An Interesting Statistic on How 'Impartial' the FOS is...

[They Screwed Me Too]

Over the last three years I have had six complaints with the FOS. All of them are unrelated and concern different companies.

 

Out of those SIX, FIVE of them have been successfully upheld in my favour IN THE END.

 

Here's the kicker...

 

All of them were at first rejected. 6 out of 6 complaints rejected at first, then 5 out of those 6 complaints were later upheld in a process I have now become familiar with.

 

On every occasion the adjudicator has at first rejected the complaint in an offhand manner that barely even addressed the point of the complaint. It was clear both from the assessment they had laid out, their view and findings that they had not even looked at the evidence I had provided or considered my side of the complaint or looked into the points made. The summary of their findings were just a lazy repeat of what the bank had said, with no bearing on my the consumer's side. Only after months and months of lengthy exchanges, repeatedly drawing attention and stressing the facts that kept being overlooked, having to ask countless times for them to actually look at the simple bank statement I had provided that clearly disproved all of the incorrect statements being relayed, and no end of other difficulties just to get a straight answer or with a focus on what the complaint was about. Very often where the bank had supplied totally incorrect information and I had supplied clear evidence to the contrary the adjudicator would just repeat the incorrect statement as fact, never even having looked at what had been supplied in hand, other times their response would be completely beside the point and bear no relevance to the content of my complaint.

 

How can this service front itself as impartial and independent in its review of complaints? It seems the standard procedure for all complaints received is to automatically reject the consumer's complaint, and simply repeat the final response of the bank that may have no relevance to what you have complained about, your complaint and any other evidence you have provided, no matter how indefatigable or how easy you may think it would make it to clear up, goes unread. Then if you persist for six months to a year, through endless lengthy exchanges and delays, and refuse to go unheard, you may one day be fortunate enough to have your correspondence actually read that leads to proving that the point you had been making again and again after all this time was right all along.

 

This service seriously mis sells to people, it seems there is both a strong favour towards the business over the consumer, and a disdain on consumer complaints that it's easier to reject the complaint than it is to deal with it.

[They Screwed Me Too]

Perhaps the terrible state the UK banking industry now finds itself accused of systemic deceit, may also owe to the fact that the authorities have a service like this in place as the consumer's final recourse. With the FSA putting a body like this in charge of complaints it goes to show how little they really care about a fair banking industry, it seems banks are not only allowed to get away with shafting the consumer but also encouraged by government regulation that doesn't care.