Worried sick!

[Mic]

Re: Worried sick!

If you do not receive the data requested within the 40 day time limit, you must send another letter, giving them 14 days in which to address your concerns of none compliance.

There is a draft letter on the ICO web site for you to do this.

The data commissioner is interested in non-compliance with the data regulations and the way in which you receive that data. If a company is in breach of those data regulations, they can be fined heavily by the ICO, without any need to go to court. If the data is not clearly legible, this is grounds for the commissioner to go back to them. The data is not something the commissioner will deal with, only the way it is processed and held/destroyed by a company. If you have made a complaint about the data received being incomplete, the commissioner will ask for examples.

If you have a problem with the company itself, not giving you information and need someone to arbitrate, then the financial ombudsman will help out, but they will possibly do nothing other than talk to the company and ask that they provide you with details. My own point of view is that the Fin Omb is scared to death to get involved with anything these days, after the bank over charging court cases and the previous Financial Services Authority debacle.

You could of course try http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/ for how much the property was sold for. This is for completed sales.

[Rosie500]

Re: Worried sick!

If you do not receive the data requested within the 40 day time limit, you must send another letter, giving them 14 days in which to address your concerns of none compliance.

There is a draft letter on the ICO web site for you to do this.

The data commissioner is interested in non-compliance with the data regulations and the way in which you receive that data. If a company is in breach of those data regulations, they can be fined heavily by the ICO, without any need to go to court. If the data is not clearly legible, this is grounds for the commissioner to go back to them. The data is not something the commissioner will deal with, only the way it is processed and held/destroyed by a company. If you have made a complaint about the data received being incomplete, the commissioner will ask for examples.

If you have a problem with the company itself, not giving you information and need someone to arbitrate, then the financial ombudsman will help out, but they will possibly do nothing other than talk to the company and ask that they provide you with details. My own point of view is that the Fin Omb is scared to death to get involved with anything these days, after the bank over charging court cases and the previous Financial Services Authority debacle.

You could of course try http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/ for how much the property was sold for. This is for completed sales.

Hi I am in the middle of writing a letter to the FOS, what I will do is tell them that Swift refused to give me any paperwork to do with the sale of my property and could they get Swift to release the paperwork. My own feeling is that Swift have messed up the paperwork and don't want me to see it as it would incriminate them. I will go down that route for now and see what happens.

thanks again will keep you posted. Rosie

[Mic]

Re: Worried sick!

I would suggest you keep contacting the ICO in any case. Swift have not provided the data under the data protection act, and have not provided the data commissioner with any explanation as to why. The Data Commissioners powers are something for anyone to fear, and unlike the FOS, they are not scared of using those powers.

The FOS are pretty useless at times, particularly when it comes to financial institutions that are backed by a lot of money, the likes of big banks. I tend to think they are actually scared of rocking the boat.

The ICO has a different set of criteria, and they are not acting so much as an arbitrator, but applying the law in any given instance of data mishandling.

[Fred]

Re: Worried sick!

The FOS quote;

" if you are disputing any unfair terms in a contract, then the ombudsman is not really the best place to do that. We are here for practical day to day issues and help thousands of people every day to sort out these kinds of financial disputes. We simply do not have the remit to decide or make changes to contracts, banking policies or procedures, that is something more appropriate for a court or the financial regulator"

The huge problem is the FOS do rule but always in favour of the plank, in other words if your contract basically says you can be taken advantage of then that is ok because it says as much in writing. The FOS should refuse to adjudicate on matters beyond their ability & by doing so, stop giving the providers a lift.

[Mic]

Re: Worried sick!

I agree, the FOS should stop doing this. After a recent case where they only partially addressed an issue, I sent an email to the FOS, which included the following :-

I know this has no longer anything to do with you, but from a legal standpoint this company has acted with unfairness and bias, and all the Ombudsman service has done is to encourage them to do so in the future with others.
Suffice to say I would be shocked that the Ombudsman service is so biased towards large financial organisations, but given the debacle of the bank charges cases, I just think the service is actually scared to be impartial.

thank you for your time

There reply was as follows :-

Thank you for your e-mail.

I’m disappointed to read that you don’t think we’re impartial. In every case that we consider we’re likely to disappoint at least one of the parties to the dispute and I’m sorry that on this occasion we weren’t able to resolve the complaint as you would’ve liked.

From my readings across the internet, the parties that are invariably disappointed, are not these large companies, but the individuals that make the complaints, in the first place.

However so saying, a person does not have to accept the adjudicator, or even at a later stage, if they get involved, the Ombudsman's decision.

My view is the FOS either needs a top down restructuring, sacking adjudicators and Ombudsman alike, who cannot have a balanced approach, or scrapping the FOS altogether and replacing with a system that recognises the inherent imbalance in the parties involved, and act accordingly.

Call me a cynic if you like, but I would say that the Alternative Dispute Resolution service was probably thought up by someone who recognised this imbalance, yet in practice will end up erring on the side of the money.
I really hope I am wrong in that.

[Fred]

Re: Worried sick!

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/

The decisions of late published by the FOS as above; Type in "Swift Advances" in "banking & credit" & you can read the decisions made whether upheld/not upheld or not accepted. I object to the decisions that are not accepted in that they are published & very often wrong.

[Mic]

Re: Worried sick!

Doubtless the Ombudsman ignored the contract and the imbalance in the positions of the parties, then stuck his/her foot in mouth before making a decision.

