Financial Ombudsman Service

[Bazza]

Re: Financial Ombudsman Service

Yes most definitely you can submit the same claim with additional new evidence as this is what I did and I succeeded...you can ask for a review of your case stating that you have additional/new evidence, the FOS will assess your additional/new evidence and if they consider it to be new evidence, then they will agree to review your case, get your local MP involved, that`s what I did :-) Good luck xx

Many thanks redrose.

Just a few more questions, do I go back to the bank first with new complaint ?

or do I go back to the Financial Ombudsman submitting a new complaint with further evidence ?

Thank-you

[redrose281]

Re: Financial Ombudsman Service

I wrote to the bank first and they said they had nothing further to add to what they`d already said, so I then forwarded the banks letter to the FOS and asked for a full review taking into account my new evidence.

xx

[Bazza]

Re: Financial Ombudsman Service

I wrote to the bank first and they said they had nothing further to add to what they`d already said, so I then forwarded the banks letter to the FOS and asked for a full review taking into account my new evidence.

xx

Thanks again redrose and I will do that then.

Will keep forum posted.

Cheers

[dogtired]

Re: Financial Ombudsman Service

Have you heard any thing yet?
Had my complaint rejected by an Ombudsman who appears to have ignored all my evidence that a DCA have no right to chase me and that they cannot rule on an alleged debt being enforceable.
Have sent the form they send you back rejecting this decision and have asked it be looked at by a more senior level.
The one from the OC is still on going and no one can tell me how much longer it will take but in light of this cannot see me " winning" that either.
Not a happy person.

[jtd]

Re: Financial Ombudsman Service

The company raised the time bar issue ! so they won't look at again - pointless contacting Barclays - they are scum

To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk Cc: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk, ifrah.malik@financial-ombudsman.org.uk, Dolores.Njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk, caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

for completeness - rule 2.8.2a statesDISP 2.8.2

R

09/07/2015
The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint if the complainant refers it to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

1. (1) more than six months after the date on which the respondent sent the complainant its final response or redress determination or summary resolution communication; or
2. (2) more than:
   1. (a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later)
   2. (b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint;
   
   unless the complainant referred the complaint to the respondent or to the Ombudsmanwithin that period and has a written acknowledgement or some other record of thecomplaint having been received;

unless:

1. (3) in the view of the Ombudsman, the failure to comply with the time limits in DISP 2.8.2 R or DISP 2.8.7 R was as a result of exceptional circumstances; or
   
2. (4) the Ombudsman is required to do so by the Ombudsman Transitional Order; or
   
3. (5) the respondent has consented to the Ombudsman considering the complaint where the time limits in DISP 2.8.2 R or DISP 2.8.7 R have expired (but this does not apply to a “relevant complaint” within the meaning of section 404B(3) of FSMA).(section 404B(3) Being complaints
   subject to a consumer redress scheme- this does not apply)
4. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...s-july2015.pdf

DISP 2.8.2A

R

09/07/2015
If a respondent consents to the Ombudsman considering a complaint in accordance withDISP 2.8.2 R (5), the respondent may not withdraw consent.





Barclays consented to the ombudsman c onsidering the complaint - the respondent may not withdraw consent - There are only three rules in the DISP relating to time barring - yet none of the staff who dealt with my complaint was aware of this rule !!

John Kline

---

From: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
CC: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk; ifrah.malik@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; dolores.njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Subject: RE: FURTHER HIDEOUS ERROR BY FOS - Evidence that Barclays time bar application does not meet the requirements of DISP 1.8.1: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:40:14 +0000

correction - DISP 1.8.1 - ALSO as pointed out in previous E mails the respondent ( defendant ) cannot withdraw his invite to a decision from the ombudman once made - another hideous error by FOS - In fact the FOS did not get anything right - I count at least 21 fundamental errors and failure to adhere to service standards

