct. 20 days went by and I was finally sent a letter from the CEO that simply said the complaints team were looking into it. After waiting a further 20 days from that letter and still having no reply I went to the ombudsman. My complaint to the Ombudsman was that 3 had charged me twice for a service and that they had failed to acknowledge my complaint after 80 days. The Ombudsman - presumably being swamped with complaints about mobile companies has taken nearly 18 months to fully review the situation. The first reply I had from the Ombudsman was that 3 claimed that they had replied to my complaint and they the charge was for calls made outside my normal allowance. My reply was that I had had no reply to my complaint from 3, and that I could provide myemail chain where every 3 days I contacted them to see if they had done anything yet. I also pointed out that I never made any calls outside my allowance and I only had the phone for incoming calls and the internet (I had an all you can eat internet package). I asked for proof of any contact 3 had had with me so I could dispute it and a record of calls I was supposed to have made. The second reply I had from the Ombudsman was that they believed that 3 had replied (still I was given no proof dispite my proof that I was constantly asking for a reply) and a bill that showed a call to an 0845 number that turned out to be my local bank branch telephone number ( I presume 3 used this as they know the bank I banked with and my local address) I replied to the Ombudsman asking how they can know that 3 had replied when they were unable to send proof yet I was able to provide proof that I was constanly asking for a reply - something I obviously wouldn't do if I had had a reply. I also pointed out that I would never call my local bank branch as it would be cheaper to call the 0800 freephone head office number, and even if I had had need to call my branch direct I would not call the local branch as my account is actually held in a city at the other end of the county (as the account is still from when I was a student) - I also pointed out the unlikely fact that - for the very first time in 18 month of having a contact - I would make exactlly £5 worth of calls the month after I reduced my bill. the final responce from the Ombudsman is that they still believe that Three did respond to my complaint (despite the fact that they are unable to provide any proof) and that 3 have provided a bill showing the charge of the phone call (because as we all know it's impossible to fake a bill) and they they will not look at the matter further and their view is I should pay the full cancellation fee - I should have pointed out that after they failed to reply to my complaint I cancelled my contract. So now I am wondeing what more I can do - the ombudsman has ruled against me but doesn't actually appear to have listend to any of the points I have made and their investigation seems to have boiled down to nothing more than asking 3 if they did something and then taking their word for it. Can I take the matter any further - is there such a thing as an Ombudsman Ombudsman? Am I intitled to copies of the Ombudsmans contact with 3 as I do not feel this was investigated properly. Any help people can give will be much appreciated - I'm now going to pay the fee, as I can't claim it is disputed any more (having had a 3rd party say it was valid) but I'd like to claim it back or get it refunded and continue the fight if possible.

Hi,I no longer need help with this, after contacting the Local Government Ombudsman, the local press, my local councillors and requesting some (potentially) very embarassing information via the Freedom of Information Act the council have decided to back down and forgo the fee "this time"

Apologies for the wall of text, I have tried to put paragraphs in but cannot figure out how

