Niddy vs HSBC

[helmsman]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

The Brazilian Embassy says thank you for using electronic communication as they're missing their rain forests already.

It may now be time for niddy to have that brazilian wax.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

The Brazilian Embassy says thank you for using electronic communication as they're missing their rain forests already.

Rainforest timber is not suitable for paper pulp.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Rainforest timber is not suitable for paper pulp.

Trust you to know that

[Pixie]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Trees in rainforests are hardwood. Softwood trees are needed to make paper pulp (for obvious reasons!)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Ok two smart arses

[helmsman]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Ok two smart arses

I thought paper came from W.H.Smiths.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

I thought paper came from W.H.Smiths.

Me too - me too

[BBoo]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Trees in rainforests are hardwood. Softwood trees are needed to make paper pulp (for obvious reasons!)

I thought he was printing off a hard copy!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

I thought he was printing off a hard copy!

Nooo, i'll email the word doc mate - let them print it off

* yes I get the joke!

[BBoo]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Anyway, you're both wrong!

Hardwood trees such as oaks and maples have wood with very short fibers. Paper made from these species is weaker than that made from softwoods, but its surface is smoother, and therefore better to write and print on.

from:

Paper University - All About Paper

[Pixie]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Smart-arse!!!

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Anyway, you're both wrong!

Hardwood trees such as oaks and maples have wood with very short fibers. Paper made from these species is weaker than that made from softwoods, but its surface is smoother, and therefore better to write and print on.

from:

Paper University - All About Paper

But maples and oaks are not rainforest timbers, whereas various types of rosewood are. Most species of Dalbergia have dark and oily wood which is quite unsuitable for paper.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Interesting....

The FOS adjudicator manager agrees with the adjudicator (ooops) and has tried to "buy" me with a £150 cheque.

Ermmm

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Interesting....

The FOS adjudicator manager agrees with the adjudicator (ooops) and has tried to "buy" me with a £150 cheque.

After you recovered from that insult, did you ask why they'd supposed you'd succumb to such cheap and petty bribery?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

From the "Team Manager"

Thank you for your patience and understanding while I looked into the matters you have raised.
*
I have now had the opportunity to consider your concerns in detail. I would firstly say that in my role as Team Manager my responsibility is to look into whether the adjudicator has provided you with the level of service that we would expect. I cannot consider whether the outcome reached by the adjudicator is correct and I cannot look into the merits of your case. I know you have already been informed of this, but if you are unhappy with the decision reached by an adjudicator you can ask for an ombudsman to review the case afresh.
Before a case is passed to an ombudsman, as you know, a case review adjudicator reviews the complaint. The purpose of this is for the case review adjudicator to ensure that all the information they think the ombudsman will need is on file. If, when reviewing the case, they believe more information is needed or if they have a different opinion on the outcome, they will direct the adjudicator to carry out further investigations. The ombudsman will also take these actions if they deem it appropriate.
*
I note that you have asked that your case is not passed to a case review adjudicator. Unfortunately, having reviewed your case I can see that we had passed your case to a review adjudicator to be checked in advance of passing it to an ombudsman. I am sorry that this was done despite you saying you did not want it to progress in this way.
Where either the business or consumer is unhappy with the adjudicator’s opinion the complaint is passed to an ombudsman to review. Our process is designed to ensure that there is a route of appeal for both parties. While I appreciate that you would have liked your case reallocated to another adjudicator, having looked into this issue I have seen nothing to suggest that the adjudicator did not carry out thorough investigation and am therefore satisfied that reallocation to another adjudicator is not necessary in this case.
I appreciate that you are going to be disappointed with this, and I can only apologise for the fact we took this course of action despite your express wish for it not to happen. The previous manager you spoke to has since left the ombudsman service and I am, unfortunately, unable to confirm exactly why this happened.
*
In terms of moving forward with your case, as I have explained we do not reallocate cases to another adjudicator on the basis that either the business or consumer is unhappy with the outcome. Therefore the next step is that your complaint can either be passed to an ombudsman who will review the complaint afresh and reach his or her own opinion on the matter - or you are free to withdraw your complaint and pursue it elsewhere. Please let me know how you would like to proceed with your complaint. If you would like your case to be considered by an ombudsman then I am happy to arrange that. Due to the high volume of cases we are currently receiving, there is currently an average waiting time of 14 months for a case to be considered by an ombudsman. This is an average and the actual time it takes to receive an ombudsman’s decision will depend on a number of factors, however, please let us know if there is anything, such as severe health issues or financial hardship, which we need to be aware of. I appreciate that further delays are not acceptable and we are doing all we can to reduce waiting times, including employing more ombudsman.
*
You have raised two other issues. The first being that you initially raised this complaint on 30 December 2011 but you have not received a response, until now. Please accept my sincere apologies for this, this is simply not good enough and is not in line with the service we expect and aim to provide.
*
The other issue relates to Mr Jones' comments in a phone call that the bank had treated you unfairly, but he then went against his word by not upholding your complaint. I have listened to the telephone call in question, and he does indeed say that he felt the bank had treated you unfairly. However, I've listened to the entire call and feel that by the end of it Mr Jones had informed you he would be going away to consider all of the evidence provided and had not yet made up his mind. I also note Mr Jones apologised in his letter of 3 February 2012 for not explaining to you at the time that his comments did not mean he had reached his final conclusions. I would reiterate those apologies as I do feel Mr Jones could have explained more clearly, during that telephone conversation, that he had not yet reached a decision on your case.
*
I fully acknowledge that we have not handled your complaint as well as we should have, and I am genuinely sorry that this has happened. In light of the errors I feel we have made regarding your case I will be today sending you a letter with a cheque for £150. I do hope you feel able to accept this.
*
I look forward to hearing from you on how you would like to proceed with your complaint against HSBC. I also attach a link to our leaflet 'complaints about our service' http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...ur-service.pdf
*
If you wish to discuss any of these matters with me then please contact me using one of the methods below. If you would like me to telephone you then I am of course happy to do so