FOS - delaying complaints?

[tifo]

What is it with the FOS and their time wasting on credit card claims? Is there something going on that we don't know about?

 

I've had nearly all my complaints take over 5 months now and in that time the banks have been given up to 3 months to respond, that's after the FOS take 2 months getting round to looking.

 

All the cases have been with an Adjudicator so i have been able to call and chase up progress.

 

From 1st Oct all credit card cases are being handled by a 'charges team' specially set up to chase banks (so they say).

 

This means more delay as they will have 1000's cases to go through and the months and months of waiting for a response from the bank seems to have been wasted, even though they assure me that the case will be picked up where it left off (yeah, but when will it be picked up again?).

 

I'm not a happy chappy at the moment.

[surprise]

Well I passed my CAPONE to them in June, received one offer which I rejected on 16th August. CapONe wrote to me saying that they had not heard from me since they made their offer. As a result I emailed the person dealing with at the FOS only to be told that someone else is now dealing with the claim. The best of it is during the period June until a couple of weeks I have been getting really stupid letters from CapOne and the last one I received really p..... me off. I emailed it to FOS and said to them CapOne strike again. That did get a response. We will write to CapOne and tell them that they must not chase payment until negotiations have been settled. However, the offer they made paid off the balance and a small cheque to me.

 

Like you I am totally confused with what they are playing at.

[tifo]

they keep passing it from department to department.

 

i've been assured over the past few months that the bank 'will respond anytime as their delay is unacceptable'. Now that it's passed to a different team again i get the same response as at the beginning, in that they have written to the bank and cannot provide a time for when they will get a response.

 

is there anyone to complain to about the FOS (apart from themselves)?

[surprise]

You could write to the FOS and say you are not happy with the service as a regulatory body and copy in OFT. I did that with my daughter's case v Lloyds, I received a phone call from the FOS the same day as I emailed them.

[tifo]

i don't want them to phone me, i can call them anytime and have a chat.

 

i want the cases to move forward, not be stuck at the 'waiting to hear from the bank' stage for months. How can they justify that after 4 months and yet keep asking us to wait?

 

if you ask direct questions on the phone, they bottle out and say they will write to you .... more delay ....

[tifo]

i can make a complaint to the Independent Assessor if i like at the FOS.

 

i will do that as i'm not happy being told the bank will respond 'this week' after waiting months, only to be told it's now with a different department and matters seem to have gone back 4 months.

 

so the banks have had about 7 months to respond now and nothing ....

[surprise]

I must say the Adjudicator that phoned me about Lloyds was very helpful. I am having trouble with FOS and CapOne and yesterday CapOne issued another default notice, had one removed already. I sent off an email to the FOS last night and I have not minced my words with them at all. I understood from the FOS that they had spoken with CAPONE and told them not to write any more letters to me until negotiations had been sorted, however, I am getting weekly letters from Capone. See what they have to say when they pick the email up tomorrow.

[tifo]

I have been affected by FOS decisions to allow the banks to pay my full refund, and even unlawful default compensation, to the DCA, despite them being a third party to my complaint and no amount currently owing to the bank. I am losing around £10k in total and a year and a half of time spent making claims.

 

In one case, where i have 'settled' with the DCA (they closed the account instead of paying me compensation so it's a cash payment in a way to them) the Ombudsman has stated that the refund would still go to the DCA, citing that my settlement is a seperate matter and nothing to do with them, otherwise i would be gaining unfairly because i didn't pay the bank this money. I don't understand how i would be gaining as i have 'paid' the same money to the DCA. And the matter is not seperate because the bank has already made the DCA a part of my claim by allowing the bank to send them my refund.

 

In another case, i settled the whole amount (which included charges) with a part payment. The FOS allowed the bank to keep my refund in addition to letting them keep the money they awarded me as compensation for an unlawful default.

 

All the FOS's decisions are based on their own guidelines which in turn should be based on law. These 'guidelines' seems to change depending on what the bank says and hence the decision is made.