I hope that some people can give me some advise here as I was given 2 working days to pay my council tax but the letter didn't even arrive until after the 2 days were up. Here is the letter I am sending to the magistrates court, I've put this here as it explains what has happened and saves me typing it all out again, if you have any questions for me please ask (note I have put my address and the summons number on the letter but havn't put that here)I'm hoping someone can give me advise on the letter and advise on a defence. Dear Sir/Madam, I have today received a court summons for the 15th August 2012, I am writing to request an adjournment of the case until either the 13th or 14th September 2012. I recently moved to Sussex for work and cannot make the 400 miles round trip in 1 day , nor can I get the day off work at such short notice, however I am supposed to be in Bradford on the 13th/14th September 2012 so could attend then. If you can not accept an adjournment please allow me to submit my defence in writing.In March 2012 I informed Bradford Council that I was moving address and that I would no longer be responsible for the council tax on [Address]. I informed the council of my forwarding address, my telephone number and my email address. Having heard nothing from the council I presumed that my bill was settled. On the 26th July 2012 Bradford Council sent me a reminder bill via second class post that I still owed them £56.07. On the 30th July 2012 (2 working days after I was sent my bill) I was issued with a court summons, as this was sent via first class post it was received on the 1st August – the same date I received my bill. I called Bradford Council on the 2nd August to ask why I was sent a court summons only 2 working days after I was sent a bill – I was informed that they had previously sent bills to my old address in Bradford and an address in Crawley that I have never lived at. They confirmed that all this mail had been sent back to them as “Addressee Gone Away”, thus they knew that I had not received any of these letters. My defence is as follows: 1) The Direct Debit for this account is still active on my bank account, thus Bradford Council could have taken payment any time they wish – they simply neglected to do so. 2) Bradford Council knew that I was not at any of the address that they were sending mail to yet refused to use either my contact email or telephone number (both of which I have confirmed they have on file and are correct) to contact me for an upto date correspondence address. 3) When Bradford Council finally did send me a final bill I was given 2 working days to pay, and as the bill was sent second class post I did not receive this within the 2 working days. As Bradford Councils own rules state that I should be allowed 14 days to pay then they have broken their own rules in this regard. I accept that I must pay the bill of £56.07, but as the court charge is down to the processes of Bradford Council (unable to call/email me for an address and sending letters to addresses they know I do not reside at) I do not feel that it is fair to charge me for the fee, particularly as they only gave me 2 working days to pay up after they finally got my correct address. Yours Sincerlyxxxx xxxx

Well this is annoying, I've now been told in a letter from Money Claim that I need to change the address on the claim, whats more since I requested judgement I now need to pay a £45 fee for the judgement to be removed. Most annoying since Money Claim help line gave me different information - still hopefully this will help others, here is what you actually need to do if the defendant changes address after you submit a claim: 1. Complete a N1 form witht the defendants new address 2. Send that form to the money calim online people. 3. Money Claim will then reissue the papers - the defendant will once again get 14 days from the date they issue the new court summons before you can request judgeement.

Yeah, the companies house address changed the day before I submitted my court claim - no doubt because I had informed then that it was the last day to pay up before I started court proceedings. But I've now requested judgement and it has given me the option to put their new address, I've submitted my proof that at the time I started my claim they were still officially giving the address I used on their website, and that they hadn't informed me of any change of address, so the courts have said I should be fine.

Meant to post the courts reply, but then I forgot - Apparently as long as I am confident that that was the companies address when I submitted the claim then I can input the new address when I request judgement. Hopefully this information will help anyone else who has this problem.

Thank you very much everyone for there help with this, it really is appreciated and I think it is great that somebody like me, with no experiance of things like this can come to a website like this and get so much usful information. As for my situation - having spoken to Admiral they are unsure why the underwriters have contacted me direct - as far as Admiral are aware no claim is in place on my insurance!!!! Admiral have come through and said that they are going to defend the claim on the grounds that - firstly I did everything in my power to check my ex had insurance, including checking her policy document and that the claim about partners is unclear. Secondly, that my partner accepted responsability for the accident as proved by the fact she has already partly paid for the victims costs so she should pay for the rest and thirdly that the victims repair costs do not equate to the damage that was agreed was done to her vehicle. Once again thank you for everyone for there help - although it did confuse me for awhile it also set me on the right path, it is very much appreciated.

Yep she had comprehensive insurance, and it does cover her 3rd party on any other car but the small print excludes 3rd party insurance if the car is your partners - rather sneaky of More Than if you ask me but it is in their policy details so I guess I can't really argue with that.

OK, well I'm very confused now - but I've decided to call Admiral direct and see what they have to say before I go any further. If MMA choses to pay out I'm going to get it in writing that they won't chase me further, but I'm going to try prevent MMA from paying out if I can (or atleast getting it to not effect my no claims first) I was duped by my ex - who showed me the section of her policy book that said she was 3rd party on other cars but didn't show me that there is a further clause in the small print that states this does not cover her partners car - though I accept that I probably had some responsibility to have checked this properly first rather than a quick glance at her book.