Tweet
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
just goes to show a little bit of common sense goes a long way, i'd agree that any attempt to levy/charge CMC's or consumers for that matter should be met with a complete review (not just a whitewash exercise) of how FOS operates and changes made accordingly. They could do a lot worse than implement the ideas above. Come to think of it, why should it need changes to their fee structure to prompt an overhaul of a clearly struggling (some might go as far as to say failing) organisation, why not implement these now.
Lets hope FOS do view these forums and take a few ideas on board.
Originally posted by The_Big_Dog
View Post
In principle EXC, I personally wouldn't be adverse to paying a levy to the FOS for using the service, however, I feel if they were do that in it's current state then it would be grossly unfair.
Obviously, the first issue to be taken care of is the conflict of interest that would arise from us paying a fee - I believe that it could be viewed that as we're paying for the priviledge (I'll use that loosely), does that not cause a conflict of interest in that the FOS are an independent arbitration service - I'd argue that it changes the status quo because how can the FOS state going forward that they're independent when the complainant's agent is paying them to consider the complaint - it would be a nightmare. If we lost the case they'd be an argument because we'd paid them fees to look at the case and if the lender lost then they'd argue that the FOS were biased because we paid them.
I would be happy to pay the FOS a levy as long as they used the additional funds raised in a proper way and overhauled their service to make it fit for purpose. I'm sure you'd agree, the same as the majority of posters on here, dealing with the FOS at the present time is like dealing with the Keystone Cops - they just lurch from one disaster to another. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny - yet another public body who hasn't got a clue how to operate.
It is so bad in there, I haven't referred a case to them in nearly 8 months - I'd rather take my chance with the lender than give them the case. I think at the current time, I'd get more admissions of guilt from a lender that I would from the FOS for mis-selling.
The FOS have this aura about them that they're a well run organisation who do sterling work as an independent arbitrator. Many a time I've spoken to them on points and get the feeling that they're patronising me - the reality is the majority of them don't know what the hell they're doing and don't get me started on the cannonfodder that answer the phones because they wouldn't know what DISP was if it came up and bit them on the arse. Do I think the FOS is fit for purpose - No I don't. Do I feel that the FOS is an independent, well run organisation? No I don't. Would I consider referring a case to the FOS at present? Not on your nellie.
To me, the whole thing needs to be re-thought out, re-worked and to a certain extent, they need to start again from fresh because there seems to be no contingency in place to how they're going to reduce backlogs and stem the flow of really bad adjudications that are coming out of it at the moment. I believe they're trying to reduce backlogs by denying valid claims and hope they don't get an Ombudsman referral - that isn't sour grapes, or a wild accusation - the adjudications coming out of there are disgraceful, and they've got the nerve to state, well, the reason for it is that while the JR was ongoing, we've been working on non-ppi issues and the decline rate on these products are a lot higher then ppi so the same mentality is now being applied to ppi complaints - thats total hogwash. I also think that CMC complaints are being declined by the FOS to see if we appeal and what grounds - they might be looking for us to earn our money.
What I would like to see from the FOS is the following:
Firstly, to adopt a similar stance to the Court service when escalating a complaint to them. So a CMC should be viewed in the same light as a solictior as they should know what they're doing, and a member of the public the same as a litigant in person and be allowed some more leeway.
A checklist for submissions before the complaint going in, and not only does it include the usual items such as complaint form, questionnaire etc but also a copy of the credit agreement or proof that the client has paid ppi on their agreement. If a CMC can't get hold of this, then they're not doing their job properly and at best, the claim is speculative. The FOS have already made comment that they have a lot of complaints in there where there isn't ppi on the account - well, if thats the case, what the hell is the CMC doing and why aren't they getting this information either from the client or from a SAR?
When the complaint gets there, a review team to review the complaint. If all the items aren't provided, or complete, or if there isn't a cause of action - ie the case is so weak and full of generic vague points - send the whole thing back to the complainant and state 'sorry, can't deal with it, try submitting it again once you've got the story straight' (Doing this alone would stop the majority of duff complaints bogging them down).
