FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

[Amethyst]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

Would you be able to upload the PDF's Fred. I always have a nightmare downloading stuff from the FOS and just end up with pages of gobbledegook.

[Fred]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

Would you be able to upload the PDF's Fred. I always have a nightmare downloading stuff from the FOS and just end up with pages of gobbledegook.

like this ?

[Fred]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

Perhaps a little "bump" in order..................the lending into retirement decision I have never yet seen from the FOS (with FP) it should at least give a little inspiration in this market.:bump:

[skintmember]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

Hi there, just a quick update the has adjudicated

(FOS)my findings

As detailed in my previous email, a complaint must be bought to our service, within six years of the event taking place or (if later than this) three years from when it would have been reasonable for you to have become aware of the issue(s).

Yorkshire bank has objected to us looking into a number of your concerns. It has said that the payments in question began more than six years before the complaint was raised with us. They have also said that as you were receiving weekly statements you would have been aware of the payments much sooner.

I would like to confirm that the following happened more than six years ago or when you would have reasonably known about them. Therefore I am unable to investigate:-

· In 1994 you would not have set up a standing order for 15^th of the month, as you were paid on 25^th

· Yorkshire Bank did not act sympathetically in 2006/2007 when you were in financial hardship.

· The PayPal San Jose transactions

· AOL transactions

Yorkshire Bank’s records show that that you spoke with a representative on 23 July 2014 to make an enquiry about a standing order. I have been unable to locate any other records to show that concerns were raised about this matter before this date. Yes the one we taped

You have said that you queried the decrease in cost and what the standing order for SFC was for in 2009. However, no one was able to tell you. You have said that had you been told the charge was for weekly statements you would have cancelled the standing order.
In the final response letter sent you by Yorkshire Bank on 9 April 2015, they accept the staff had not been able to explain what the SFC charges were for. Therefore, in recognition of this, they agreed to refund the SFC charges applied over the past six years. Yorkshire Bank has told me that this amount totals £63.35 (because the charges stopped being debited to your account after 15 June 2011). I would not expect Yorkshire Bank to refund you more than this.
You have said that you would like to know how the charge of £1.66 for weekly statement is calculated. During the telephone call with the complaint handler, he advises that the charge for weekly statements is £0.50p per statement. He explains that that you would always get one statement per month for free.
He explains that the £1.66 standing order is calculated as follows:
£0.50p (cost per statement) multiplied by 52 (weeks in a year) divide by 12 (months) = £2.16
Minus £0.50p as you are entitled to one free statement per month = £1.66
Yorkshire Bank has also provided me with the information below – which shows how they charge for daily, weekly and twice monthly statements.




Yorkshire Bank has told me that the weekly statements were debited from your account by way of a standing order, because it was not a standard service automatically given to customers - generally monthly statements are sent out. They have told me that standing orders are generally controlled by the customer (set up with agreement if the customer).

I have looked through the statements issued on the account in 2009. As detailed in my email dated 23 September 2015, I believe the decrease in the standing order charge for weekly statements – was a result of the change of the terms and conditions that occurred in 2009. A notification about the change was enclosed with your August 2009 statement. (this was a standard terms and conditions Not one that says your weekly statement charge is going down in price That being said, the decrease in the cost from £3.35/£3.00 to £1.66 had no negative affect on the account.

Yorkshire Bank has also told me that they offered weekly statements on personal accounts until February 2012. After this time weekly statements were only available on business accounts.

All affected customers were sent a letter in November 2011, to let them know weekly statements would no longer be available. However, as the charge for statements had already stopped on your account a letter would not have been sent to you.

Yorkshire bank has said that they have never been made aware of your concerns about your Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) having information missing. They have told me that they will be happy to investigate this for you. However, they will need to raise a new complaint to investigate this for you.

