Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

[enaid]

A growing number of consumers are receiving "dismal" treatment when they complain to financial services companies, an Ombudsman said today.

The Financial Ombudsman Service said the way some companies were handling complaints suggested that a "weary cynicism" was setting in among firms.
The chief Ombudsman, Walter Merricks, said: "Some in the financial services industry – currently facing significant business challenges – appear to be taking the jaundiced view that having a large number of complaining customers is just an unfortunate fact of life.

"So they seem to be geared up simply to dispose of complaints at the minimum cost, and with minimal attention to the individual facts and circumstances." He said the treatment that some customers received was "nothing short of dismal".
He added that as a result many people who turned to the Ombudsman felt angry, ignored and let down by financial institutions.
Mr Merricks said poor complaints handling by businesses meant that cases were often not properly looked through until they reached the Ombudsman, despite the fact that companies should already have assessed them.
The service was also having to spend time and resources chasing files and gathering information that companies should have put together and considered when they first became aware of the complaint.
Research carried out by the Ombudsman also suggested that nearly half of consumers who had an unresolved complaint against a financial services firm were put off from pursuing it further by the fact that the company had such an unhelpful approach.
Mr Merricks said: "In the current climate, high standards of customer service may not seem the top priority to businesses battening down the hatches.
"But when markets pick up and these same businesses look to attract new customers, they may well discover that consumers have long memories of how well, or otherwise, they were treated in the past."
Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling - Telegraph

[enaid]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Just loved this last paragraph and not a truer word said I feel


"But when markets pick up and these same businesses look to attract new customers, they may well discover that consumers have long memories of how well, or otherwise, they were treated in the past."

[EXC]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Research carried out by the Ombudsman also suggested that nearly half of consumers who had an unresolved complaint against a financial services firm were put off from pursuing it further by the fact that the company had such an unhelpful approach.

This is a damning statistic and one that the regulator responsible for complaints to the financial services industry, the comatose and 'asleep at the wheel' FSA should be ashamed of.

[enaid]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

I can't understand why there isn't one of these so called 'Authorities' that actually vets T&C's before they hit the consumer.
I am sure that prevention is better than cure and a lot less costly in this instance.
Once the main T&C's have been checked for fairness etc, then any amendments that are wanting to be made should have a once over too.
I mean for instance Tesco

The branches, which are likely to be called Tesco Bank, come as the retailer gears up to launch a current account, which it hopes will attract customers who are disillusioned and distrustful of existing high street banks and their high fees.

Well fair enough, but are they being allowed to set up these accounts with much the same T&C's as what we have now?
Are they going to be allowed to charge what may or may not be fair charges?
Suppose its a wait and see for us, but IMO it should have been sorted before even coming into the publics hands.

[Amethyst]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Well said Mr Merricks.

In the OFT report yesterday they said

''Looking further towards the future banks will also need to be in a
position to cope with the eventual withdrawal of public support."

They do actually mean monetary support from the government, but I think banks should be working on courting the consumers support - they take people for granted and are backed up by the governent with the 'financial inclusion' plans and forcing people into banks for wages and benefits.

Credit Union anyone? Until people DO vote with their feet (empty wallets) then the banks will continue treating us with disdain.

[EXC]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

I can't understand why there isn't one of these so called 'Authorities' that actually vets T&C's before they hit the consumer.
.

I've often wondered that. It may be that once a contract has got the rubber stamp from an authority it would be difficult for the consumer to challenge. It might also leave the potential for the authority to be sued if the contract was subsequently found unlawful by a court.

Having said that when you have a house built the plans have to be approved before you start building and inspected during and after construction before you can put it on the market.

[enaid]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Exc you even have a horse vetted these days before you buy it.

There is nothing to say either that they can't have clauses in the T&C's to say if either party in the contract is abused, action can be taken. (hope that makes sense lol)