If it is all there, then they call the file from the lender - give them 8 weeks to respond and stick to it. If the lender doesn't reply - they automatically lose - period.
Once thats back, give it to an adjudicator and train the bloody lot of them to sing from the same hymnsheet so they all adjudicate the same way. No more of this 'I think it is more likely than not' or 'I appreciate that XYZ bank didn't make it clear to Mr. Client that this was the case, however, I am not persuaded that this would have affected his decision to buy the policy' and all that rubbish - you've got the file from the lender - did they follow the rules and be able to back it up and does their paperwork stand up? If they did and the paperwork stacks - it's not mis-sold - if they haven't - then cough up. Does the complaint involve the 'common failings' as stipulated by the FSA? If the lender can satisfactory answer the points - then it's not mis-sold. At least then we know where we are and where we all stand.
Rather than give the lender 2 weeks to respond, and if they don't, refer it to an Ombudsman - force the lender to respond to the adjudication within 2 weeks and give detailed argument as to why they disagree with the Adjudicator. If they can't, or there's no contact - automatic loss. I've always been baffled why this happens - If I have a case which is declined and I feel hard done by, I have to go back to them with a detailed argument why I think they're wrong - it doesn't automatically go the the Ombudsman if I do nothing - so why should the lender get away with it?
Finally, TRAIN UP MORE OMBUDSMEN!
I'd love to see the FOS as a well oiled machine that consumers can turn to if they cannot reach agreement with their lender when a complaint is made. How I view the FOS at the moment is a complete waste of time where there's total chaos, no strict timescales, they run around like headless chickens, and with their current backlogs and case load, send a complaint in today, and if yu're lucky, you might get a legally binding decision in around 4 years time.
TBD.
PS - No doubt the FOS view these boards from time to time. If they disagree with what I've got to say, then I'm more than happy to meet with Natalie Ceeney face to face to have a full and frank discussion about how the organisation she heads works - just drop me a PM letting me know when she'd like to meet and I'll be there. I should imagine that she, like Walter Merricks before her, would run a mile at having to justify the management of their organisation to anyone.
Obviously, the first issue to be taken care of is the conflict of interest that would arise from us paying a fee - I believe that it could be viewed that as we're paying for the priviledge (I'll use that loosely), does that not cause a conflict of interest in that the FOS are an independent arbitration service - I'd argue that it changes the status quo because how can the FOS state going forward that they're independent when the complainant's agent is paying them to consider the complaint - it would be a nightmare. If we lost the case they'd be an argument because we'd paid them fees to look at the case and if the lender lost then they'd argue that the FOS were biased because we paid them.
I would be happy to pay the FOS a levy as long as they used the additional funds raised in a proper way and overhauled their service to make it fit for purpose. I'm sure you'd agree, the same as the majority of posters on here, dealing with the FOS at the present time is like dealing with the Keystone Cops - they just lurch from one disaster to another. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny - yet another public body who hasn't got a clue how to operate.
It is so bad in there, I haven't referred a case to them in nearly 8 months - I'd rather take my chance with the lender than give them the case. I think at the current time, I'd get more admissions of guilt from a lender that I would from the FOS for mis-selling.
The FOS have this aura about them that they're a well run organisation who do sterling work as an independent arbitrator. Many a time I've spoken to them on points and get the feeling that they're patronising me - the reality is the majority of them don't know what the hell they're doing and don't get me started on the cannonfodder that answer the phones because they wouldn't know what DISP was if it came up and bit them on the arse. Do I think the FOS is fit for purpose - No I don't. Do I feel that the FOS is an independent, well run organisation? No I don't. Would I consider referring a case to the FOS at present? Not on your nellie.