If you would like a complaint raised with Yorkshire bank regarding the contents of your DSAR please let me know. I will then ask Yorkshire bank to investigate your concerns. Alternatively you can contact Yorkshire Bank directly and let them know that they would like this investigated.

In view of my comments above I do not feel that I can ask Yorkshire Bank to do anything further.

what happens next

If you would like to accept the offer made by Yorkshire Bank – to refund the last six years SFC sanding order charges (£63.35), please sign and return the enclosed settlement form at your earliest convenience.

If you disagree with what I’ve said then please tell me by 11 December 2015. If we don’t hear from you by then, we might not be able to look at your complaint again – so please let me know if you think you need more time.

As I said in my last email, in every case both the business and their customer can ask for an ombudsman’s final decision. But if I don’t hear from you by 11 December 2015, I’ll assume you don’t want to take things further.

[nemesis45]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

Hi, what do you intend to do?

nem

[skintmember]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

I don't think there is a lot we can do.

[Mic]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

This is just the arbitrator's decision, not the Ombudsman.

You don't have to accept the arrangement at this stage. If the Ombudsman thinks the arrangement is fair, he/she will order the repayment.

What I find strange is the bank has used terminology which they cannot explain to you, which quite obviously, in this case, means Standard Fee Charge (SFC).
However this is quite common with banks, as they appear to think everyone should know the acronyms they use.

I think the bank is offering a derisive amount and they have certainly not made any compensation for their bad handling of your account.

You could argue that the 3 year rule applies, however the ombudsman is not a court of law, and will do as they think fit.

You could also argue that if the ombudsman wishes to impose the 6 year rule, then it should do this from 2011 back to 2005.

However as this was a legitimate business expense, it is all tax deductable so should have been charged as such on all your accounts.

[skintmember]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

Wow thank you, I was thinking the 6 year rule from 2011 too. I'm very grateful for this advice it all makes sense. :tinysmile_twink_t2:
The fact that the bank changed the standing order in 2004 and 2009 was when we noticed it I feel should go back to when he tried to find out what it was being taken for the banks agent says I have no idea.

[skintmember]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

Just re read the comments thanks again
does the last comment about legitimate business expense count as this was from his personal account.

Does anyone know if YB Stopped frequency statements in 2012
the fact they are saying Sfc standard fee charge should it have said nsfc as they are saying it's not in their terms and conditions as it was non standard service.
You are right they have not handled it at all well considering we have been in severe hardship since 2014
with a suspended repossession hanging over us. Thanks again for the reply it's driving me mad.
your complaint about Clydesdale Bank Plc (trading as Yorkshire Bank)
This is the first complaint letter

Thank you for waiting while I’ve been looking into your complaint.

your complaint
My understanding is that your complaint is about a number of standing order, direct debits and card payments that you do not recognise.
I understand that these payments go back a number of years and are for:
· SFC (standing order)
· PayPal – San Jose (card payment)
· AOL (direct debit)
You have also said that you are unhappy with the service that you have received from Yorkshire bank. You have said that on a number of occasions over the years you have asked about a standing order for ‘SFC’ – however on each occasion no one has been able to help you with your questions.
what we can, and can’t, look at
The ombudsman service can look into a wide range of complaints about financial businesses – but there are some limits on where we can help. Unfortunately, based on everything I've seen so far, I don’t think we can take some of your complaint points forward.

A complaint must be bought to our service, within six years of the event(s) taking place or (if later than this) three years from when it would have been reasonable for you to have become aware of the issue(s).

In respect of these payments, Yorkshire bank has objected to us looking at your concerns. It has said that all of the payments in question began over six years before the complaint was first raised with us.
It is clear that weekly bank statements were being sent to you and Yorkshire Bank have said that you could have been aware of the charges and payments much sooner than when you first raised your concerns.

I am, therefore, unable to investigate your concerns regarding the standing order, direct debit and card payments.

