Cap1 & CCA return

[Suetonius]

I consider it to be quite straight forward, the FOS is a limited company and not a public authority, government body or a regulator...

 

It is a dispute resolution service not an ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY !!!

[the main man]

Every time a complaint is made about an institution the FOS fine that organisation ...I think its £400 ....but that's how they are financed.

 

sparkie

 

It's even better now Sparkie they have recently upped this to £500 a throw:D

[Desperate Daniella]

Well the champagne will be flowing freely at their next Christmas party, courtesy of Capital One alone.

 

Holley, go to Sunflower99's thread Just Recieved A Signed Capital One Agreement Loads of caponers are on there and you can see what to expect, and it's all going to be computer-generated rubbish regardless of what you say/ask, so I have just complained to FOS.

 

DD

[Suetonius]

this is their facts

In considering what is fair and reasonable, The Financial Ombudsman Service "will" take into account the "relevant law, regulations, regulators’ rules and guidance and standards, relevant codes of practice (such as the Banking Code), and good industry practice at the relevant time.

 

And the law in relation s.77/s.78 requests, is the CCA 1974 (as amended 2006). Which as quoted earlier specifies Court not FOS.

[cab1ne]

"I think its £400 ....but that's how they are financed.

 

Thank you Sparkie, I remember reading somewhere that it is going up to £500.00.

 

It is a dispute resolution service not an ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY !!!

 

And the law in relation s.77/s.78 requests, is the CCA 1974 (as amended 2006). Which as quoted earlier specifies Court not FOS.

 

AH"

now i understand and thankyou (the penny has dropped) they just need new template letters.

 

dear sir/madam

we have looked at your complaint and as our roles and responsibilities of the Financial Ombudsman Service clearly state we "will" take into account the "relevant law, regulations, regulators’ rules and guidance and standards, relevant codes of practice (such as the Banking Code), and good industry practice at the time.

We have decided that due to the fact that we are getting at least £400.00 a complaint we would rather sit here and do nothing to help you.

[foolishgirl]

 

We have decided that due to the fact that we are getting at least £400.00 a complaint we would rather sit here and do nothing to help you.

 

:D

[Suetonius]

I guess the point I was trying to make in relation to who can and who cannot make a determination has been lost..

 

It is like asking a Catholic Priest to perform a Jewish wedding... He is not Jewish so he can't... The FOS is not a COURT so it can't...

 

At least that is how I understand it after reading the relevent legislation..

 

You ask the FOS to do something that it can't, then you are unhappy when it does not do it. I just don't get it ?

 

Would you ask your GP what is medically wrong with your dog ?

[MarkieMark]

this is their facts

In considering what is fair and reasonable, The Financial Ombudsman Service "will" take into account the "relevant law, regulations, regulators’ rules and guidance and standards, relevant codes of practice (such as the Banking Code), and good industry practice at the relevant time.

 

whenever a consumer puts in a complaint to the FOS about "whatever" they FOB you off with allsorts of rubish

 

this is the catch

The Financial Ombudsman service is funded by the financial institutions which it administers complaints against.

 

and the catch in my opnion is the answer

 

You are absolutely right.... I would not trust the FOS and have lost complete faith in them. You only need to see the comments made on this site about them which others share.

[Suetonius]

AH"

now i understand and thankyou (the penny has dropped) they just need new template letters.

 

dear sir/madam

we have looked at your complaint and as our roles and responsibilities of the Financial Ombudsman Service clearly state we "will" take into account the "1) relevant law, 2) regulations, regulators’ rules and guidance and standards, 3) relevant codes of practice (such as the Banking Code), and good industry practice at the time.

We have decided that due to the fact that we are getting at least £400.00 a complaint we would rather sit here and do nothing to help you.

 

 

1) Relevant Law

CCA 1974 (the law in relation to the enforcability of credit agreements)

Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 (the law that created the FOS and defines it's jurisdiction)

2) Regulators Rules Guidance & Standards

FSA Handbook (the rules by which the FOS must perform it's role as a dispute resolution service)

3) Relevant Codes of Practice

Banking Code (2008 edition)

In response to your post, a straight forward question, and to help I have included the links..

 

Does the law, regulators rules, guidance, standards or relevant codes of practice state that the FOS can make a determination in relation to the enforcability of credit agreements ?

[Suetonius]

You may also find this an interesting read

 

Part 8 Enterprise Act 2002

 

Part 8

 

Enforcement of certain consumer legislation

 

 

213 Enforcers

 

(1) Each of the following is a general enforcer—

(a) the OFT;

(b) every local weights and measures authority in Great Britain;

© the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland.

