Niddy vs HSBC

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Care to be more specific please mate?

Well, essentially you'd first ask which Lodges (including Chapters, Priories, Preceptories and such like) met on or around the dates in question, either as a Regular Meeting, rehearsal, Practice Circle or other Lodge of Instruction. You'd then need to identify key people from the LinkedIn profiles of the wallahs at the FOS - and the people in their networks - to ask if any of them belonged to Lodges (etc) meeting at the time, or were a PIG (Permanently Invited Guest) at any meeting.

UGLE claims that it wants to be more transparent...

The other stuff, thanks - very interesting..... However Mr Van Spall left and had little say, it's the current boss and Mr Jones I need proof of, ideally proof of malpractice and/or involvement of banking or third party interests that can conflict their positions.

As you know, we can rule out Mr Van Spall; it's unlikely he would be a Freemason. I posted his publicly accessible data, though, because it shews the "revolving door" policy of the FOS and how its members of staff use the FOS to advance in the banking industry.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Ah right I found this thread Niddy....Yes we have had problems too with Mr Jones from the FOS ...

He said that the complaint we had with Barclays was all settled. Well no in fact it was not so I had to bring in his team manager to help us. He has advised that BC have paid us what they owe us when this is also NOT so.

Niddy - I shall email you what I have so you can cherry pick it, OK mate ?

Can you confirm the team manager name please?

[Batman]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Can you confirm the team manager name please?

It was apparently Tony Braun but is now ..............

Jon Pearce - Jon.Pearce@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Can't be the same as he's still there as at last week.

So one should be looking for a different Dick?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

It was apparently Tony Braun but is now ..............

Jon Pearce - Jon.Pearce@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

See above lol it's in my email

[Batman]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

I will be writing to them soon again to see why my dosh still has NOT arrived...

Main beef re Jones has been his unhelpful and belligerent attitude here.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Cloggy how'd you like to help me out with this?

Could do with some help on the legislative faults and some big (confusing) words thrown in....

I've only just noticed this. How may I help?

Hiya

Well I've had the provisional decision from the Ombudsman and totally disagree with it - just want you to look through it and see if you can find anything "interesting" as I am head mashed right now what with my other claim etc going on with Marlins.

The Ombudsman himself contradicts himself I think, but then as I am too technically involved its hard for me to reasonably remain neutral. I know you're good at spotting these errors and wondered if you fancied helping out a wee bit please?

Im deliberating just saying sod it, lifes too short but then again I'm thinking I have been crapped on - I dunno whats best right now - maybe legal action? Bugger knows.....!

[Batman]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

It'll look totally different tomorrow mate. Don't rush into any battles half cocked due to being understandably well pissed off by these clowns. These FOS dictators are TOTALLY bank-oriented as you know, so no surprises there eh...Sometime we cannot see wood for trees so chill a bit and sleep on it before deciding to hit 'em hard or not...

As you know I have also been crapped on 'twice' this week too by the wonderful FOS...ha

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

I have just sent a FOI to the Financial Services Ombudsman - see what they respond with!

Dear Sirs

Freedom of Information Request

I formally request under a Freedom of Information request, details of the following; specifically for HSBC bank (UK);

1. Average number/percent ratio of complaints received about HSBC for the period Jan 2010 to Jan 2012;
2. Average number/percent ratio of complaints found in favour of HSBC for the period Jan 2010 - Jan 2012;

Additionally I formally request under the same Freedom of Information request, details of the following; specifically in relation to Mike Ingram (Ombudsman). The details requested here are to be from the period 2003 - date (moreover the period of Mr Ingrams appointment as Ombudsman which was, I believe a promotion from Adjudicator in 2003);

1. Percent ratio of cases since promotion from Adjudicator to Ombudsman in 2003 to date; found in favour of the banks (all banks);
2. Percent ratio of consumer / bank outcomes since Mr Ingrams appointment to Ombudsman in 2003;

As you'll appreciate this FOI Request does not breach any confidentiality clauses and is thus exempt from your usual get out clause of "s.41 (1&2) and s.43(2)" based on my specifically requesting average percentages or average mean ratio figures.

This information is paramaount in my follow-up actions against the FOS thus your timely response would be appreciated. Similarly, I would prefer an email response.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours faithfully,

[Batman]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Like it................;-)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Recent events.

Case has gone to the Ombudsman who has issued his Prelim Decision (in favour of the bank, surprise surprise) and before responding (I am fact-finding and gathering evidence against his points) I thought I'd query a couple of things I felt pertinent...

From me:

I would like to query why the FOS do not follow regulation and legislation in place at the time they make assessments? Any guidance you provide that stipulates your processes would be greatly appreciated. A Subject Access Request under s.7 Data Protection Act 1998 is also en-route as I need to know what the bank and the FOS are colluding about this case.

