Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

[mgfboy]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

When should you be hearing about this now?

I suppose it's the question of "how long is a piece of string"?

Fingers crossed.

I think she was talking mid June for a reply, I dont suppose anything will come from it, but I live to be surprised

[di30]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

I think she was talking mid June for a reply, I dont suppose anything will come from it, but I live to be surprised

The last bit you said, you taken the words out of my mouth.

Hopefully some good will come out of this, you've worked bloody damn hard enough for it.

[mgfboy]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Had a reply, It's not what I wanted but on the otherhand within what the Assessor can do it's not to bad.

I have asked her to clarify a few points and I will post the outcome.

[di30]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Had a reply, It's not what I wanted but on the otherhand within what the Assessor can do it's not to bad.

I have asked her to clarify a few points and I will post the outcome.

Thanks for updating mgfboy.

Look forward to your post on this in due course.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Interesting, I have a complaint with the Ombudsman regarding HSBC, also a court case has been on hold awaiting the Ombudsman decision the D.J. is interested in what the process will achieve I would think, it even invovles Adjudicator stating the as HSBC say no CCA1974 agreement can be found (there was not one in the beginning in 1996) only a request.(enforceable/unenforceable), they cannot even see if there is all the requirements for a CCA1974, but they judged against my complaint in what they say is a fair view, even though they do not look at the legal side of the CCA having to be produced (if you get my meaning).

[mgfboy]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Please find below a scan of the reply, I did ask some more questions and I will post the reply. ( Sorry about the format the OCR software screwed it up!!!)

Dear
Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman Service: case
You know that I am appointed by the board to review complaints of poor service. I confirmed to you the service complaints that I would be looking at and I have now examined the Ombudsman Service's case file. This is my review and conclusions:
• You asked if the Ombudsman Service was right to treat the matter as one case.
It is really the Ombudsman Service's decision on whether multiple complaints should be investigated and determined as one case or as a number of cases. To give two examples, if a current account holder makes a number of complaints about that account, the Ombudsman Service will normally treat them as a single case. The single case might be split at some point if some of the issues are likely to be upheld and others not upheld so that the complainant can accept and! or reject the different outcomes. If a complaint involves two people with different bank accounts, it's normal to treat them as separate cases unless a good reason emerges to merge them during the investigation, and that's
what happened.
When the Ombudsman Service first looked at your complaint form it treated it as one case. As you were complaining about both joint and sole accounts, I do not think that was the most sensible initial decision but the case handlers at that stage are administrators rather than investigators.
Soon afterwards, in January 2010 the case was passed to an Adjudicator for investigation and he thought that the case should be split into three because the case involved three accounts: a joint account, a personal account belonging to Mr and a personal credit card belonging to Dr The Adjudicator split the cases in March which meant two new cases with references - 9and 9. It seems to me that that was the right thing to do at the time. .
In May, the cases were reallocated to a specialist Adjudicator because they were classed as complex. Adjudicator 2 concluded that the separate cases should be combined because there was a single issue that lay at the heart of the case - that is the action taken by the bank in relation to the joint account albeit that action had ramifications for the