1 Time bar objection by Barclays should have been dismissed under DISP rule 1.8.1 they have allowed me to complain and may not retract this invitation. 2 Time bar hearing should be heard by ombudsman and not adjudicator 3 Time bar hearings should not consider merits of case 4 Mr Bateman decides I have lost two adjudications 5 Matt Thompson does not realise Mr Bateman cannot be considered senior adjudicator 6 Hara finds Woolwich free from blame therfore ignoring her remit to find on time bar issue only and not consider merits of claim 7 Hara states that a letter from adjudicator regarding a non related party ids sufficient for me to have known I should have taken action , without explanation and not even bothering to explain what part of the letter does so - and refuses to comment further 8 Matt and then Alison find that Hara has done nothing wrong, yet failure to explain is in express conflict with standard of services 9 Hara thinks my documents are destroyed due to no recent correspondence 10 kirsten and Hara contuinually and repeatedly ignore my specific repeated requests for explanation of how I was to have gained specific legal knowledge that would given me knowledge of my right to pursue the Woolwich 11 Alison and Matt repeat the above mistake 12 Kirsten finds I only recently apportion blame to Woolwich despite my testimony and the adjudicators decisions clearly indicating I held Woolwicjh accountable from day 1 13 Hara vexatiously imposed DISP rules to prevent my claim - yet she does not even know this rule exists or deliberately ignores this fundamental rule 14 Matt , Kirsten and Alison all had opportunity to invoke rule 1.8.1 but yet again they do not even know this rule exists or deliberately ignores this fundamental rule 15 Kirsten ignores her remit to ignore merits of case and her findings only include a brief opinion without explanation as to her opinion that I should have acted sooner , yet spends seven paragraphs clearing the defendant of fraud , despite myself telling her that I had retracted my claim of fraud in previous correspondance 16 Alison finds nothing wrong with kirsten's findings , yet kirstens failure to explain in defiance of my many requests that she do so is in express conflict with standard of services 17 Matt does not realise he cannot give decisions. 18 Ifrah advises that the time bar decision is not reviewable 19 Alison states that my complaints will not be heard unless the Independant assessor's report compels them too - despite them being aware that the Independant assessor cannot comment upon disciplinary measures 20 Ifrah advises that the FOS will not correspond with me further - despite my unresolved complaint and unanswered request that my case is reviewed 21 in her initial findings Kirsten does not realise I have withdrawn fraud claims
	John Kline

I yet again ask my case is reviewed due to the error made by the FOS in allowing Barclays to make a time bar appeal at all, and further evidenced that it is appropriate to do so by presentation of legal precedent, and argument as well as the fact that this is not a final decision, the reasons a ombudsman's final decision is final as quoted on the FOS web site is that the consumer will have had opportunity to challenge the adjudicator 1. That opportunity was not afforded to me - no one allowed me to challenge anything , had they done so I would have established it was not fair issue unexplained opinion as reason for myself gaining the knowledge required. therefore preventing Kirsten making the samme flawed opinion - I accept that as she did not read my case this was no means certain, but the FOS cannot use that as a defence surely 2 Adjudicator should not have involvement in this process therefore as no adjudicator involved the argument that this is a final decision is not valid John Kline

---

From: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
CC: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk; ifrah.malik@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; dolores.njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Subject: RE: HIDEOUS ERROR BY FOS - Evidence that Barclays time bar application does not meet the requirements of DISP 1.8.1: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:59:17 +0000

disp 1.8.2 statesIf a respondent receives a complaint which is outside the time limits for referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service (see ■ DISP 2.8) it may reject the complaint without considering the merits, but must explain this to the complainant in a final response in accordance with ■ DISP 1.6.2 R and indicate that the Ombudsman may waive the time limits in exceptional circumstances.

Barclays did not explain at the time of their final response - therefore the FOS have been totally remiss in even considering Barclays time bar application as illuded to in previous correspondance - The incompetence of the FOS defies description


In light of this new undeniable evidence that the Ombudsman has made an error of huge proportions , I must insist that my case is allowed to proceed and demand a response from the FOS


It beggars belief that they are not au fait with this rule they quoted DISP RULES were the reason my case could not proceed , yet in fact DISP rules dictated that my case should proceed .

I now claim that costs for all of my time in dealing with these matters should be awarded to myself , and request an additional 50 hrs at £25/ hr be added to my claim, ALSO the stress i have incurred as a result of this fundamental error is now even more upsetting than the stress in dealing with the lack of explanations, as I now realise that none of the the arguments I have had need to have taken place if only the FOS had knowledge of the rules they enforce , or had not deliberately ignore the rules which they enforce - Falure to realise this rule applied has been made by Hara, Matt , Alison and Kirsten - four people whonm I should be able to rely upon to be aware of this simple rule - yet all of them are ignorant of the rule - or chose to fraudulently ignore the rule - DISGUSTING Please award the maximum allowance iof £5000.00 as afforded under the FOS rules for compensation non financial loss

John Kline

---

From: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
CC: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk; ifrah.malik@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; dolores.njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Subject: RE: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:26:40 +0000

Also

As my case is time barred under the long stop rule , I have no recourse in the courts , therefore the actions , errors , lies and refusal to treat me fairly have resulted in loss of opportunity to recover the loss I made as a result of the negligent behaviour of the Woolwich insisting I take out an endowment as security against my mortgage.


