FOS - delaying complaints?

[tifo]

yes, but this is an important piece of info for me (and others).

 

if the FOS has no power to join a third party to a complaint, then neither does the bank and myself. This means, as the bank has done so, the FOS has, by definition, not made a fair and reasonable decision, which is the duty of care it owes to me as part of its statutory obligation, by allowing something it itself has no power to do, i.e. it cannot confirm anything with the DCA or bring them into the complaint.

 

if there cannot be a third party joined to my complaint against the bank, that leaves only two options in an offer : to pay me or refuse to do so, which in turn means an investigation. The option the bank has taken, i.e. to pay a third party, should not be allowed within the complaint.

 

the FOS has justified its decision by stating the refund is being paid into 'the account', but this is not an account at the bank, as that statement suggests, but to a third party who is not part of the bank, therefore no right of set-off.

 

makes my 'case' against them even stronger.

[tifo]

Reply received from SRT.

 

They state their remit includes matters such as bias and fairness. I alleged the decision is both unfair and biased, because the bank is paying a third party the FOS itself is not allowed to make a party to the complaint, therefore not assess its rights to payment etc. and all parties concerned should also not be able to bring a third party into the complaint, like the bank is doing.

 

They state there is a contradiction here. Although they have to assess whether a complaint has been handled fairly, this is only limited to procedural fairness, i.e. both parties have been able to state their case etc. but cannot assess whether a decision is fair.

 

To me this reads as if they know the decision was made unfairly but will not investigate it, which is exactly what they are meant to do. Of course, i state even the procedural fairness has not been carried out because the money is going to someone they have not contacted and therefore assessed any rights to collection. This they accept they have to investigate, but it is clear they won't.

 

In response to my statement that the decision is factually incorrect as it states i owe money to the bank and has been made as if the payment is being made to this account, they state that the Adjudicator/Ombudsman has simply formed a different view to myself. I have said, no, if there is no money owed to the bank, as is the case, they cannot state it as so, because it is factually wrong.

 

In response to why the money is being paid to a debt agency when they say they cannot make them a party to the complaint, and why the bank can do this, they have not commented, i assume because there is nothing they can say that will seem fair.

Edited November 6, 2008 by tifo

[foolishgirl]

What utter rubbish from the FOS - as to be expected I guess!

 

How can you say the procedures for assessing the fairness are fair but the fairness of the decision is not part of the process? Who makes the decision then? Obviously not the FOS if we are to take their statement as fact.

 

So again that raises the question - what is the purpose of the FOS? Anyone with one brain cell could answer that one!

 

Brings you full square I think Tifo....

[tifo]

got my decision from the Independent Assessor ...

 

he agrees with the decisions ...

 

now going to write back and ask how a decision can be fair and rational when they have not included and contacted the debt agency (they have no powers to do so) within the complaint so haven't assessed any rights to entitlement?

[joneseyblod]

I really do hope you manage to get this sorted tifo. Best of luck!

[tifo]

i don't know what else to do .... other than take each bank to court, but then they'll say we've been through FOS and they made an offer so it's my fault i'm not accepting.

[joneseyblod]

I think you do have a right to an independant hearing at court if you are not happy with the FOS decision, and everything should be looked at freshly as going to the FOS does not affect any legal action you may then decide to take.

 

It is obviously the issue of costs of going to court though.

 

Could they all be dealt with together under 1 hearing and so 1 cost??

[tifo]

to take on the FOS i would need a judicial review, because they are a public body managed by a private company (it means they get out of some obligations such as Freedom of Information Act and other matters which apply to a public body but run like one). And reviews are not cheap.

 

My cases cannot all be dealt with at once as they concern different banks. The issue here is whether the FOS can award a payment to someone not a party to the complaint, as they have already sent me case law supporting that they don't have to follow law, only consider it (i don't know how they consider relevant law and then decide not to follow it).

 

Logically, it would seem they shouldn't be able to pay a third party whom they have not even contacted, never mind make a part of the complaint, which they have no powers to do.

 

So they are saying they cannot include a third party within a complaint (hence contact them for paperwork) but can pay them my refund. I don't follow the logic or fairness of this.

[joneseyblod]

"So they are saying they cannot include a third party within a complaint (hence contact them for paperwork) but can pay them my refund. I don't follow the logic or fairness of this."

 

Nor do I...

[willtheywontthey]

sorry for butting in but can somebody who understands the way the FOS works have a peek at my quite illegible thread here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/181279-arrangement-noted-experian-because.html

[penmarine]

subbing