I found that the Ombudsman ignores many facts, that if presented in a court of law, would weigh against Swift. That the Ombudsman fails to take the law into consideration baffles me.

[meellis]

Re: Worried sick!

The problem with the ombudsman is, from reading the statement posted by Fred, that the courts look more favourably on you if you have tried all other routes including FOS before you get to them and sounds like the FOS aren't interested. In the gas industry there was a big accident so a group of like minded engineers got together and formed CORGI under the premise that it wouldn't be long until the government of the day would look to install an overseeing body so if they formed one first it would look after the engineers before the big business. The ombudsman was, and is still I believe, funded by the financial industry and I really do doubt where there true loyalties lie. They also judge things case by case instead of acknowledging the how many people are suffering the same wrong doings and acting upon it.

[Rosie500]

Re: Worried sick!

The problem with the ombudsman is, from reading the statement posted by Fred, that the courts look more favourably on you if you have tried all other routes including FOS before you get to them and sounds like the FOS aren't interested. In the gas industry there was a big accident so a group of like minded engineers got together and formed CORGI under the premise that it wouldn't be long until the government of the day would look to install an overseeing body so if they formed one first it would look after the engineers before the big business. The ombudsman was, and is still I believe, funded by the financial industry and I really do doubt where there true loyalties lie. They also judge things case by case instead of acknowledging the how many people are suffering the same wrong doings and acting upon it.

Hi hi I have had a phone call this morning from the FOS I get the impression they are not really interested after listening to all the excuses! To me they have no backbone. They said about going to the ICO to get their advice, to me the FOS are passing the buck. I haven't heard anything from Swift yet but no doubt I will before too long. The FOS said that Swift sent me a letter in 2007 stating that interest rates had gone up but I cannot recall ever having had such a letter. When I served Swift with the SAR I never received any letter in the paperwork to say that interest rates had gone up just after I took the loan out. I feel there is a bit of "sweeping it under the carpet"going on here. I am not giving in. Rosie

[Mic]

Re: Worried sick!

You could always go back to the Ombudsman and put them on the spot, by stating categorically that if such a letter exists, could they reproduce a copy of it ?

I have found that if a company tell the FOS something, the FOS take it as being the truth. As it all comes under data protection, I don't know if the FOS are even allowed to see letters sent to you, so they have to take the word of the company as being the truth. I have no idea what powers they do have, but unlike a court, their powers will be restricted.

[Rosie500]

Re: Worried sick!

You could always go back to the Ombudsman and put them on the spot, by stating categorically that if such a letter exists, could they reproduce a copy of it ?

I have found that if a company tell the FOS something, the FOS take it as being the truth. As it all comes under data protection, I don't know if the FOS are even allowed to see letters sent to you, so they have to take the word of the company as being the truth. I have no idea what powers they do have, but unlike a court, their powers will be restricted.

Hi the FOS were reading from case notes, so I get the feeling Swift have told them that they sent me a letter about the rise in interest rates in 2007. It does make me wonder if such a letter does exist as I said when I sent an SAR to Swift there was no such letter in the paperwork. I got the feeling this morning that the FOS haven't really done very much at all if anything. I think a lot of these ombudsmen and adjudicators need sacking and replaced with people who have a backbone and who will stand up for the consumer. I will ask the FOS if they have a copy of this supposed letter and see what happens. I got the impression this morning the FOS just couldn't care less and are too busy scratching the back of the business instead of standing up for the consumer. We can't all be wrong. Sorry for the rant. Rosie

[Fred]

Re: Worried sick!

I am sorry to "but in" .................the FOS should be very concerned over any claim you have made on any "secret commission" payments, its a bit off track from what is being discussed but terribly important.

[Rosie500]

Re: Worried sick!

I am sorry to "but in" .................the FOS should be very concerned over any claim you have made on any "secret commission" payments, its a bit off track from what is being discussed but terribly important.

Yes the FOS should be concerned surely they know interest rates just don't all of a sudden rise there is usually a bit of notice. I think personally Swift telling the FOS that they sent me a letter about the rise in interest rates is a "cop out" I say that because when I sent an SAR to Swift they never sent me any such letter in the paperwork I received. I will contact the FOS and tell them that Swift never sent any letter with the paperwork that they sent me under the SAR. I am not backing down where these "corporate bullies" are concerned. I think Swift are quite despicable. Rosie

[Fred]

Re: Worried sick!

My point is about commission payments to a broker @ inception of your loan....................you should have been made aware if indeed there were any commission payments to any body that you did not know about or indeed not made aware of.

If you think this is the case you need to be specific to/with the FOS, they may add this to your complaint investigation or ask for the business to reply (as part of your complaint) within the eight week specified deadline.

It is worth drafting a separate complaint just for the "secret commission" you indicated may have been paid earlier in this thread if you continue to hit the wall.

[meellis]

Re: Worried sick!

a Lot of Swift victims seem to have had an interest rise in the first month or two of signing, when was yours. Also if you received a transaction record in any of your paperwork there would have been an interest rate adjustment made around aug 08 (everybody else seems to have) and this never has been explained away. You are completely unaware of this unless you have the transaction record but when I cross referenced this to my statement it made the following months interest payment larger than my monthly payment which is technically a default and affects the overall balance greatly due to the compound interest. I have questioned them on this but still haven't received a satisfactory answer.