I know this isn’t the answer you were hoping for. But I hope I’ve explained why I think this is the right outcome for these specific issues.

what I have looked at

Although I have been unable to investigate some points I want to clarify some information below. This is related to the overall service that you have received from Yorkshire Bank
For the standing order for ‘SFC’, you have told me that Yorkshire bank have been able to tell you that this is a Statement Frequency Charge. Yorkshire bank has said that this standing order has been running since 1994 and is a charge for weekly bank statements. Yorkshire bank’s records show that you were being sent bank statements on a weekly basis, until the service was cancelled in May 2011.

You have said that the ‘SFC’ standing order amount changed twice, during the lifetime of the account. You have told me that when you queried this with Yorkshire bank they were unable to tell you the reason why the amount decreased.
Yorkshire Bank has told me that, due to the time that has passed since the amount last changed in November 2009, they cannot explain the decrease. I have looked at copies of your statements in 2009 and I believe that the decrease in cost was a result of a change in the accounts terms and conditions that took effect from 1 November 2009. I have enclosed a copy of the 26 August 2009 statement and a letter that was sent with the statement.
As a gesture of goodwill and as detailed in their final response letter dated 9 April 2015, Yorkshire bank has agreed to refund the ‘SFC’ standing order since 2009 – this refund totals £63.35.

You have said that you do not recall asking for the weekly statements. As Yorkshire bank has said the service was set up in 1994 there would be limited information available. However, as you were receiving weekly statements, I would have expected you to raise your concerns sooner if you had not asked for weekly statements.

You have said that you would like a refund of all charges that have been incurred as a result of the ‘SFC’, AOL and PayPal transactions. As I have been unable to investigate the transactions I cannot ask Yorkshire bank to refund you the charges. I have looked at the statements and can see that the charges were applied in line with the terms and conditions of the account – for example on occasions when payments were returned unpaid.
You have said that you requested information about the ‘SFC’ standing order on a number of occasions. You have said that you feel that Yorkshire bank were withholding information from you that should have been available.
Again, as you were receiving weekly statements, if you had concerns about the PayPal - San Jose transactions, I am surprised that you did not query this with the bank at the time. Had you done so, Yorkshire bank would have been able to raise a dispute with the retailer.
You have also raised concerns about direct debit payments to AOL, you have said that you never authorised this. Even if we were able to look into this matter, due to the time that has passed there would be limited information available – for example the mandate for the direct debit is no longer available and it is likely that we would not have been able to make a finding.
You may wish to contact AOL directly (if you have not already done so). They may be able to give you further information about the service these direct debit payments were paying for.
Yorkshire bank tried to complete the necessary paperwork to raise an indemnity claim for the AOL direct debit payments, however they have said at the time you were unable to provide the information requested. This meant they could not proceed with the claim.
I do not doubt that you queried these transactions on more than one occasion. Yorkshire bank do not hold any records for the occasions that you contacted them to query the SFC transactions. Therefore, I am unable to comment specifically on the overall service you received.
I do however, feel that it is unlikely that had the information about the transaction been available Yorkshire bank would withhold it.
I can see from Yorkshire bank’s records that you visited a branch on 16 February 2015. At this time a branch supervisor tried to resolve the matter for you. The records show that the supervisor contacted other department to try and assist with your queries. As the supervisor was unable to obtain an answer for all of your queries, your concerns were referred to the complaint department for further investigation.
my conclusions
I’ve now looked at all the information that you and Yorkshire Bank have given me. I’m afraid that, based on what I’ve seen, I think Yorkshire Bank have dealt with your complaint fairly – so I’m not asking them to do anymore.

Yorkshire bank have confirmed that the outstanding balance for the account was written off by their collections department

This means that they will no longer contact you to seek payment for the outstanding balance.

I note that this balance was £2,005.59. I would suggest that this amount would be more than all of the payments that you have referred to above.