 

How do i (or anyone) get access to these guidelines as they are significantly affecting me (and a lot of other people)?

 

Secondly, the FOS close a complaint after an Ombudsman has reviewed a decision (which is exactly the same as what the Adjudicator made) and state that is the final word and i have no recourse on it as an Ombudsman's decision cannot be reversed. This would seem to indicate they are above the law even if they make a flawed decision. Even the court allows appeals and decisions can be overturned. What can i (or we) do?

[tifo]

I understand that under the rules of natural justice and the Human Rights Act, a complainant is entitled to see all the submissions and evidence a bank makes to the FOS in a complaint made by the consumer.

 

The FOS have stated this information would only be sent when an complaint is ongoing. Once it has closed they cannot send you the information.

 

I asked for this information when a complaint was ongoing and was refused. I have again asked for this now that the complaint has been closed (i don't accept the decision) and am being told i would have got this if the matter had been ongoing.

 

I have recently asked on another complaint which has only just had a decision made a few days ago but looks like they won't send me the info.

 

What can i (we) do to get this type of information?

[citizenB]

subscribing. This is an interesting question to which I too would like to know the answer

[tifo]

Reply received for information i requested for an ongoing complaint. Now i am being told the matter closes when an Ombudsman makes a decision, so i can't have the info. This means i have been given no opportunity to accept or decline the offer from the bank which seems unusual as all other decisions allowed me 14 days to make up my mind.

 

Previously this request was declined because i made it on a closed complaint.

 

Another example of contradictions? You can't get the info if the complaint is open despite them telling you you are entitled to it. You can't get the info if the complaint is closed.

 

The same person has told me only last week that the complainant has 28 days to accept or decline an offer after a decision is made, so why not now. Maybe because i am requesting this info?

[tifo]

received this reply :

 

you can complete and return to this office the settlement form. He would then make arrangements to send it to the firm and ask it to settle with you directly.

 

am i reading it correctly that they will ask the bank to send payment to me "directly"? I've been told by the same person that a decision is final and cannot be changed, but this would seem to change it.

 

i received the Ombudsmans decision a few days ago that payment will be sent to the DCA, whether i have a balance with them or not.

 

all i've done yet is ask for the guidelines under which such a decision is made and quoted CCA 1974 on unenforceability, which i quoted to them right at the beginning but they said it doesn't matter.

 

i can still accept the offer even though the matter is closed to discussion which would seem to indicate the complaint is still open, yet i have been refused the banks evidence on the basis that it is now closed.

[tifo]

looking into the future, does anyone think there is a case here to take legal action against the FOS for 'financial losses' sustained as a result of their flawed decisions which are (possibly) against their guidelines and the law? Of course, this is only when (if) i have more evidence against this.

 

this action could be per claim or all rolled into one, i.e. under £5k but over it with interest.

[tifo]

My case seems to have been passed to the Review team without me asking.

 

Letter received today from Ombudsman that her decision was fair as, on the face of it, the refund is for less than the amount written off by the bank/DCA. But, i did not say it was 'written off', i said 'paid' and i've sent proof. Apparently, paying a debt off does not matter to the FOS. If she looks at the evidence correctly, on the face of it there is no more debt for this account. This would seem to indicate that, again, they don't look at what the consumer says.

 

The Review team will only look at how the complaint was handled, not change a (possibly) flawed decision. But, the Legal team seem to have changed it after a few emails to them, so i need to confirm who gets the refund.

[tifo]

anyone got no comments on the above as it affects a lot of people?

 

what about 'unjust enrichment' for the DCA receiving the refund, with them not being a part of the complaint etc?

[kennythecelt]

Hi Tifo

 

Just noticed your thread- apologies. Will read through it carefully though and get back to you, with my own thoughts, for all their worth.

 

Regards,Kenny

[diddled]

Think this might be a case to take to Michael Barnes, FOS "Independent Assessor"

[tifo]

Think this might be a case to take to Michael Barnes, FOS "Independent Assessor"

 

I will do that, but they still say the decision cannot be changed, even if flawed.

