But truth is stranger than fiction. Although FOS refused to look at the interest rate (The Ombudsman’s decision is final, no Ombudsman can over-rule another !) they did decide to look at the tax situation which the IA had not asked them to look at and where I was content with the deal I negotiated with the bank myself… and found a mistake which the Principal Ombudsman instructed should be corrected with a cheque from the FOS itself … the bank was not asked to repay the tax it had incorrectly deducted ! (The Ombudsman’s decision is not so final in tax matters it seems ).

The questions of why the Ombudsman missed the tax error in the first place, or why he approved the award as fair and reasonable without considering tax at all (thereby allowing a £4000 tax error to get through), or why the Principal Ombudsman chose to blame the Service Review Team who had nothing to do with the original mistake rather than the Ombudsman who made the decision, all remain unanswered.

Please let us know what happens.

And if the FOS are indeed the paragons of virtue that you proclaim, they could abandon their exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, so that outsiders can get decent statistics of what they do. They should also have a proper independent review of their operations, unlike the somewhat circumscribed one done by Lord Hunt.

Having gone through their complaints process myself and having a relative that works there I can truly say the work they do is excellent and mainly thankless. He has told me of the times they uphold complaints in the favour of the customer - do they get a thankyou? No, just more whinges that the compensation is not enough!!!

Generally if a complaint has merit the bank will seek to resolve it in-house - therefore it stands to reason that a higher percentage of cases passed to the FOS will lose.

They are not there to pay out large sums (I have been told of the silly sums asked for for really minor incidents) but to put right what has gone wrong. People have too high views of their “rights”. The banks fully fund this service making free to these people.

If your case is that good and the FOS has wrongly rejected it - go to court. Its amazing the people who say they have an excellent case but will not put their money where their mouth is!

He has told me some of the things people complain about (generically of course to protect personal information under the DPA) and I was shocked. The customer (not the bank) sets ae DD up wrong which causes the wrong payment to be made, therefore incur charges etc. The bank, as a gesure as it is a long standing customer, offers to refund the charges etc. However that is apparently not enough - the customer wants compensation - WHY? IT WAS THEIR MISTAKE, NOT THE BANKS???

We just, unfortunately, live in a compensation society now where people just want something for nothing. If these timewasters stopped clogging up the system then the truly needy and with merits cases would be looked at quicker - and possibly with more sympathy and less jadedness.

The fact is, a lot of people lie to get “free” monty - and when they are caught out they lie more. I am willing to bet that a fari few of the stories about people losing probably aren’t the truth about what actually happened - however the FOS does not go running to the press with the real truth. Maybe if it started to do so then we would really find out whether these complaints are warranted or not.

The Hunt Review web site has removed the evidence it received from the public and others. My evidence was part of this so I have published it again on my own web site.

If anyone would like to know what really happens when an ordinary person takes a case to the FOS, please take a look at this web site. Sorry its so long.

http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk

If anyone would like to know what really happens when an ordinary person takes a case to the FOS, please take a look at this web site. Sorry its so long.

I quote, “The Financial Ombudsman Service, and its predecessor the Banking Ombudsman, have for many years found against bank customers and in favour of the banks.”

You’re absolutely right, but the FOS also finds in favour of the consumer on many occasions. That’s what’s meant by impartial. I think it’s worth noting that organisations such as the FOS are not “consumer champions” (who are for the most part underinformed buffoons who do nothing but stoke the fires for their own personal gain). An ombudsman is an impartial platform to give an unbiased view of a complaint.

Not every complaint brought to any ombudsman service has merit. Sometimes, shock horror, the consumer is actually wrong, and is complaining for the sheer sake of it. Other times they have been through a horrible situation, however it’s only a perception that it’s the fault of a financial institution.

Why on earth do people like Mr Anderson persist in giving people false hope. The hand of justice falls in both directions..

1.Journalists have their own ultimate interests at heart - even good ones - that is to sell news!!! Surprised to see integrity mentioned in the same sentence as the word ‘journalist’!

2. In most court cases, the case is decided on the basis of the evidence presented to it by both parties. You will not find a court doing any ‘investigations’ itself. Britain does not have an ‘inquisitorial’ legal system. No difference then in that regard.

2. Financial services businesses do not ‘own’ the FOS because they are ‘members’. All that means is that under law in this country (Financial Services and Markets Act) all financial services businesses carrying out regulated activities (and certain others) have no choice but to pay a fee every time a customer takes a complaint to the ombudsman. Can’t help but think they probably aren’t too happy about that, especially as it’s about 0.5K every time!!!!!! That could be for a complaint that gets the customer a coupla hundred!

3. As I understand it the reason the FOS can’t give out the information either side sends in to the other party is that it is an alternative dispute resolution service - Data Protection law would have a bit to say about information being passed over willy nilly if it contains individual’s information (which of course it often would). You may be interested to note that courts don’t provide transcripts even when you were present unless you can afford tens of thousands of pounds. If you want your info from a financial services business do a data subject access request. This pretty much works for the knid of small businesses that can make complaints to the FOS, because although a business can’t make a data subject access request as a business, the individuals in the business can request all information held by the financial services business which also contains information about them personally. That is usually most information. The Information Commissioner’s Office can help with this if financial services businesses won’t play ball.

The FOS were set up as an alternative dispute resolution service to the courts, costs consumers nothing, and they aren’t obliged to accept the outcome FOS reaches! Businesses pay fees each time a complaint goes to the FOS and pay an annual fee as well, and are obliged to comply with an ombudsman’s decision unless they can apply for judicial review. These can only be successful if the ombudsman hasn’t properly followed its own processes so that doesn’t pose much of a threat….

Oh and for what it’s worth, it seems that noone likes ‘em unless they have benefited from their intervention. I think that probably means they’re doing a pretty good job on the whole!!!

I admit I haven’t listened to this broadcast, so this is just facts. Will listen to it as soon as I get a chance, sounds interesting…….