Me: This had been refunded before the fos got involved Due to the fact they closed his account on 1st May 2015 without telling him. When they sent a letter saying we will no longer contact you and try to collect this money and your credit files

what happens next

If you don’t want to take your complaint further, you don’t need to reply.

However, if you would like to accept the refund of the charges offered by Yorkshire bank , please sign and return the attached form at your earliest convenience.

But if you don’t agree with what I’ve said, please let me know why by 7 October 2015. I’ll look at any new information you give me and let you know what I think.

If we don’t hear from you by 7 October 2015, we might not be able to look at your complaint again. So if you want to reply but you think you’ll need longer, please tell me as soon as possible.

In every case, both the business and their customer can ask an ombudsman to make a final decision. But I think it’s unlikely the outcome would be different – unless there’s any important information that you haven’t already given us.

In your case, an ombudsman will make a decision as to whether we can investigate your points relating to SFC, AOL and PayPal.

If you have any questions, please get in touch.

For your records, I have also sent a copy of this information via post.

[Mic]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

As far as the payments made to AOL and PAYPAL are concerned, the fos is of course correct. Upon receiving statements which showed money leaving the account, this should have been queried at the time. It is easy to tell a bank not to make payments to any company, as they must stop any payments you tell them to, they cannot carry on paying them. They would of course advice that you notify the companies in question. As far as paypal is concerned they will tell you who they have been paying.

With regards to the SFC, the adjudicator has made a serious error of judgement, as he cannot assume that you knew the weekly statements were not something the bank had foisted off on you, and indeed I find it very strange that any bank would not know what a charge is being made for.
Would you pop into your local shop, not buy anything and then be told to pay them money, when they could not tell you what for ?

If you have contacted the bank in the past by any means at all, then you should ask for all information they have on you under the data protection act. This is called a Subject Access Request.
Read the following page and use the template provided, making sure you staple a £10 cheque to the letter.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/personal-information/

The bank has, by law, to reply with all the information they hold within 40 days. Just follow the information provided.

A few issues I have with the FOS
"However, as you were receiving weekly statements, I would have expected you to raise your concerns sooner if you had not asked for weekly statements."
How were you to know that there was a chargeable fee, when the bank could not tell you what the charge was for ? How is anyone to know that this was something that would be charged for, unless the bank wrote a letter to you stating as much.

The FOS appear to be making biased assumptions on nothing more than hearsay statements by the bank.

"I do not doubt that you queried these transactions on more than one occasion. Yorkshire bank do not hold any records for the occasions that you contacted them to query the SFC transactions. Therefore, I am unable to comment specifically on the overall service you received."

A SAR should show if this is true.

As far as the amount written off is concerned, Yorkshire bank have tried to show they have acted reasonably, however banks write off debts, under a certain amount as it is far too costly to retrieve a debt particularly if they may have to face opposing legal action, in the courts.

It amazes me how much banks dig their heals in and make a big issue out of small sums of money, when as a business, they are loosing a lot of money in not just offering to repay such a paltry sum.
Think of an hourly rate for a bank of around £100 an hour, then how many hours they will have devoted to this. Add to that the cost to the Tax payer, with an FOS who are always reluctant to make a well balanced ruling, again with hourly rates of £100. This would give you a rough idea of the mentality of these people, who are willing to throw away thousands of pounds, just so they can say, oh look we saved a few hundred.

[skintmember]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

I agree, it's just a waste if everybody's time money and some peoples sanity.
i also agree with you on the aol yes I know we should have noticed.

the thing is I was paying aol from my bank account until we stopped the service as they tried to tie us into a very expensive package. Which I cancelled verbally, my husband says he must have assumed that we owed them some money. so continued to let them take £2.49 a month then £3.99 a month until we complained to aol in 2012 when they confirmed we had not used this service since 2007
We only just found out that Aol took 6 payments in one go on husbands Credit card When I was paying it.
We found out when we received the second lot of SARS

I believe SFC is misleading. there are no transcripts or recordings whatsoever in the SARS we requested in 2014
first of all they sent 6 years worth of statements, we complained they sent another 2 X 6 years of statements plus credit card statements( we have just found out via a ppi complaint) that he had ppi on his credit card, this didn't show up in the Sara. He spoke to someone lady week who said oh yes we can look back 20 years.

paypal the person who receives the funds when you buy anything from them is usually on the bank statement
it just says PayPal Ltd nothing else, so can't explain that one.