[tifo]

Is it just me or do the FOS seem to be delaying credit card and business account complaints until the end of the test case?

 

It's been over 9 months on some complaints since they acknowledged receipt and over 6 months on some since they wrote to the bank. Yet, all i get every month is a letter stating they're waiting for the banks' response. How long should it take for the bank to respond, if not within 6 months yet?

 

I've asked them how long they would allow the bank to respond and was told they are not a regulator so cannot force the bank. What are they mediating then and what are their powers?

 

If i don't respond to a letter within 14 days, the complaint is closed and i lose my claim through them (i've had it on a few) and yet the bank seems to have forever. Why can't they be impartial and do the same to the bank?

 

Is the FOS 'fit for purpose'?

[Hopeful1]

I've had a positive experience with FOS. They dealt with my Egg card claim in a reasonable amount of time. Hubby's PPI claim is taking a while, but it's the current 'thing' so i expected that.

 

I've also recently missed a FOS response deadline regarding my own PPI issue which they had not supported. When i emailed the case manager he did offer to transfer my complaint to a different team as there are many issues. He did this without me having to re-start the whole claim process.

 

As consumers we don't seem to have many regularory bodies on our side do we?

 

Keep at 'em that's my motto

[tifo]

glad to see someone has had a good experience with them.

[MarkieMark]

I wanted to let you know I had a bad experience with the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

The failed to investigate my complaint properly and I have every evidence to support this. My wife passed away in 2005 and I needed time to grieve and felt it was time to tell these so called professionals that you not as good as you think you are.

 

My complaint was about the Zurich New Built warranty and I found their documentation misleading. I had lots and lots of problems with me new home and was even served a notice of contravention because my new home was in breach of building regulations.

 

The contract between Zurich and the developer was they would build the new home in accordance with the Zurich technical manual. The policy only makes reference to damage and major damage. What a worthless warranty this is. The Zurich technical manual says the new home has got to be built in accordance with the building regulations... when I bought the matters which were in breach of the building regulations they said its not covered under the warranty. I decided the take the property developer to court as a litigant in person and they had the biggest firm of solicitors representing them. I did not CARE I wanted to fight this all the way. It was a battle and I had done my home work.

 

At the end they settled out of court. When you read about the things in the media you realise how true it all is.

 

Whilst in proceeding Zurich gave the developer information which was breach of data protection act 1998. They claim to be independent????

 

Any I asked the Financial Ombudsman Service to investigate this complaint. THEY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE MY COMPLAINT PROPERLY and despite providing them with the evidence to support that statement I have made they told me I was time barred.

 

Limitations Act 2000 states I have upto 6 years but the Financial Services Market the FOS can dictate if they want to close the complaint whenever they want.

 

In addition to the above the Financial Ombudsman Service have immunity laws to protect them from claim for damages. Why do they need immunity laws to protect them if they are professionals?

 

I even sent two letters recorded delivery to the Independent Assessor and got no reply.

 

I even contacted Lord Hunt who reviews the FOS and they did not want to know. WHAT ABOUT CONSUMER PROTECTION AS THE ACT CLAIMS?

 

THEY CLAIM TO TREAT CONSUMER COMPLAINTS FAIRLY WELL IN MY CASE THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

[tifo]

Limitations Act 2000 states I have upto 6 years but the Financial Services Market the FOS can dictate if they want to close the complaint whenever they want.

 

In addition to the above the Financial Ombudsman Service have immunity laws to protect them from claim for damages. Why do they need immunity laws to protect them if they are professionals?

 

I've read somewhere the limit is 6 years plus 3 years from discovery, making it 9 years you can go back. It's on here somewhere.

 

I didn't know they had immunity laws, as they are a private company and having a law for them only would be discriminatory to all other private companies. They should be open to the same claims any company is, after all they can (and do) make mistakes, not that they ever accept they do.