[Amethyst]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

the price of cut-backs in customer service

One of the common features of all ombudsman schemes is that we are – and should be – the last resort for people’s dissatisfaction, not the first one. In the first instance, consumers should make their complaint direct to the organisation about whose services they are unhappy.
So the complaint of every consumer whose grievance we investigate here at the Financial Ombudsman Service will already have been through the complaints procedure of the financial businesses concerned. And the size of our workload is very largely influenced by how well – or badly – that procedure has been operated.
Many businesses take their complaints-handling responsibilities seriously – and clearly do their best to resolve their customers’ complaints promptly and professionally. Regrettably, however, we are seeing a growing number of cases where customers who have complained to a financial business appear to have experienced treatment that is nothing short of dismal.
The way some businesses are handling these complaints suggests that a weary cynicism is setting in. Some in the financial services industry – currently facing significant business challenges – appear to be taking the jaundiced view that having a large number of complaining customers is just an unfortunate fact of life. So they seem to be geared up simply to dispose of complaints at minimum cost – and with minimal attention to the individual facts and circumstances.
Inevitably, when some of these consumers then turn to us, they feel angry, ignored and let down by the financial institutions they have dealt with. And we find ourselves having to play the part of emotional shock absorbers.
Poor complaints-handling by businesses can also mean that a case may not even be properly looked through until it reaches the ombudsman service. This is clearly not how things should be. We are caused additional work when we have to spend time and resources chasing files and gathering information that the business itself should have put together and considered when it first became aware of the complaint.
And of course, other unhappy customers never make it through the complaints-procedures of the businesses concerned. Our research suggests that almost half of consumers who had an unresolved complaint against a financial business were deterred from pursuing it further by the fact that the business had such an unhelpful approach.
In the current climate, high standards of customer service may not seem the top priority to businesses battening down the hatches. But when markets pick up and these same businesses look to attract new customers, they may well discover that consumers have long memories of how well – or otherwise – they were treated in the past.

Walter Merricks
chief ombudsman




Ombudsman News 76 - issue 76 - March/April 2009

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

surely this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black!!! Considering the pigs ear FOS made of complaint about Atkiv Kaptial (they kept referring to a captial One account when the complaint was about an alledged Barclaycard account and completely ignored what the original complaint was about and went off on a different track entirely) they don't seem any better or capable than the companies they are moaning about

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Re initial post, you might want to add links if quoting text enaid to avoid any comeback.

[enaid]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Re initial post, you might want to add links if quoting text enaid to avoid any comeback.

Oh, do you mean I could get prostituted for not doing it?

[BOBSCOUSE]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

If you get prostituted for it tell me where I can find you!!!!

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Its always better to add a link to acknowledge the author thats all mate.

[argentarius]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Having now seen this from the opposite direction - i.e. dealing with complaints including those which have come through the FOS - I would observe a few points:

(1) the FOS's stupid charging structure encourages the behaviour in companies that they claim to despise. Where is the logic in charging no more for a sustained complaint than a rejected one? There is no penalty for a complaint being sustained over and above the same complaint being rejected.

(2) for the same reason as above, spurious complaints are encouraged by the FOS. They don't care if they get double the number of complaints, because they charge the industry twice as much.

(3) the pre-sifting done by the FOS is appallingly poor. They accept completely feeble complaints and subject them to the full review process - i.e. charging the institution. An example of this - customer's verbatim description of the complaint on the complaint form - which should be all the FOS look at to determine if it's a rubbish claim or worth investigating - "phone me on xxx xxxxxx for details of my complaint".

What happens when they phone? "You have to make an appointment to talk to me; I cannot talk about this complaint off the top of my head because I have so many complaints in progress that I get them all muddled up. Give me 2 days' notice so I can get my [strike]lies in order[/strike]information together."

The same complainant submits a second complaint about the handling of the first complaint. Do the FOS say "no, that's silly, it's all one issue"? Do they heck. They record it as a second complaint and will probably try and charge for that one too.

What is this great complaint which is warranting all this attention?

"I transferred my ISA from ABC Bank to XYZ Bank. It took a long time. XYZ bank promised me 90 days' interest in compensation".

Facts: the transfer took under 14 days from start to finish, none of which delay was XYZ bank's responsibility. The 90 days' interest promise never happened. The customer is making it all up - probably confusing XYZ bank with another of his 90 complaints.

Another one - FROM THE SAME COMPLAINANT.

"My children opened an account with XYZ bank and I forgot to fill in an R85. As a result, my children paid 19p in tax on their account which they could in any case reclaim from HMRC. XYZ bank promised me £10 in compensation".

(OK, that one is paraphrased to include the facts, not the fiction). Again, complete lies about the £10 compensation.

Again, the FOS should have rejected it as a trivial and stupid complaint. But they haven't.

[Amethyst]

Re: Ombudsman criticises 'dismal' complaints handling

Do you know if any of these spurious complaints have already come through the bank and been rejected ? If a bank does reject a complaint whether for 19p or £2000 then individuals do have the right to have it investigated by the FOS if the bank don't deal with the issues - people have to show the FOS that they have exhausted the banks complaints procedure first to the ombudsman - or is that not happening either ?

If it is then the banks, rather than hedging bets the customer wont bother with it, should just sort the complaint out ?

Thank you for posting argy thats really interesting to see the other side of the fence,