Independent AS8,~;;,;or
! June 2012
separate/individual banking relationships. Once again, that seems to have been a
reasonable decision, and if the Ombudsman had found reasons for reaching different
conclusions in relation to the 3 bank accounts, the cases would have been split again
before a final decision.
I am not at all surprised at your concern about these events because what was lacking
was lucid and consistent explanations of the combine - split- combine decisions. I note
that the Ombudsman Service has accepted that it failed to provide a proper explanation
of what was happening and has apologised for any inconvenience caused.
• You complained about how long it took to sort the matter out.
The clock started ticking with your complaint form, received in December 2009 and
stopped with the Ombudsman's final decision in July 2011. The Ombudsman Service's
current aim is to resolve cases within 18 months, including those that go to an
Ombudsman. Yours took 20 months. Most cases are resolved within 6 to 9 months,
which is the Ombudsman Service's published aim and reflects the fact that 90% of cases
are not referred to an Ombudsman.
Within those broad dates there were some avoidable delays. It's clear that Adjudicator 1
was outfaced by the case and he should have recognised sooner than he did that it
needed to be transferred to the complex cases team. That's a failure of managerial
oversight too, and perhaps there needed to be better guidance on whether the cases did
need to be split as that took some time to organise.
Given the complexity, Adjudicator 2 taking from May to September to issue his
assessment was not unreasonable. You did not accept the assessment which meant that
in November, the case joined what can be a very long queue for an Ombudsman.
A number of people doubt whether the appeal to an Ombudsman is a genuine appeal
and your case shows that it is because the Ombudsman found that there were further
matters to be investigated. That took from January to April 2011 but I do not accept the
Ombudsman Service's explanation for the further delay from April until the
Ombudsman's final decision in July. It should not take 3 months to check that all of the
issues had been covered in the draft version of the Ombudsman's final decision.
The Ombudsman Service does say that it will not continue to correspond on the merits
of a case once an Ombudsman has issued the final decision which is why the end date is
the date of the decision.
· You complained that the Ombudsman Service did not give you the full range of
options before you received the final Ombudsman's decision.
I note that the Head of Casework explained, correctly, that the Ombudsman Service has
a two stage process of Adjudicator to Ombudsman. There are, therefore, two options
available to you if you do not accept the Adjudicator's assessment 1) refer the complaint
to n Ombudsman or 2) withdraw the complaint. I am satisfied that the Ombudsman
Service followed its proper process.
2



Independent Assessor

I note that you believe that the Ombudsman should have issued pre1imina.ry findings
before issuing a final decision and am assuming that you have looked at the Financial
Services Authority's DISP rules. I don't think the Ombudsman Service makes it
adequately clear that it is the Adjudicator, acting with delegated powers from the
Ombudsman, who issues the provisional assessment. I do think that the Adjudicator
should have been clearer that his letters in response to the points made in your
submissions to the Ombudsman also counted as assessments because they were his views
on the further issues raised.
You will note that I use the term assessment, which is the term used in the D ISP rules,
but the Ombudsman Service refers to a view, an opinion, an adjudication and I can
therefore see why a number of people expect the provisional assessment to come from
an Ombudsman. If an Ombudsman intends to differ substantially from the conclusions
in an assessment, slhe will issue a provisional decision to meet the requirement in the
rules.
· I confirmed that I cannot look at whether the Ombudsman made an error or fact
in the final decision but I would look at how the Ombudsman Service responded
to a complaint that the Ombudsman had made an error of fact. You complained
that the Ombudsman Service's manager did not look into that complaint
There was a certain amount of muddle and mind changing at this point. A complaint
that an Ombudsman has made an error of fact should go to the Ombudsman, who may
reply directly or whose response may be included in a response from a senior manger,
normally a Managing Ombudsman or Head of Casework. The Ombudsman Service
swithered between the two, saying initially that the Ombudsman would respond and then
that she would not and then that she would. Such wavering does not inspire confidence
and it also meant that the Ombudsman's response took far longer than it should have
done. I note that the Team Manager offered £100 as compensation for causing
avoidable distress and inconvenience in the way the Ombudsman Service responded to
your complaint.
When the Ombudsman did reply, I note that she apologised for using industry jargon
(calling in). The Ombudsman Service has responded constructively to my recent
criticisms of it using terms that have not been used by the complainant and without
explanation and I simply highlight this as another example.
Opinion and recommendations
The most important matter is that I am satisfied that the Ombudsman Service followed
its proper process. The Adjudicator issued an assessment, you had the chance to
comment and provide further evidence and an Ombudsman issued a final decision.
The path between those steps has not, however, been managed as well as it could be.
The decisions on splitting and combining the complaint were reasonable, but Adjudicator
1 did not get to grips with the case and caused some delay. There was a regrettable
muddle after the Adjudicator's assessment when you wanted to see a copy of the material
evidence and said that you could not provide comments until you had had that. The
Adjudicator moved the case off his desk and into the Ombudsman queue before you had
3