Also , I point out that much of the argument and therefore my time was spent regarding whether or not Woolwich had indeed done anything wrong had it not been for Hara's initial findings I would not havefelt compelled to do all the research and e mails demonstrating that they had done so , this argument only occured due to Hara and subsequently Kirsten finding that Woolwich did nothing wrong - when it was not their remit to do so, further more had my complaints been dealt with properly and detailed explanations given in the first instance by Matt, then subsequently Alison, I would not have spent such a huge amount of time arguing that my complaints had not been dealt with properly, therefore the time I spent arguing over these matters was totally avoidable, and only caused by the FOS mistakes in finding on fault, allowing adjudicators to find on matters, and failure to conduct proper complaint procedures explaining decisions , as well as failure to address my request that errors in the judgements are rectified - Matt claiming he could not interfere with adjudicators decision, yet not offering any advice as to how I could get someone to review the decisions, had they reviewed the decisions and gave detailed explanations then the arguments would have been minimal. I gave detailed and reasoned explanations as well as legal argument why I felt the decisions were flawed - begged them to reconsider- begged them to tell me how I could get the decisions reviewed - but FOS flatly denied me the opportunity to have my decisions reviewed , or explain the process which would enable me to have my decisions reviewed.


They also failed to explain any of their decisions, hiding behind opinion without explanation at every stage of the process - despite myself repeating my request that they explain their decisions over and over again- This is willful and neglectful vexatious denial of my rights under the service standards I should be able to rely upon as expressly implied on the FOS's website - Nearly 1 year has passed on my complaint and I have still to recieve an explanation as to how the FOS believe that I should have gained the specific legal knowledge in order to have realised sooner to commence a complaint against the Woolwich - and my claims that I complained at the time , have been dismissed without explanation also !

John Kline

---

From: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
CC: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk; ifrah.malik@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; dolores.njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Subject: RE: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:46:26 +0000

Forgot to say - I feel the remedy below should be made as an interim measure and that you should reserve the right to make further awards dependant on the outcome of the complaints regarding fraud and errors , yet to be conducted by the FOS

---

From: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
CC: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk; ifrah.malik@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; dolores.njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Subject: RE: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:28:04 +0000

Jade

I realise that some of my requests have ignored your limited terms of reference , I have thought the matter through over and over again and make the following reasoned and calm observation. Together with a reasoned view of the value of the award that I should have made in my favour, using guidelines from the FOS website

Ultimately my case came down to one simple issue - Should I have realised to take action sooner - I gave reasoned and explained argument , as well as learned legal references as to why it was not fair to have expected me to realise sooner, and how mere knowledge of loss is insufficient to start time running , I pointed out that the Woolwich advised me that I had no contractual relationship and have no recourse with them with them as well as the Adjudicators in the case with HDA , and subsequently Barclays complaints manager and subsequently Hara and Kirsten.

I pointed out over and over and over and over again for a period of nearly 1 year that it is not fair that the ombudsman does not explain exactly how I should have gained the specific legal knowledge in order to commence action against the Woolwich , I asked over and over again for explanation, which is a core undertaking of their service standards

The final decision I got consisted of only a brief paragraph relating to the actual issue involved - an unexplained opinion that I realised the role that Woolwich played and should have acted sooner - despite myself having specifically asked for an explanation

As no doubt you will empathise when someone puts hundreds of hours of time and effort in researching your case, provides copious amounts of learned legal argument, copious amounts of links showing that you are legally correct in your assertions , it is totally unfair to persistently have your reasonable requests that findings are explained , especially when you challenge the FOS that if they were to try and explain their findings that you feel that they would be unable to do so.

From your web site
13) If the independent assessor decides that the ombudsman service hasn’t met its service standards, they can make a recommendation to the chief ombudsman. This might be that the ombudsman service should apologise – or should pay compensation for any damage, distress or inconvenience caused by the poor service. Compensation will be equivalent to what the ombudsman would award against a business in similar circumstances.


