'arrangement' noted with Experian - because of FOS?!

[willtheywontthey]

Now I've only just noticed that one credit card company has noted with Experian that my account has some sort of special arrangement on it. I never knew about this and it seems that the actions of the FOS has resulted in this being noted. Now was I naive or have the FOS and the credit card company taken the biscuit.

 

Basic background - FOS about to come to an adjudication and I mention the credit card company are still meking negative notes with CRAs and asking for payment and threatening further action. I mention to FOS that I didn't think this should eb happening. FOS come back and say credit card company agreed to stop 'payment collection' until FOS adjudication.

 

At no time did I think nor was I told by FOS that this would be a payment arrangement on my credit file.

 

Should I have been told? I certainly did not want any such notice placed on my credit file. One of the main reasons I was complaining was because of the way the credit card company was noting down late payments etc with Experian despite penalty charges etc etc.

 

I now have to start a separate thread called 'what to do when you get an FOS adjudication which confuses the hell out of you and you've got 2 weeks to reply' thread.

[willtheywontthey]

Could somebody clarify how 'binding' the adjudicator's final decision is and how 'binding' is the final stage - the ombudsman's review of the adjudication. I have been told the last stage or final decision 'does not require both parties to accept it in order for it to become binding'.

 

Is this true and what happens if I do not accept final decision????

[42man]

You do not have to accept their decision....you can go on and take legal action if necessary....

[willtheywontthey]

Thank you for your reply. It is much appreciated - I always thought the same .. that I did not have to accept any of the decisions - adjudicator or final ombudsman. What has confused me is the adjudicator's reply which clearly states the final decision 'is binding' on both parties even if one disagree.

 

Now I guess I need to know what 'binding' means? Is this clever speak to get me under the illusion I have to agree with what FOS say???

 

Is the FOS wrong? Is the FOS misleading me?

Edited February 2, 2009 by willtheywontthey

[42man]

In my opinion I find the FOS incredibly weak...It will be binding to their decision if it is accepted !! but NOT if you do not accept it....

[willtheywontthey]

so you mean the 'binding' thing is really a load of tosh? The binding bit means the FOS will be sticking to their opinion and that is it?

 

Can any organisation use what FOS say as points of reference to assist in future? On one hand many things FOS say I'm not happy with but on the phone call issues I am. Added to that the FOS somehow have managed to get a special arrangement noted on my credit file without my permission or knowledge which has annoyed me!

[42man]

I've never heard of something added to a file that says 'FOS' has this been added by the FOS or has this been added by the creditor ?....and i'm not sure if this is viewed as detrimental to your files or not.....If you agree to an FOS decision then this is binding, but if you don't agree to it, then it is not. Although it may be their final decision on the matter....you obviously don't have to accept it...

[willtheywontthey]

oh the credit file doesn't state FOS at all. It was a result of the FOS asking them to stop payment collection etc whilst they were doing the adjudication.

 

Now my next question about the adjudication report (very long) if you don;t mind??

 

So the adjudication says background etc then goes onto FINDINGS - 4 main parts relating to my complaint they feel they allowed to deal with:

 

default charges (-)

telephone calls (+)

debt recovery action (-)

enforcibility of credit agreement (-)

 

For each of the above the FOS states their view and the (+) su where they sided with me and the (-) is where they did not. In the (-) bit they also mention

 

(in brief!!)

 

default charges (-) - charges fair and reasonable etc etc

telephone calls (+) - maladministration and unfair treatement

debt recovery action (-) - I owe them money and need to repay

enforcibility of credit agreement (-) - DISP 3 3.4 = FOS cannot decide.

 

THEN...this is where I get confused. I can agree or disagree with above findings but then the FOS give a 2 liner Conclusion which baffles me:

 

"My recommendation is that this complaint should be upheld in part, and that Bank should pay Me £250 in full and final settlement of it. I make no other finding or recommendation."

 

QUESTION? Does the conclusion mean I can ignore absolutely everything else they said? Are the other findings somehow ignored in this recommendation?? Is it this last bit ie the conclusion that is the actual adjudication???? Or does adjudication also include findings? I'm confused with all the formal wording

[42man]

Have you thought of suing them for harrassment ? (not the FOS).....

[willtheywontthey]

Thanks again 42 man.

 

Am tempted to do something about the FOS 'suggestion' which led to the 'arrangement' on my credit file - probably with the ICO as I already have a complaint (months old now) with same bank on some issues.

 

I get confused with the FOS language and would imagine court language would just be too much.

 

Can anybody comment on the 'findings' vs 'conclusion' questions??

[tifo]

the FOS decision is binding on the firm but not the consumer, unless it is accepted, in which case it becomes binding on both.

 

i have rejected many FOS decisions and have told the bank i'll carry on. However, the bank/DCA will refer you back to the FOS decision, even though you've rejected it, and state it is binding on them, so you have no choice but to take legal action.

[willtheywontthey]

Thanks Tifo

 

So if I now state my concerns to the adjudicator and it goes to the Ombudsman because I am not accepting full and final this means I can actually refuse the Ombudsman decision? Why would the adjudicator have said the final decision from ombudsman 'is binding' on both parties even if one disagrees???