had a reasonable time to provide your comments. Although that might have been a well
intentioned effort to avoid delay, your comments did mean that there were further issues
to examine and the case went back to the Adjudicator.
The Head of Casework accepted that the Ombudsman Service had failed to provide a
reasonable level of service, but it does not look to me as though he had undertaken a
careful and through examination of the handling of the case start to finish. Had he done
so he would have been aware that the Ombudsman Service had caused avoidable delays
and confusion which, given the circumstances of the case. undoubtedly caused distress
and inconvenience. In addition to the points noted, I also note the discourtesy of
referring to Dr as Mrs and the delay in responding to your service complaint
I am satisfied that the Ombudsman Service has offered appropriate compensation
(£100) for giving conflicting information on whether the Ombudsman would respond to
your complaint of factual inaccuracy. I recommend that the Ombudsman Service
should pay you an additional £200 in compensation which is covered by the guidance
that says
administrative error which caused the consumer to write or phone a significant number of times
before the problem was sorted out = £100
You have not complained to me about the Ombudsman Service's response to your
October 2010 request for a copy of the correspondence from the bank which
underpinned the Adjudicator's assessment. He said that needed to be handled as a
Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act for which there was a fee. You
did not make a request for personal data, but asked for a copy of what the Ombudsman
Service calls material evidence and you are entitled to that without a charge. As the
Ombudsman Service had issued guidance to its staff after a number of critical Opinions
from me, it is concerning that the expert Adjudicator was not immediately familiar with
good practise. My standard recommendation has been that the Ombudsman Service
should refund the £10 fee and add £40 to cover the avoidable inconvenience. I note that
the Adjudicator changed his mind in November and returned your cheque. I
recommend, therefore, that the Ombudsman Service should pay you £40 as
compensation for providing misleading information and causing inconvenience. I note
that when this matter surfaced again in March 2011 the Adjudicator's response was
tetchy and unhelpful
I confirm that I have recommended that the Ombudsman Service should pay you an
additional £240 as compensation for causing you avoidable distress and inconvenience,
amounting to £340 in total. The Ombudsman Service will write to you if ,it accepts my
recommendations.
Yours sincerely
(Mrs) Linda M Costelloe Baker OBE
Independent Assessor

[mgfboy]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Here is my reply and hers , I'm still awaiting a response to my last email.

Dear Mrs Costelloe Baker

Again thank you for your reply, I am still slightly confused and just
to clarify the point on a factual error.

The error was in the Ombudsman decision, she stated that no payment was
made on one account, where in fact there was one made( the ombudsman
had evidence of this). This has been ignored by both the Ombudsman and
the manager that reviewed the compliant, so are you saying that there
is no recourse to anybody in this area???

Sorry to be a pain.

Regards


-----Original Message-----
Sent: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:13
Subject: RE: Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman Service: case



Dear
Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman Service: case

Thank you for your comments on my review and Opinion. It was kind of
you to appreciate my role and thank you's are always welcome.

There is no further appeal though there are things that I can clarify.
First and most important, I did have as I always do, the full Ombudsman
Service case file and access to its e-case record.

The content of the Ombudsman's determination is a matter of judgement on
the merits of a complaint and thus not within my remit. I can and do
look at how the Ombudsman Service handled a complaint that there was a
factual error. In your case I noted some muddle over who would send the
response, and it's up to the Ombudsman to decide if there was an error
of fact that affected the determination.

In explaining the general principles of joining or separating, what
mattered was whether the outcome of a complaint about a specific account
would be different from the others.
The number of accounts does not, therefore, affect the general
principle.

And finally, the Ombudsman is required to take into account relevant
law and codes of practice but is not required to follow them in reaching
a decision that is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. People
do find that strange but, for example, the flexibility has enabled the
Ombudsman Service to determine insurance cases in favour of the policy
holder when a court would not have done. Its approach has now been
adopted in the very recent change to insurance law.

Yours sincerely


Linda M Costelloe Baker OBE
Independent Assessor

I use the Financial Ombudsman Service mail system to send my emails. The
confidentiality information below is added automatically.


Sent: 06 June 2012 09:44
To: Independent Assessor
Subject: Re: Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman Service: case

Dear Mrs Costelloe Baker

Thank you very much for taking the time to produce the response.