Their reply:

If you need an extension of time to respond to the provisional decision, please let me know and I will ask the ombudsman if he is prepared to exercise his discretion to grant one. Similarly, please tell me if legal action (against HSBC) is started. The ombudsman has a discretion to end our consideration of a complaint if the subject matter of the complaint is being dealt with by a court, but please be aware that you should not assume that he will put your complaint 'on hold' if legal proceedings are commenced.
It is not the case that the Financial Ombudsman Service does not follow the law. Section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 requires the ombudsman to determine complaints by reference to what he considers to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. That legal requirement is expanded on in the rules under which we are required to operate - see DISP3.6.4.

Finally, the ombudsman has noted your comments about bringing proceedings against the adjudicator and / or this service and has asked me to bring your attention to paragraph 10 at Schedule 17 of the Financial Services and Markets Act.

My reply:

I'm fully aware of the rules and also fully aware that s.228 is the chosen route when the ombudsman lacks any backbone. In essence he is admitting, legally and using statute regulation within DISP (3.6), I win. However based on HSBC lining your pockets, he chose instead to hide behind s.228.

It's fine I understand that people with no balls behave in this way.

I'll be in touch.

Now, what they don't reckon on is the fact that even within his own explanation above, the rules still suggest the FOS do take due consideration of all applicable laws in place at the time.

I'll copy parts of their quote above and respond in red so you can see what I am saying...

If you need an extension of time to respond to the provisional decision, please let me know and I will ask the ombudsman if he is prepared to exercise his discretion to grant one.

No. I wasn't asking permission, if I am awaiting documents from the Service then they will put my complaint on hold. There would be no reason to refuse a genuine request for an extension based on the fact I have issued SAR & FOI requests that do take some time to deal with.

It is not the case that the Financial Ombudsman Service does not follow the law.

I beg to differ - if this was the case then you'd have acknowledged my s.87/s.88 complaint against the unlawful addition of defaults.

Section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 requires the ombudsman to determine complaints by reference to what he considers to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Actually, s.228 states the following!

228 Determination under the compulsory jurisdiction.

(1)This section applies only in relation to the compulsory jurisdiction [F1and to the consumer credit jurisdiction].

(2)A complaint is to be determined by reference to what is, in the opinion of the ombudsman, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

(3)When the ombudsman has determined a complaint he must give a written statement of his determination to the respondent and to the complainant.

(4)The statement must—

(a)give the ombudsman’s reasons for his determination;

(b)be signed by him; and

(c)require the complainant to notify him in writing, before a date specified in the statement, whether he accepts or rejects the determination.

(5)If the complainant notifies the ombudsman that he accepts the determination, it is binding on the respondent and the complainant and final.

(6)If, by the specified date, the complainant has not notified the ombudsman of his acceptance or rejection of the determination he is to be treated as having rejected it.

(7)The ombudsman must notify the respondent of the outcome.

(8)A copy of the determination on which appears a certificate signed by an ombudsman is evidence (or in Scotland sufficient evidence) that the determination was made under the scheme.

(9)Such a certificate purporting to be signed by an ombudsman is to be taken to have been duly signed unless the contrary is shown.

For obvious reasons I cannot go into detail with this until such time as I formally compile my response as I do not want them at the Service to gain any advantage by reading my argument in advance of sending it to them!

That legal requirement is expanded on in the rules under which we are required to operate - see DISP3.6.4.

Similarly, DISP 3.6.4 stipulates:

In considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman will take into account:(1) relevant:
(a) law and regulations;
(b) regulators' rules, guidance and standards;
(c) codes of practice; and
(2) (where appropriate) what he considers to have been good industry practice at the relevant time.

As above, I do not want to elaborate any further on this as it will detail my argument to an unfair advantage.

The main point here is that it's quite obvious that they are wrong, both s.228 & DISP 3.6.4 confirm that current statute/law should be adhered to - lets not forget the Ombudsman (Mike Ingram) is an ex solicitor so should be basing his assessments on his legal knowledge and NOT hiding behind other local statute.

[IF]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

It's fine I understand that people with no balls behave in this way.

I do love your letters Nid

[mgfboy]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

Fos do seem to like you Niddy they never offered me either a review at the adjudicator stage or a prelim discision by the ombudsman.

It will be interesting when the senior manager comes back with my compliant, you have highlighted some more useful info

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

If you need anything let me know mate. I've all their guidance, principles and even got my FOI results

[mgfboy]

Re: Niddy vs HSBC

I have just sent a FOI to the Financial Services Ombudsman - see what they respond with!

Niddy you missed one , how many adjudicators decisions where overturned by the ombudsman ( involving banks and general)