May I request that I am compensated for three hundred hours of research and correspondence, having established that both my cases should have gone directly to ombudsman the FOS lack of adherence to protocol has wasted many many hours of my time and caused massive distress


in any event even if the ombudsman issue is incorrect, it is the wilfull REFUSAL to explain that has caused all of the distress and work for me - in her second attempt at fobbing me off Hara supplies a letter from the adjudicatior in a case relating to HDA and cites the letter as sufficient for me to have realised that I had cause for complaint - I challenged these findings , and asked her to explain what part of the letter could have given me cause to act , bearing in mind that the adjudicators letter referred to exonerated HDA and the FOS had actually discouraged me from pursuing the Woolwich , no matter how many times I complained to Hara she would not explain.


So I reported her to Matt , he found that Hara had done nothing wrong and he was unable to interfere with her decisions, I protested and pointed out that the FOS web site says it is important that mistakes are reported - so they can be put right , but Matt flatly refused to tell me how this could be achieved


I then reported Matt to A senior manager, who stated she finds no eidence of wrong doing


My case is now moved to an ombudsman , who merely states it is her opinion that I should have acted sooner - without explanation - despite my earlier protestations to her provisional findings and many previous protestations that it is unfair to merely give opinion without explanation in my dealings with Matt and Hara.


Conclusion


Had the FOS explained their findings, or indeed had they passed my cases directly to an ombudsman , as it appears they should have, a long, protracted and unbelievably stressfulAND TOTALLY AVOIDABLE dispute would not have occured, and due to the (negligent / fraudulent) failure of the FOS to explain their actions Mr Kline has suffered a great deal of totally avoidable distress and inconvenience, including further distress caused by the inability of our two offices agreeing on the procedure for his complaints of fraud to be investigated.


YOUR SITE SAYS THAT YOU CAN AWARD COMPENSATION IF THE FOS HAS NOT MET IT'S SERVICE STANDARDS AND THAT COMPENSATION MAY BE FOR "any damage, distress or inconvenience caused by the poor service"Compensation will be equivalent to what the ombudsman would award against a business in similar circumstances. from FOS WEBSITE http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...nience.htm#a51 Very occasionally, we decide that the time a consumer has spent trying to resolve their complaint means they should be awarded compensation for their time.
We won't usually make a specific award for the "units" of time someone has spent sorting things out – although there have been a few cases where we considered this necessary.


INCONVENIENCE -I consider that 300 hrs of my time at £25 / hr Totalling £7500.00 is not unreasonable amount to be compensated, I have had to do all of my correspondance in my own time as well as trying to run a household , parent and work as a self employed surveyor- Evidence of the time I spent trying to get an explanation and providing the detailed legal argument in attempting to do so is in your possession - Hundreds of detailed e mails - legal research, character references etc etc
DISTRESS - I consider that it is not unreasonable to assert that the level of distress caused to myself by the FOS persistently refusing to explain their findings is enormous and I have endured that stress for a protracted timescale, I therefore assert my claim for distress should be categorised as severe according to the FOS website http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...nience.htm#a51 £2000- £5000 pounds- I SUGGEST £2500.00 is appropriate
DAMAGE - I calculate my loss in being unable to pursue my claim for breach of fidicuary duty has resulted in myself being unable to recover my shortfall on my endowment of £10,000.00 less any adjusment as prescribed I would estimate to be £5000.00 and I also believe that The ombudsman may have awarded me award for non financial loss of approxiamately £2000.00 due to Woolwich and recently Barclays advising incorrectly that i had no cause of complaint against them, due to the fact that I assert that the FOS could not possibly justify their findings had they tried to explain them , and the fact that they refused to even consider reviewing my case despite myself pointing out legal precedent and pointing out that it may be wrong of them to consider a time bar issue is not reviewable, then I feel it appropriate to award myself a sum of £3500 damages should they not rectify their mistakes , provide explanations , give a response to my requests that my case is re opened

Total award requested from the FOS = £ 13,500.00

I also feel that this award is necessary so that the FOS take their service standards seriously as opposed to churning out standard responses clearing everyone of blame, and ignoring repeated specific requests from customers that their decisions are explained , especially when the customer has asserted that had the FOS attempted to explain then they could not arrive at the conclusion they did, as well as refusal to correct errors , not listen to clients or take their views on board.It should be noted that the FOS were informed that I suffer with a heart condition and no doubt this dispute has had an effect on my health

