FinancialOmbudsmanServiceReviews 6

The personal conduct of the staff and telephone manner are without fault. To make that clear first.
As a regulator it's a complete and utter failure, it fails so many AP scam victims.
This is publicly funded and a regulator d that's very worrying

The staff themselves were professional and courteous on the phone so there are no issues there, the service and decision making however are very poor., seem to lack impartiality and decision-making without proper process and without considering all the evidence. A huge disappointment.

I took a case to them for a friend who was being conned by AXA insurance over a subsidence claim. I provided EVIDENCE to the FoS, they totally ignored it, they came down in favour of the insurers AXA, they then want to publish a report on how good they are which is full of lies and totally inaccurate information. They are a waste of time, I wonder how much the CEO gets paid to run this bunch of know nothing, cant be bothered pen pushers with no idea what they are doing. I suggest go straight to Court and use the reviews on here to support the reason why using them is pointless and wastes your time. They are funded by the very people they investigate, why would you get an HONEST decision? I have written to the Chair Baroness Manzoor, lets see if this lady can instil some honesty and work ethic into them. Perhaps the time has come for the person at the top to be accountable, without a golden handshake! Have they all missed the appalling reviews, it is not a coincidence.

UPDATE 04/03/2024: As suspected, the FoS refuse to re look at the case, this is despite pointing out to them they have ignored the FACTS of the case. The Baroness I communicated with has ALSO ignored everything, so one must assume the lady is just a face on the board who takes remuneration for no input or clout. In order to show the case for what it is, I have been pressing the insurers myself (AXA) and the first work they undertook was literally putting filler in the large cracks that appeared in my friends home, then painting the walls. They also charged him his £1,000 excess (I doubt if the total job of filling the cracks and painting even came to my friends £1,000 excess) They made him replace his drains and guttering at HIS OWN EXPENSE (hard job for a pensioner) some £3,800, they then were done they said. After pushing them and starting Court action, they re looked at the case, they then decided in a 6 page report on the work they would undertake to do the job properly. To show the extent of the work, they are going to have to move him out of the house for at least 16 weeks and put all his possessions into storage, does that demonstrate just how serious the damage was? So, in summing up, the FoS decided that AXA were an excellent insurer, they took no notice whatsoever of the facts of the claim, and they refused to look at their findings, then they want to publish how well they acted for the claimant. They really should be shut down, they do nothing that is worthwhile. They are funded by the people who they are reporting on, how would a reasonable person expect them to be honest and faithful towards the claimant. They all need sacking. Take my advice, just issue a County Court order if you want to get your case heard fairly.

I filed a complaint against a financial institution that took money from my account for no reason. The platform was operated by 2 companies. One of them was from UK, the other from Canada. For the EU, all terms and conditions were guided by the company from the UK. After a year or reassignments from one inspector to another and many phone calls, the service finally decided to look on my complaint. So they asked the UK company to explain. The UK company blamed their Canadian business partner that was basicly the same company, which in turn send a PDF file to the service with some terms and conditions made on the fly and nowhere to be found on their website. At the end of that document there was a phrase saying "Signed by: ", my IP and my browser id which they collect at every login. The service said that signature was my digital signature and those were in fact the agreed terms and said that I should take my complaint to Canada. If such signatures would actually be valid then I could be the owner of Buckingham Palace. Think twice before you use services offered by UK companies. The only way you can get your money back is in court. I lost $770. That's about the cost of a two way ticked to UK. Unfortunately I can give a minimum of 1 star, but that's way too much for the kind of scams these $#*!s are pulling.

Lloyds bank, when I was with them, conned me out of a fraud claim, to which I went to the Financial Ombudsman. Despite all the evidence, that is a BCOBS 5. 1. 11 guideline by the FCA that Lloyds was ignoring, even though Lloyds claim they are regulated by the FCA, the FOS found nothing wrong. They claimed or claim that they find a solution which is fair to both parties. It was not fair to myself though, as I had provided evidence that I had already repeatedly done what Lloyds had asked for, but the FOS just claimed 'do it again'. Did you realise that only 1 out of 4 claims are found in favour of the issuer of the complaint at the FOS, and that they are funded by the Banks through the dealing with complaints on behalf of the banks - the FOS is a cheap way for the banks to deal with a complaint in the banks favour. And why shouldnt it be like this if the shoe was on the other foot and the FOS was given money from taxpayers through the government the onus would be to find in favour of the taxpayer - would it not. A law unto themselves. They operate with impunity. It is their own fiefdom.

I have since discovered that when they are producing a verdict, they not only use what is fair, but they use what is fair in relation to the terms and conditions of the financial company. They also claim they use FCA rules - but there is a problem with that. The FCA rules do not apply to individual account holders. That is if you have a current account with a bank then you are not covered by the FCA. Also the terms and conditions of the bank does not need to include anything about the FCA. This means that should the individual sign up for a current account and the FCA is not included, in the terms and conditions then you as an individual are not covered by the FCA. So how can the FOS use the excuse that they use the FCA rulings in their deliberations; I ask you? Only I suppose, if the terms and conditions include mention of the FCA; if not, then lets move on.

Due to this even I agree that Lloyds have done nothing wrong; at least legally.

I have now have more info after receiving the SAR documentation. I noticed that what Lloyds Bank had provided was scant. Plus there was no mention of listening to the recordings I had made of Lloyds Bank telephone staff. But focusing upon the scant information, made me thinks of three questions to put to the financial ombudsman. The first is do you bother to check that the information given by the financial institution is correct? The second question - do you bother to check the information is complete, and the third question do you check to see if the information supplied has not been 'cherry picked' by the financial institution to influence your decision? I called them this morning and the FOS do not check - period.

Update - As it happens the SAR that was promised by the FOS would answer my questions did not. So I was cheated out of £10.00. I keep contacting them asking questions and now they are stonewalling. I contacted the ICO about this whole situation. The ICO contacted by email the FOS and the FOS responded to the ICO almost simultaneously. But any replies to myself take at least five days to be responded to if I am lucky.

Its quite clear that the recorded conversations I had with Lloyds was not listened to at all by the FOS. The recordings are a vital evidence, so vital that it would determine a decision.

Upon further scrutiny, the FOS have admitted that they ask for information from both sides then select what the FOS think is relevant. In other words, because of this practise they conduct an investigation for themselves - as it turns out just like the ICO do.