Final Decision from the FOS

[leclerc]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

The Fob Off Service are a wast of time & effort , because the Banks etc state you can go to them does not mean you have to, and the reports that they agree with more consumer complaint than with the Banks is laughable and incorrect listeneing to hundreds of poster everywhere including personal experiances

If you look at the statistics and if you look at human behaviour, we are more likely to remember when we have had bad experiences than when we have had good experiences so people stating that they have had a bad experience with the FOS on internet forums is absolutely no indication at all as to whether their case was argued with merit or not. I appreciate people have a view that the FOS is biased towards the banks but in view of the factual statistical date in the public domain, that viewpoint is inaccurate.

[Ruby]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

Leclerc we live (thankfully) in a country of free speech however, could you answer me one question? What gives the FOS authority to contradict the OFT and side with a sub-crime lender?

OFT = Office of Fair Trading. So where does the FOS fit it?

[leclerc]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

Leclerc we live (thankfully) in a country of free speech however, could you answer me one question? What gives the FOS authority to contradict the OFT and side with a sub-crime lender?

OFT = Office of Fair Trading. So where does the FOS fit it?

The OFT does not have the power to mediate between the company and the consumer. Where they see mass detriment then they can use enforcement powers but they cannot take up individual cases. I know that the OFT has taken a lot of flack on forums because one person has complained and because the OFT has stated what I have just said that many people did not bother complaining to the OFT.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...t_issue107.pdf

The above is the statistics and prior to the most recent data, the consumer won most of the time but those figures on the recent data appear to show that the trend is on a downward spiral albeit PPI is still being won by the consumer most of the time. I think perhaps that is something worth discussing on another thread which is about the presentation of cases to the FOS because a lot of times on forums, I have read cases that went to the FOS that, imho, did not merit them at all or were poorly presented. As I have stated above, in hindsight, I would have presented my own case differently as the original case to the bank evolved as and when it went to the FOS as you may have read in VIP which is where I had updated the case in regards to my brother's credit card case and the £12 fee.

Credit card accounts have taken a deep drop and that might be due to the fact that the FOS are accepting the £12 argument on the basis of a confidential report presented to them but never shared with the consumer stating that it costs more than £12 to deal with a default ie an overlimit fee or non payment fee. Very strange indeed. I suspect that the drop maybe that new cases are challenging the £12 and are being rejected by the FOS.

I think that arguments presented after the case goes to the FOS or a strand of an argument with the FOS may well not head as much weight as if it had been presented to the bank to begin with. Very surprised at the figures but some data remains static such as current account complaints. Insurance related complaints, excluding PPI appears to be the one that is still very high in favour of consumers.

[Ruby]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

I am fully aware that the OFT cannot intervene in individual cases however if the OFT rule that a fee is excessive and not proportionate how can the FOS contradict that finding? How can one company charge £25 and another £58 for the same thing?

[leclerc]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

I am fully aware that the OFT cannot intervene in individual cases however if the OFT rule that a fee is excessive and not proportionate how can the FOS contradict that finding? How can one company charge £25 and another £58 for the same thing?

The OFT are clear in terms of credit card and store card charges as set out in the OFT report: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...cts/oft842.pdf

It does not set out fair charges on other account products such as current accounts(we've had the OFT test case on that), or other default charges.
To quote the above link:

"1.1 This statement sets out the Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) view of the principles credit card1 issuers should follow in setting default charges in their standard contracts with consumers in order to meet the test of fairness set out in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs). The principles have wider implications for analogous standard default terms in other agreements including those for mortgages, current bank accounts and storecards"


The case I had meant that I did get partial refunds on charges prior to the ombudsman but on my brother's case I wanted the remaining £12.

[Ruby]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

To make it clear I am referring to arrears charges on a mortgage. How can one company charge £25 and another more than double that amount?

[leclerc]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

To make it clear I am referring to arrears charges on a mortgage. How can one company charge £25 and another more than double that amount?

I do not think that the OFT have made any report(please correct me if I am wrong) in relation to arrears charges on a mortgage. I'm not sure what the site advocates on this matter ie whether to take it to court rather than the FOS(which is the route you have taken).
They have on credit card/store cards but not on mortgages. They have hinted at it but I think that OFT v. the banks on current accounts might be an issue in terms of challenging the charges ie price and cost.

[Ruby]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

I believe it was circa 2010 that the report was made? I do have the newspaper article some where still to confirm OFT findings.

Nonetheless, OFT/FOS aside, there is something not right when there is such a discrepancy from one company to another with regard to charges for the same thing. Credit card companies all charge the same these days for over limit and late payments and fees don't vary that significantly with banks for current accounts so why should not the same apply to mortgages?

[leclerc]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

The argument from the lender may involve the issue of more work having to be done in terms of mortgages than for current accounts. The problem is that the OFT v. Banks judgement from 2009 is a pain in the posterior to get round.

Am looking for the 2010 report as well.

[Ruby]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

Focusing on just mortgage accounts - how can one lender charge £25 in arrears fees and another £58?

[leclerc]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

Focusing on just mortgage accounts - how can one lender charge £25 in arrears fees and another £58?

Different companies do charge different amounts as can be seen from current accounts with banks.... unfortunately the law is an ass and they can have differential pricing and the argument might be that we have the right to choose which lender charges the least(not that this would be uppermost in our minds though).

[CleverClogs]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

If you look at the statistics and if you look at human behaviour, we are more likely to remember when we have had bad experiences than when we have had good experiences so people stating that they have had a bad experience with the FOS on internet forums is absolutely no indication at all as to whether their case was argued with merit or not. I appreciate people have a view that the FOS is biased towards the banks but in view of the factual statistical date in the public domain, that viewpoint is inaccurate.

Or their interpretation of the statistics could be faulty.

If they were to agree with a customer on a few minor details but upheld the bank's position on something else, in whose favour would they have ruled? They'd probably claim that they came down on the side of the customer, whereas the truth could be quite different.

Then one looks at whence their staff came and where those staff went after a few years with the FOS.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

The OFT does not have the power to mediate between the company and the consumer. Where they see mass detriment then they can use enforcement powers but they cannot take up individual cases. I know that the OFT has taken a lot of flack on forums because one person has complained and because the OFT has stated what I have just said that many people did not bother complaining to the OFT.

When the Office of Faffing and Twaddling does deign to get involved - as it did with bank charges - it screws up the case.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...t_issue107.pdf

The above are the statistics and prior to the most recent data, the consumer won most of the time

Phooey!

If one excludes insurance (and related services), payday loans and debt adjusting - in other words, if one just looks at traditional banking services - the proportion decided in favour of the consumer is less than 50%.

Then there is the matter of recording in whose favour a dispute is settled. If the Fobbing Off Service agreed with the consumer on four out of seven points raised in a complaint, that would be recorded as settling it in favour of the consumer even if three of those four points were trivial and even if the three points where it sided with the bank were of paramount importance.

Credit card accounts have taken a deep drop and that might be due to the fact that the FOS are accepting the £12 argument on the basis of a confidential report presented to them but never shared with the consumer stating that it costs more than £12 to deal with a default

Which is - of course - utter nonsense.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

The argument from the lender may involve the issue of more work having to be done in terms of mortgages than for current accounts.

quae est taurum stercore.

The problem is that the OFT v. Banks judgement from 2009 is a pain in the posterior to get round.

Succinctly, the Supreme Court GOT IT WRONG!

[Ruby]

Re: Final Decision from the FOS

Have just sent an email to the Independent Assessor, so will see what happens.

Will keep you posted.