John Kline

---

From: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
CC: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk; ifrah.malik@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; dolores.njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Subject: RE: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 03:52:13 +0000

Jade

Up late again - this is gnawing away at me ! it beggars belief , I have been lied to , had no explanation on findings despite requesting a specific explanation prior to the final decision being made, I have had huge errors in decisions and procedure - yet no disciplinary action or apologies or attempts to rectify mistakes - In short a total and utter disregard to adhere to their service standards and uphold the stated core values and aims of the FOS


I set out in red text what actions I believe would be appropriate for you to take


I apologise for wittering on and being so demanding-BUT I HAVE NO TRUST IN THE FOS OR THE COMPLAINTS SYSTEM WHATSOVER - how can two people make such gross errors / commit fraud and the disciplinary system arrive at the conclusion that due process has been followed, and clear those who made the gross errors of any wrong doing - not even an apology for their mistakes !!
They are mistakes - you cannot dispute that I won 1st adjudication - or blamed Woolwich from the outset - Yet Mr Bateman says I lost both adjudications and Kirsten says I only now apportion blame to Woolwich - so it is only fair that they explain how they arrived at their conclusions - as it is your duty to ensure I am treated fairly , I request that you please ask the FOS to explain to me how these errors occured !! I am not asking you involve yourself with outcome,I am sure you would agree that it is only fair that these errors are explained

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/aims.htm


our aims and values

The Financial Ombudsman Service was set up by law as an independent public body. Our job is to resolve individual disputes between consumers and businesses – fairly, reasonably, quickly and informally.
What matters most to us and our customers is fairness. Where things aren’t fair, we can use our power to put them right.
Fairness isn’t only about making sure our answers and decisions are technically right. It’s also about wanting to make what we do feel right. And we do this by listening, thinking and explaining.
Fairness is the foundation of our long-held values:

• we do the right thing:
• we treat our customers well and respect their needs;
• we do what we say we'll do; and
• we're inquisitive and build everyone's knowledge.

To make sure we’re meeting people’s expectations of our service, we want to:

• keep fairness at our heart – being fair and feeling fair;
• be trusted and respected;
• be recognised as well run and efficient;
• provide insight to encourage fairness; and
• make sure we reach and help those who need us.

Explaining - when I asked kirsten to explain her decision that I ought to have realised sooner when she made her provisional decision - she Ignored me - so did Hara , Then Alison made her findings on my complaint - and duly ignored all the errors and lies and found that Kirsten and before her Matt and Hara did nothing wrong - Hmmm
When I ask for a complaint to be instigated about Matt and his co hort Mr Bateman to be instigated - my request ignored - without response
When I ask for my case to be reviewed - my request ignored - without response
When I ask for Alison to be investigated - They say they await your report - yet there appears to be no protocol allowing them to do so
they say that fairness is at the heart of their aims and values - but they have made huge fraudulent representations to myself, claiming to have read my files , when they quite clearly have not - as evidenced by the errors made by both mr bateman and kirsten
Matt displays vexatious behaviour dismissing my claim and refusing to pass to an ombudsman - and when I point out he should not be making decisions as he is a manager , he passes to a "Senior" adjudicator - it transpires no such position exists and the senior adjudicator finds that I lost two previous adjudications - yet I won the 1st adjudication, and there is reference to myself winning that adjudication in the second adjudication - yet I get no explanation of how this mistake was made - it could only be fraud !
Kirsten makes errors which can only be borne from not reading my files despite herself claiming to have done so !! - yet Alison finds that she did nothing wrong ! and does not mention the fraudlent behaviour at all in her findings !
I have challenged the FOS on a number of occassions to explain exactly how I was to be expected to gain the specific legal knowledge that Woolwich had breached their fidicuary duties to me both directly before Kirsten's final decision - and prior to this on a n umber of occassions- yet i get no response to this answer. SO MUCH FOR LISTENING AND TAKING MY VIEWS INTO ACCOUNT - AND WHAT ABOUT THEIR SOLEMN PROMISE TO EXPLAIN !!!