 

I've got my MP looking into it and he's written to one of the Treasury Ministers to respond to my letter. I've taken the same issue up with the FOS.

 

This is what i've asked them today as part of a complaint review :

 

As part of the Review and complaint, i would like to view all of the bank submissions and evidence provided with regards to my request for a refund of penalty charges.

 

This is my right under the rules of natural justice and the Human Rights Act 1998. This has also been confirmed by your legal adviser xxxxx xxxxxx but she has declined to fulfill this request.

 

In addition, i would like to view the specific guidelines under which it is a 'fair and reasonable' decision to allow the refund to be paid to a third party who is unconnected with my complaint through your service, as my complaint concerned only the bank, and was not a party to my agreement with the bank while the account was active. If there has been any submissions from such a third party as part of my complaint, for example proof of their legal entitlement to this refund, then i would like to view this. However, if there has been no such submissions then i would ask you to look into why the decision is 'fair and reasonable' to pay someone who has not provided any legal proof of entitlement.

[MarkieMark]

Hi

 

I have also looked at the Human Rights Act 1998 s6 Rights to a fair trail and also the European Convention Rights 6(1)

 

The case I found interesting was Ringeisen V Austria A13 (1971) 1 EhRR 455.

 

Paragraph 96 The applicant acused six member of the regional commission of bias.

 

Financial Services And Markets

2000 Chapter 8

Section 233: Data protection

452. This section inserts new subsection (4A) into section 31 of the Data Protection Act 1998. This is needed to ensure that the scheme operator does not have to disclose information it has obtained when considering a complaint brought under the ombudsman scheme if disclosure would prejudice the performance of its functions.

 

Check this out also

 

issue 64 - September/October 2007

 

Lord Hunt

 

ombudsman news

 

issue 64

 

September/October 2007

subject to scrutiny

 

I have often remarked on how well the ombudsman model has stood the test of time – largely unchanged since 1981 when the Insurance Ombudsman was first established as a voluntary scheme.

The key feature of that scheme – that it was a free service funded by the industry and that consumers should give the firm a chance to resolve a complaint before approaching the ombudsman – is now embodied in statutory form.

But it’s time to look at some other aspects of the model to see whether the Financial Ombudsman Service will be fit for purpose in the next decade. So we have asked Lord Hunt of Wirral to conduct a review.

He will be focusing on the openness and accessibility of the service to its wide range of customers and stakeholders and will be consulting widely. He could hardly be better placed or qualified for the role. Many in the insurance industry will know of Lord Hunt’s career as a leading insurance lawyer. He knows both the legal system and the insurance world, and was closely involved in the setting up of the Insurance Ombudsman. IFAs will know him as the founding chairman of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers, while others may recognise him as the current President of the CII (Chartered Insurance Institute).

He has had a distinguished political career as a senior MP and as a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher. So while he knows a thing or two about the financial services world, he can also bring the independent mind of a parliamentarian to this exercise.

Walter Merricks

chief ombudsman

[tifo]

This is needed to ensure that the scheme operator does not have to disclose information it has obtained when considering a complaint brought under the ombudsman scheme if disclosure would prejudice the performance of its functions.

 

I would disagree that asking to see evidence for your own complaint would prejudice the FOS in any way, except if it were clear that they are making biased decisions and have something to hide. This would go against their reason for operating, which is to be an impartial mediator. I would say they are far from impartial.

 

For example, bank makes an offer and the decision is made. The claimant can either accept or decline, no further options. That is not mediation because i haven't been able to look at what the bank has said and agree or disagree with it or provide further evidence before the decision, therefore i have been prejudiced against.

 

As the decision involves me losing a lot of money which i am rightly due and the DCA is not legally entitled to, the FOS decision is flawed, in principle and at law. I should be fully entitled to know how they came to their decision and what guidelines and law they used.

 

It is a 2 way process between me and the bank, it is the bank and FOS bringing the DCA into it for no reason. They are an outside company and play no part in my complaint.