 

Another piece of legislation (LAW) to confirm that the FOS is not an Enforcer.

[lexis200]

I think the point that people are getting at with the FOS is that their determinations, although not remotely binding on either side, do sway how things are seen.

 

If they turn around and say to a debtor with a completely unenforceable document 'in our opinion the creditor will not have a problem enforcing', then that opinion is sent to the creditor, that is all you will get out of them from then on.

 

It is meant to be an unbiased body, there to resolve disputes. The fact that they just don't do this is what people are up in arms about, as it does make life more difficult when they come up with a shambles of a decision.

 

No one is saying they can state that an agreement is enforceable, and that that will hold up in court. What they are saying is that they should at least give a reasoned opinion if they do come to this conclusion - something they are grossly lacking in.

 

I recently spoke to someone who was a contractor at the FOS. They were given no training what so ever, and were just sat at a desk on day one and handed files.

 

As contractors they had a certain amount of time to clear these cases, and so with no financial knowledge in the area they were working, the cases were assesed on a 'gut feeling'. Now, if I was doing that job 3 years ago, before dealing with the banks in their true form, I'd probably have had exactly the same reactions to consumers like us who were trying to point out the problems with having no contracts/no enforceable contracts. That is, to decide we were obviously lying as the banks are trustworthy institutions who would never seek to threaten or lie to their customers. This person rarely upheld a complaint in favour of the consumer because of this lack of training and knowledge.

 

In addition to this, they were paid purely on cases that were 'completed'. They made a very good wage due to pushing things through without trying to hard to find the merits of a case, or even to find any evidence to corroborate what banks said - and it is far easier and quicker to believe a bank as their rules are in black and white, and they certainly never stray from those rules do they?

 

Bear in mind this was a contractor, and after their partner told them what a complete shambles their job was, they left. I have no knowledge at all of full time members of staff or their training. You would hope it is better, and that these are the cases that get heard.

 

My point is, there's no reason to get annoyed just because people are cross with the FOS for doing things such as declaring unenforceable agreements enforceable. They should not be doing this, they should be trained properly, and they should give the consumer the service they are entitled to recieve.

 

They don't have any clout with regards to a court room, certainly, but they don't half make life a damn sight harder when they give out poorly thought out template answers to concerns raised.

[Suetonius]

I think the point that people are getting at with the FOS is that their determinations, although not remotely binding on either side, do sway how things are seen.

 

If they turn around and say to a debtor with a completely unenforceable document 'in our opinion the creditor will not have a problem enforcing', then that opinion is sent to the creditor, that is all you will get out of them from then on.

 

It is meant to be an unbiased body, there to resolve disputes. The fact that they just don't do this is what people are up in arms about, as it does make life more difficult when they come up with a shambles of a decision.

 

No one is saying they can state that an agreement is enforceable, and that that will hold up in court. What they are saying is that they should at least give a reasoned opinion if they do come to this conclusion - something they are grossly lacking in.

 

I recently spoke to someone who was a contractor at the FOS. They were given no training what so ever, and were just sat at a desk on day one and handed files.

 

As contractors they had a certain amount of time to clear these cases, and so with no financial knowledge in the area they were working, the cases were assesed on a 'gut feeling'. Now, if I was doing that job 3 years ago, before dealing with the banks in their true form, I'd probably have had exactly the same reactions to consumers like us who were trying to point out the problems with having no contracts/no enforceable contracts. That is, to decide we were obviously lying as the banks are trustworthy institutions who would never seek to threaten or lie to their customers. This person rarely upheld a complaint in favour of the consumer because of this lack of training and knowledge.

 

In addition to this, they were paid purely on cases that were 'completed'. They made a very good wage due to pushing things through without trying to hard to find the merits of a case, or even to find any evidence to corroborate what banks said - and it is far easier and quicker to believe a bank as their rules are in black and white, and they certainly never stray from those rules do they?

 

Bear in mind this was a contractor, and after their partner told them what a complete shambles their job was, they left. I have no knowledge at all of full time members of staff or their training. You would hope it is better, and that these are the cases that get heard.

 

My point is, there's no reason to get annoyed just because people are cross with the FOS for doing things such as declaring unenforceable agreements enforceable. They should not be doing this, they should be trained properly, and they should give the consumer the service they are entitled to recieve.

 

They don't have any clout with regards to a court room, certainly, but they don't half make life a damn sight harder when they give out poorly thought out template answers to concerns raised.

 

I also have a friend that works for the FOS. As she explains it contractors only deal with mediation cases where a bank has already made an offer to settle a complaint. If they are unable to mediate a resolution it is then passed to an Adjudicator for investigation.