If they are committed to explaining their decisions - ask them to explain it - I bet you they can't !! and that is exactly why they deliberately choose to make their decisions in such a way - just stating that it is their opinion without explanation


Well they have clearly failed in their duties , not just accidentally either, this is a wilfull and fraudulent action, which does not comply with their aims and values - they aim to listen yet they ignore - They promise to Explain , yet they do not , They promise to be fair , but they lie , they say they take complaints seriously and put matters right , they don't


Now they are ignoring serious complaints awaiting your recommendations, yet they know from myself passing on your e mail that you will not consider disciplinary issues, so they yet again flagrantly ignore their duties to be fair and try to avoid proper action being taken by themselves against the perpetrators of fraudulent actions - hardly fair is it ?


Time bar decisions should be decisions borne of learned and explained legal thought - Not perverse un explained and contradictory opinion - she says Woolwich have doing nothing wrong - but I should have realised they did something wrong a lot sooner - perverse and totally flawed findings , and unexplained - They clearly have a duty to explain their findings which they have not fulfilled and continue to do so ! Surely it is your job to ensure the Aims and Values of the FOS are upheld

THE VERY LEAST I EXPECT FROM YOU IN YOUR REPORT IS - that you point out to them that your terms of reference does not allow you to comment on disciplinary matters and that you would expect them to conduct INTERNAL investigations into Mr Kline's allegations of fraud and errors and respond in detail to his individual accusations - as it does not appear that Mr Kline has been treated fairly, and request that I recieve explanations in detail to the following
How you expected Mr Kline to discover the specific Knowledge required to have acted sooner , despite Mr Kline specifically requesting that Kirsten did so prior to her issuing her final decision the FOS has not given an explanation.

Explain why Kirsten ignored Mr Klines reasonable request that she explained - despite his protestations that it was unfair not to explain prior to her issuing her fianal decision


I also expect you to say that INTERNAL investigations should take place in respect of Mr Bateman's errors and Matt's involvement and Mr Kline is given detailed findings and explanations as to how these errors were made - that I had lost both previous adjudications - not just we find they did nothing wrong !


I also would expect you to ask the FOS why they chose to ask adjudicators to look at Mr Kline's case , which has obviously caused Mr Kline additional time,effort and stress in both cases, then stated that only an ombudsman can make a decision on whether a case is time barred


I would also expect you to request that the FOS reply to Mr Kline's request that his case is reviewed, as he has given legal precedent and made other reasonable requests / observations that there are grounds for doing so - The FOS undertake to allow customers to challenge decisions and explain their decisions - it is not fair to dismiss without response !- and point out that you expect a learned reply not an opinion.


I would also expect you to request that Alison James explains in detail why she thinks each of the allegations made by Mr kline have no merit , as opposed to finding that Kirsten did nothing wrong - without explanation



I also expect you to say that it is not appropriate for yourselves to finalise your report until these outstanding matters are resolved, due to the fact that if the FOS should find that Mr Kline has been lied to or serious mistakes have been made in the conducting of Mr Kline's case then this would obviosly have bearing on your findings.

John Kline

---

From: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
CC: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk; ifrah.malik@financial-ombudsman.org.uk; dolores.njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Subject: RE: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:58:08 +0000

Jade

Please bear the following in mind when making your report - from FOS website


if you are unhappy about the service we have provided

If you are unhappy with the conclusions we are reaching, tell the adjudicator handling your case. If we cannot resolve the dispute informally to the satisfaction of both sides, it will be for one of our ombudsmen to make a formal decision on the case. The ombudsman’s decision will be final.
Please also let us know if you are unhappy with the level of service we have provided – whatever the actual outcome of the individual case. For example, we want to hear if you think, in handling the case, we have:

• treated you rudely or unfairly;
• failed to explain things properly; or
• caused unnecessary delays (but please bear in mind our usual time-frame for resolving disputes, as explained above).

We take complaints like this about our service very seriously. If we get things wrong, it’s important that you tell us, so we can try to put matters right. This also helps us improve our service in future for other customers.
Our special procedure for handling complaints about the level of service we provide is open to consumers and businesses alike. This is entirely separate from the usual process that applies if you disagree with our views on the merits of your case – and want us to re-consider facts and arguments.