There are a couple of points I'm still not clear on though,

1. The fact the the Ombudsman response was factual incorrect doesn't
seem to have been addressed.
2. There where actually more accountants involved than you noted , Dr ( 1 credit card, 1 charge card and a personal loan), Mr (
1 credit card and 1 loan) Jointly ( personal bank account). N.B. The
Assessor included figures from a separate Limited company account andhe didn't seem to understand that they are a separate legal entity. SoI wonder if you where given the full facts and if the cases where doneas 6 separate complaints the results would have been different? Thewording and tone of the assessor responses do seem to imply I'm somesort of criminal mastermind that is trying to defraud a poor littleinternational bank, rather than a two people that had good financial standing being a GP and IFA that has been ruined!!!!!
3. I still am confused about how the fact that FOS seem to be able to
ignore the fact that HSBC have broken both CCA 1974, ICO and OFT Guide
lines in their rulings.My understand after reading the rules that they
should. I know as I'm a person that has had to deal with FSA complaints
I could never get away with ignoring a whole raft UK law and legislation
if a case I handled went to FOS!!!

Thank you for asking FOS to give more compensation, but we where not
really after money ( nice though it is!!!) and as you can imagine if we
both where to apply our hourly rate to this, the figures would be much
high and the financial effects of this case have cost us 10's of
thousands of pounds in lost reputation and increased costs.

Regards




Subject: Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman Service: case


<<1656_001.pdf>>
I attach my Opinion as a pdf file. Please let me know if you have any
problems opening it.
Linda M Costelloe Baker OBE
Independent Assessor
I use the Financial Ombudsman Service mail system to send my emails.
The confidentiality information below is added automatically.

------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be subject to
legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachment from
your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy,
disclose or take any action in reliance to it.

This e-mail and any attachments have been checked by virus detection
software before transmission. You should carry out your own virus checks
on the contents of this communication. We accept no liability for any
loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses or by
interception or interruption of this mail.
Unless otherwise indicated, this e-mail has no contractual effect and
may only be used for the purpose(s) indicated in it. The statements and
opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd.
This email has originated from the Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd.
South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SR, United Kingdom.
Registered as a limited company in England and Wales No. 3725015.
Registered office as above.
------------------------------------------------------------

[di30]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Wow, will have a further read later, as only briefly went through it.

I don't blame you for keeping at them, if they have not still made other points clear to you, you have the right to know, okay fair enough on the compo, and I must agree with that you said too, good one.

[mgfboy]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Here is the latest and I think last responce, I dont blame really the independant Adjudicator , she can only work with the the guide lines the govenment lays down.

Dear Mrs Costelloe Baker

Thank you for your reply, I'm sorry to have had to come back to you on this matter.

It was the Ombudsman that made the error of fact in her summing up, so if you can't do anything I am at a loss. I think your role need to be strengthen somewhat because the whole system does seem to be descending into farce.

Again thank you for your help.

Regards





-----Original Message-----

Sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:00
Subject: RE: Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman Service: case 9


Dear

Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman Service: case

I cannot really add to what I noted in my Opinion and in my last email.
There might be a factual error that did not affect the determination but
it's up to the Ombudsman to decide if there was an error of fact that
affected the determination.

[di30]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

So are you leaving it there now, or going to see if she gets back to you first?

[mgfboy]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

I think all I can do is wait and see if she replies, but I think we are now at the end!!!!

[di30]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

I have a feeling she will get back to you.

[mgfboy]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Di

She hasn't come back to me , so I assume that it's case closed. The world isn't going me way this week!!!!!

[di30]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Di

She hasn't come back to me , so I assume that it's case closed. The world isn't going me way this week!!!!!

Doh!

How long does she normally take to get back after you emailed her?

[mgfboy]

Re: Had reply from the Ombudsman dont know if to laugh or cry!!!

Doh!

How long does she normally take to get back after you emailed her?

It been three weeks now, I think we can say that I will hear no more from the independent adjudicator. Hopefully when the super compliant kicks off I will be able to add to that story!!!