 

Any advice by the way on the issue regarding the difference between 'findings' and 'conclusion'?

 

It confuses me that in findings they say this and that but then in conclusion say:

 

"My recommendation is that this complaint should be upheld in part, and that Bank should pay Me £250 in full and final settlement of it. I make no other finding or recommendation."

 

Does that not imply I can forget everything he said in the findings section???

[tifo]

Why would the adjudicator have said the final decision from ombudsman 'is binding' on both parties even if one disagrees???

 

That's not what they should be saying ... the extract below is from here about the Financial Ombudsman Service

 

about us

 

key facts

 

 

• It’s our job to settle individual complaints between consumers and businesses providing financial services. If we uphold a complaint, we can order matters to be put right.
  
• We were set up by parliament to do this – as independent experts – and our service is free to consumers.
  
• We can look at complaints about a wide range of financial matters – from insurance and mortgages to investments and credit. Each year we deal with over a million enquiries and settle around 100,000 disputes.
  
• We’re completely independent and impartial – just as a judge would be if the consumer went to court instead.
  
• We are not a regulator ("watchdog") or a trade body or a consumer champion. Our role is to settle disputes, without taking sides. So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.
  
• If a business isn't able to resolve a customer’s complaint on its own, we'll see if we can help settle the dispute. But the business must first have the chance to sort things out itself.
  
• We can often resolve disputes informally, but some cases are more complex and take more time. We aim to settle most disputes within six to nine months.
  
• Consumers don’t have to accept any decision we make. They are always free to go to court instead. But if they do accept an ombudsman's decision, it is binding both on them and on the business.
  
• Our service is confidential – we do not publish the names of businesses or consumers whose complaints we handle.
  

 

and they're not impartial or unbiased .... i can say this from over 10 cases.

[willtheywontthey]

maybe I (again) got confused with the legal-speak?

 

This is what he said:

 

"A Final Decision, unlike an Adjudication, does not require both parties to accept it in order for it to become binding. If the complainant accepts a Final Decision, then both parties are bound by it. As fas as enforcement of a Final Decision is concerned, in the unlikely event that a financial firm refused to comply with a binding Final Decision, then the Decision is enforceable in court, but it would be up to the complainant, and not this Service, to ask the court to do so."

 

I guess it's the first sentence that makes me think he's saying it is binding although he actually does not say that does he - an implication ??? misleading or my interpretation??

[willtheywontthey]

That's not what they should be saying ... the extract below is from here about the Financial Ombudsman Service

 

 

 

and they're not impartial or unbiased .... i can say this from over 10 cases.

 

I remember reading a your FOS thread experiences some months back!

[JonCris]

FOS are no more impartial than I am. Many of their so called 'judgments' have been ignored by the courts.

 

They really are a joke as you will see if you research the web & don't forget who pays them & where they come from......... the finance industry

[tifo]

A Final Decision, unlike an Adjudication, does not require both parties to accept it in order for it to become binding. If the complainant accepts a Final Decision, then both parties are bound by it.

 

The first sentence is kinda confusing but the second makes it clear, if the complainant (consumer) accepts it, then it is binding, as it is already binding on the bank/dca anyway. That first sentence is plain wrong.

[tifo]

FOS are no more impartial than I am.

 

yes, as an example, i passed a few decisions to the Independant Assessor and complained about the Adjudicator saying he doesn't think i'll pay the DCA my debt, which is why he's letting the bank pay them my refund of charges. I don't know where their guidelines and case law are for this and they won't tell me. A totally unfair opinion of me and my character.

 

The IS said the Adjudicator is entitled to his opinions and to make decisions based around them. Er, no, i said, but they don't listen!

 

As for being as fair as a judge, the FOS don't have to follow law so that statement can never be true because they've ignored all case law and legislation which supported my stance. They only have to consider it. I haven't had any reply on how they decide to consider it but not follow it.

 

Unless i have some big QC behind me, i don't think i'm gonna get anywhere with the FOS so will have to suffer the losses they've made for me. Some £12,000 or more.

[Suetonius]

yes, as an example, i passed a few decisions to the Independant Assessor and complained about the Adjudicator saying he doesn't think i'll pay the DCA my debt, which is why he's letting the bank pay them my refund of charges. I don't know where their guidelines and case law are for this and they won't tell me. A totally unfair opinion of me and my character.

 

So if you are going to pay the DCA anyway, why do you have an issue with the bank paying the DCA ?

 

Isn't the outcome the same ?

 

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question

[tifo]

So if you are going to pay the DCA anyway, why do you have an issue with the bank paying the DCA ?

 

Isn't the outcome the same ?

 

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question

 

But i'd like to settle my own debts in my own way. I'd like to know how much the DCA is legally entitled to and make a payment on that amount.

 

It's like you owing a mate some money and and second mate owes you, but instead of paying you says he's paid your first mate so doesn't owe you anything now. You'd tell him your debts have nothing to do with him.

 

Same with me. My debts are my own concern and not the FOS's or the bank's. The DCA and bank are two separate companies so there is no right of set-off.