Point one - it is not fair that adjudicator makes mistakes and despite myself pointing out that mistakes had been made and I was entitled for them to be rectified - None of my requests for the adjudicators decision that " I should have known sooner were " listened to - indeed every one who looked at the case said they are not able to interfere in Haras judgement - This is totally at odds with the above standard s of service charter above.
Point Two - I complain things are not explained properly - and if they were to try and explain how the reasoning I should have known sooner then they would be unable to - Every complaint met with - I am satisfied processes have been executed properly - without responding to my specific request that the decisions are explained This is totally at odds with the above standard s of service charter above.
Point Three - even after I have complained that it is wrong to glibly state that I should have known sooner to complain was flawed and unexplained - the ombudsman arrives at the same conclusiojn without explanation - but does add that I should have known despite being discouraged by others - The fact that the FOS and the Woolwich who owe me a duty of care to give proper advice is not even discussed This is totally at odds with the above standard s of service charter above.
Point 4- Alison James finds that Kirsten has done nothing wrong - Yet she clearly has made errors - that I assert can only be caused from fraudulent behaviour - She does not address this issue This is totally at odds with the above standard s of service charter above.
Point 5 - Ifrah tells me that FOS will not review case as the process is complete , how can it be I have acknowledged outstanding issues and have raised issues that perverse decisions should be reviewed - she tells me that they believe all my issues have been dealt with j by a sen ior manager- but fails to realise it is the senior manager that is subject of my complaint and they will not correspond further - I have e mail acknowledging that I have new complaints which have not been investigated. Yet they flatly refuse to instigate a complaint until the Independent assessor makes her report - Knowing full well that it is not part of her terms of reference to pass comment on outcomes and disciplinary measures - This is scandalous behaviour - The mistakes that have been made are absolutely without doubt, and I assert can only be borne from collusion and not reading files - I want explanations and answers

I reiterate that as the ombudsman has shown herself to have acted fraudulently in her provisional findings , and that her final decision is contradictory - They have done nothing wrong - but you should have pursued them earlier !! and the fact she comments on fault at all, and does not explain how I should have gained the specific legal knowledge to know how I was able to sue a party that I had no contractual relationship with , and should have known that it was negligent to insist on an endowment mortgage - It is totally perverse to find them innocent of wrong doing yet claim I should have known to sue them earlier WITHOUT EXPLANATION , that my case is reviewed as a matter of urgency - I have presented the legal precedent - I have challenged that it is a final decision - and these issues have not been addressed.

I challenge the FOS to explain why I should have known to pursue earlier and include in their response reference to Woolwich , HDA adjudicators, Barclays Hara and Kirsten all stating that Woolwich had done nothing wrong , and my only recourse was to sue HDA as well as how I should have gained the specific knowledge required to realise my right to pursue - this is after all supposed to be a fair hearing and it is wrong just to state that in her opinion i should have known sooner without expaining and does not meet the standards set out above

I have had no explanation and the above standards of service state that I am entitled to one - I have been asking - nay begging for this for ages , and been ignored , either through fraudulent behaviour , not reading files or sheer incompetence

John Kline

---

From: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
To: independent.assessor@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
CC: jennie.dallimore@parliament.uk
Subject: FW: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:32:07 +0000

Jade

Copy of e mail Alison office - in direct conflict with Ifrah's claims that my complaints have been dealt with - acknowledgement of new issues


John Kline

---

From: Dolores.Njemanze@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
To: jrkandtk@hotmail.com
Subject: your complaint our service (ref: 16030532 and 5370571)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:45:49 +0000

Dear Mr Kline

Thank you for your recent emails to Matt Thompson. Alison James, senior manager, has asked me to respond on her behalf.

I understand you’ve said there are new issues that you would like to be looked into. Having looked into your concerns, they cover the handling of your cases 16030532 and 5370571, which are currently awaiting the Independent Assessor findings. I appreciate you’ve said you would like us to take disciplinary action against those complained about. Where there are any learning points we find through our investigation and the Independent Assessor’s investigation, I assure you we take the appropriate action. This is not something we would share with you as it is an internal matter.

It is best now to wait for the Independent Assessor’s findings. I understand following your recent concerns, she has agreed to look into an additional point.

I’m sorry this is not the outcome you wanted.

Yours sincerely
Dolores Njemanze| Executive Adviser | Financial Ombudsman Service

[dogtired]

Re: Financial Ombudsman Service

What a mess, I agree that so far FOS have not listened to me at all.
At the start on an increasingly long road I think.

[EXC]

Re: Financial Ombudsman Service

Post unapproved. No advertising permitted.