 

An extract from this very thread

 

Hi - just an update on the FOS response to my CCA case:

 

They say the appropriate forum for me to do that would be the courts. Not suprised at all by this as they routinely turn around with CCA matters and say, "Not our area".

 

Isn't a credit agreement enforceable until it is unenforceable ?

 

Surely that is all that has been said

[foolishgirl]

 

Isn't a credit agreement enforceable until it is unenforceable ?

 

 

Or an unenforceable credit agreement enforceable as long as you permit it to be so?! ;-)

[Suetonius]

Or an unenforceable credit agreement enforceable as long as you permit it to be so?! ;-)

 

Or more appropriately a Judge in a COURT

[Suetonius]

May be I am looking at this is a very simplistic way.

 

They way I see and understand it, a credit agreement can either be enforceable or unenforceable. As the FOS does not have the legal power/authority to deem an agreement to be unenforceable, by default it has to consider it enforceable...

[holley]

Thanks foolish girl and Desperate Daniella for the info it seems pointless in reporting the to FOS so I think I shall go down the route of giving them one last chance to send it or I will take them to court to force them to supply it having read the info sent by foolish girl.

[cab1ne]

I guess the point I was trying to make in relation to who can and who cannot make a determination has been lost..

 

It is like asking a Catholic Priest to perform a Jewish wedding... He is not Jewish so he can't... The FOS is not a COURT so it can't...

 

At least that is how I understand it after reading the relevent legislation..

 

You ask the FOS to do something that it can't, then you are unhappy when it does not do it. I just don't get it ?

 

Would you ask your GP what is medically wrong with your dog ?

 

I think its not a case of "who can and who cannot make a Determination" Think about it.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is a statutory, informal dispute resolution service, established under FSMA but independent from the FSA,

It operates as an alternative to the civil courts,

the relevant law,

regulations,

regulators,

rules,

guidance,

standards,

relevant codes of practice,

awards of up to £100,000.

I think its more like "who will and who will not make a determination".

[car2403]

I think its not a case of "who can and who cannot make a Determination" Think about it.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is a statutory, informal dispute resolution service, established under FSMA but independent from the FSA,

It operates as an alternative to the civil courts,

the relevant law,

regulations,

regulators,

rules,

guidance,

standards,

relevant codes of practice,

awards of up to £100,000.

I think its more like "who will and who will not make a determination".

 

It will never be in the financial institutions interests to have a declaration of unenforceability made against them, so the bias inherent in this "regulator" leads them to refuse to consider the argument rather then consider the merits of the complaint from the complainants point of view.

 

This is where a Court of Law has to differ - and does.

[Suetonius]

I think its not a case of "who can and who cannot make a Determination" Think about it.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is a statutory, informal dispute resolution service, established under FSMA but independent from the FSA,

It operates as an alternative to the civil courts,

the relevant law,

regulations,

regulators,

rules,

guidance,

standards,

relevant codes of practice,

awards of up to £100,000.

I think its more like "who will and who will not make a determination".

 

??

 

Yes is an organisation created by statute. However, it is neither a regulatory or a judicial body. Therefore it cannot rather than will not.

 

Remember it is a limited company just like Tesco and Asda..

[Suetonius]

It will never be in the financial institutions interests to have a declaration of unenforceability made against them, so the bias inherent in this "regulator" leads them to refuse to consider the argument rather then consider the merits of the complaint from the complainants point of view.

 

This is where a Court of Law has to differ - and does.

 

The FOS is not a regulator in any shape of form. The regulator is the FSA.

[cab1ne]

Yes is an organisation created by statute. However, it is neither a regulatory or a judicial body. Therefore it cannot rather than will not.

 

Remember it is a limited company just like Tesco and Asda..

 

determine it can as it is an organisation that deals with financial complaints, so whatever they determine is then gathered into evidence and it is with this evidence they are supposed to build your case and put it to a judicial body.

[Suetonius]

determine it can as it is an organisation that deals with financial complaints, so whatever they determine is then gathered into evidence and it is with this evidence they are supposed to build your case and put it to a judicial body.

 

??

 

a) If "they" are the FOS, they aren't supposed to build your case

b) They do not put it to a judicial body

[Suetonius]

Boy, I only wanted to correct a common misconception about the FOS and credit agreements.

 

Didn't realise it would take so long...

[cab1ne]

Boy, I only wanted to correct a common misconception about the FOS and credit agreements.

 

Didn't realise it would take so long...

 

"DO" see ya point

 

"movin on" wot topic for dessert Lol!!

[Suetonius]

lol