To me, the whole thing needs to be re-thought out, re-worked and to a certain extent, they need to start again from fresh because there seems to be no contingency in place to how they're going to reduce backlogs and stem the flow of really bad adjudications that are coming out of it at the moment. I believe they're trying to reduce backlogs by denying valid claims and hope they don't get an Ombudsman referral - that isn't sour grapes, or a wild accusation - the adjudications coming out of there are disgraceful, and they've got the nerve to state, well, the reason for it is that while the JR was ongoing, we've been working on non-ppi issues and the decline rate on these products are a lot higher then ppi so the same mentality is now being applied to ppi complaints - thats total hogwash. I also think that CMC complaints are being declined by the FOS to see if we appeal and what grounds - they might be looking for us to earn our money.
What I would like to see from the FOS is the following:
Firstly, to adopt a similar stance to the Court service when escalating a complaint to them. So a CMC should be viewed in the same light as a solictior as they should know what they're doing, and a member of the public the same as a litigant in person and be allowed some more leeway.
A checklist for submissions before the complaint going in, and not only does it include the usual items such as complaint form, questionnaire etc but also a copy of the credit agreement or proof that the client has paid ppi on their agreement. If a CMC can't get hold of this, then they're not doing their job properly and at best, the claim is speculative. The FOS have already made comment that they have a lot of complaints in there where there isn't ppi on the account - well, if thats the case, what the hell is the CMC doing and why aren't they getting this information either from the client or from a SAR?
When the complaint gets there, a review team to review the complaint. If all the items aren't provided, or complete, or if there isn't a cause of action - ie the case is so weak and full of generic vague points - send the whole thing back to the complainant and state 'sorry, can't deal with it, try submitting it again once you've got the story straight' (Doing this alone would stop the majority of duff complaints bogging them down).
If it is all there, then they call the file from the lender - give them 8 weeks to respond and stick to it. If the lender doesn't reply - they automatically lose - period.
Once thats back, give it to an adjudicator and train the bloody lot of them to sing from the same hymnsheet so they all adjudicate the same way. No more of this 'I think it is more likely than not' or 'I appreciate that XYZ bank didn't make it clear to Mr. Client that this was the case, however, I am not persuaded that this would have affected his decision to buy the policy' and all that rubbish - you've got the file from the lender - did they follow the rules and be able to back it up and does their paperwork stand up? If they did and the paperwork stacks - it's not mis-sold - if they haven't - then cough up. Does the complaint involve the 'common failings' as stipulated by the FSA? If the lender can satisfactory answer the points - then it's not mis-sold. At least then we know where we are and where we all stand.
Rather than give the lender 2 weeks to respond, and if they don't, refer it to an Ombudsman - force the lender to respond to the adjudication within 2 weeks and give detailed argument as to why they disagree with the Adjudicator. If they can't, or there's no contact - automatic loss. I've always been baffled why this happens - If I have a case which is declined and I feel hard done by, I have to go back to them with a detailed argument why I think they're wrong - it doesn't automatically go the the Ombudsman if I do nothing - so why should the lender get away with it?
Finally, TRAIN UP MORE OMBUDSMEN!
I'd love to see the FOS as a well oiled machine that consumers can turn to if they cannot reach agreement with their lender when a complaint is made. How I view the FOS at the moment is a complete waste of time where there's total chaos, no strict timescales, they run around like headless chickens, and with their current backlogs and case load, send a complaint in today, and if yu're lucky, you might get a legally binding decision in around 4 years time.
TBD.
PS - No doubt the FOS view these boards from time to time. If they disagree with what I've got to say, then I'm more than happy to meet with Natalie Ceeney face to face to have a full and frank discussion about how the organisation she heads works - just drop me a PM letting me know when she'd like to meet and I'll be there. I should imagine that she, like Walter Merricks before her, would run a mile at having to justify the management of their organisation to anyone.
Lets hope FOS do view these forums and take a few ideas on board.
This to me seemed at best unprofessional and at worst smacked of some collusion between them 
Comment