[Mic]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

These are all individual cases so you should have individual complaints with the relevant companies if you feel inclined. As far as Yorkshire bank is concerned there is only the issue of the SFC's

Whether or not you accept the Adjudicators decision is up to you, but have you sat down and worked out how much this comes to, and is it really worth persuing through the FOS, given there consistent reticence in actually doing anything. I work it out to be roughly £420 to £550 over the entire term.
There is a discrepancy depending on how the banks have charged for statements. Weekly over a year which would be 52 payments, or 52 less the free monthly statement so that would be 40 payments. You could tell this from the statements.

You could tell the FOS that as a matter of principle you want to apply the 3 year rule, or you could just cut your losses and accept the offer. After all the amount is paltry in the grand scheme of things and no doubt a worry for you which costs you more in wasted time and your sanity. You stand to loose £370, is it worth the agro.

[skintmember]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

I get what you are saying Mic, I may ask for the 3 year rule to be taken into account.
I don't think it's right that the bank are allowed to change a standing order twice without his knowledge for a service he didn't know he had.

I mean the amount of times we asked what SFC was and the cagey comments and silences that arose when asked.

if it's a standing fee charge in all that time not one document was provided not one person mentioned it and the fact they did not let him know the price was going up or down. Taking payments by standing order 3 days before all overdraft and interest charges were taken.

In 2004 the amount was changed from £3.00 to £3.35 in 2009 the amount changed from £3.35 to £1.66

The very fact that they charged him £35 for each returned refused payment is almost as much as a years worth of weekly statements. Plus the added interest

The fact that the statements were a week to ten days behind we're I believe useless. the dreaded notifications of refused payments/bank charges took 5 days to arrive too. payments were regularly refused we felt we had to accept when we asked for £6000 worth of charges in 2007/8 which was refused due to the test case.

[nemesis45]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

I get what you are saying Mic, I may ask for the 3 year rule to be taken into account.
I don't think it's right that the bank are allowed to change a standing order twice without his knowledge for a service he didn't know he had.

I mean the amount of times we asked what SFC was and the cagey comments and silences that arose when asked.

if it's a standing fee charge in all that time not one document was provided not one person mentioned it and the fact they did not let him know the price was going up or down. Taking payments by standing order 3 days before all overdraft and interest charges were taken.

In 2004 the amount was changed from £3.00 to £3.35 in 2009 the amount changed from £3.35 to £1.66

The very fact that they charged him £35 for each returned refused payment is almost as much as a years worth of weekly statements. Plus the added interest

The fact that the statements were a week to ten days behind we're I believe useless. the dreaded notifications of refused payments/bank charges took 5 days to arrive too. payments were regularly refused we felt we had to accept when we asked for £6000 worth of charges in 2007/8 which was refused due to the test case.

A Standing Order Cannot be changed by the payee only by the person making that order.

nem

[skintmember]

Re: FOS Ombudsman Final Decisions

Thanks Nem,
i know I'm like a dog with a bone but it is in my eyes fraud. It seems they broke the law, one way or another I don't know why the adjudicator wont acknowledge this fact, the bank are refusing to give the FOS the relevant information
as its out of the 6 year or 13 months from when he realised he was mistaken 2009 but (how could he complain about something that he didn't know what it was for or who to complain to. the bank have mislead the customer with the name Sfc in the first place. So/sfc does sound like a banking fee But not weekly statement fee.

He only found out last year by chance.