Anyone been screwed by the Financial Ombusdman?

[zzaxx99]

Posted on behalf of "seela" on Advfn:

I noticed on the USA Traders thread today that a few people were complaining of being unhappy with decisions the Financial Ombudsman has made regarding their disputes with Stockbrokers.

I have waited for almost 2 years for their decision on my dispute, and when it came it was so incredibly biased and spiteful and hostile towards me, and treated the Brokers testimony as if it was absolutely sacred, that I was totally stunned.

(The broker did NOT have an automatic taping system, and my own taping system - a cheap sanyo cassette player which I often forget to switch on, or simply run out of tapes - does not seem to have recorded the relevant conversations either.

The Ombudsman thinks I am a Liar, and that the Broker is telling the holy truth, and that I am the one who should be required to produce tapes for evidence!!!!!).





I am currently doing research to find out whether the Financial Ombudsman has shown clear BIAS and HOSTILITY in dealing with complaints from other investors too. This bias could be demonstrated by anything from use of hostile and cynical language when describing the investor, but reverent language when describing the broker, right the way through to the overall statistics of how many claims they uphold, and whether they ever compensate investors any more than the ABSOLUTE UNAVOIDABLE MINIMUM.

Another way that Bias could be demonstrated is by written judgements that only mention factors that could favour the broker, but totally ignore any factors that favour the client.



Am I the only Investor who they presume is a liar from the word go? Or is that their attitude to ALL investors - that we are liars, and Brokers are infallible saints?

Is their attitude that investors should only be compensated the absolute bare minimum they can get away with, and then only if we have PERFECT proof, whereas brokers who do not even bother to record their phonecalls can simply make up some story and the Ombudsman believes them immediately?

I have been told by someone in the Financial Media that an investor going before the ombudsman is like a mouse going before a jury of cats.

The Ombudsman is part of the industry, and many, if not most, of its staff formerly worked for commercial financial services companies.


I am currently collecting evidence (including expert legal opinion) to prove that their written judgement against me was grossly biased and malicious - not to mention hilariously incompetent in its execution.


I have contacted my MP, and intend to expose these arrogant, incompetent and biased beaurocrats through the media, Parliamentary scrutiny, European Human Rights legislation, litigation and any other avenues.

I would be very grateful if any other victims of biased Financial Ombudsman decisions could get in touch with me.

I would like to see if we can establish a widespread pattern of bias here, or whether I was just the only one treated like sh*t.

Who knows - maybe even a group action could be on the cards - if indeed it is possible to sue a government Department of this type.

And we could even set up a website to display examples of biased and incompetent judgements from the Ombudsman?

Any Lawyers in the House? Or Journalists?


Cheers

S

I am considering displaying all my correspondence with the Ombudsman on a Website - maybe others would like to join in?

If anyone wants to contact me off-thread, then please do so at:

[email protected]

 

[Skimbleshanks]

Mrs Financial Ombudsman perhaps?

 

[oatman]

Presume you've been through the normal regulatory channels already.
Why is the Broker not taped? Everyone else in the financial world is.

Good luck,

 

[Mayfly]

You could try here http://www.angrytowers.com/home.asp its a site where others have aired their grievances quite successfully. It appears to attract quite a lot of attention in certain quarters.

 

[orangesunset]

Financial Ombudsman Service

Posted on behalf of "seela" on Advfn:

I noticed on the USA Traders thread today that a few people were complaining of being unhappy with decisions the Financial Ombudsman has made regarding their disputes with Stockbrokers.

I have waited for almost 2 years for their decision on my dispute, and when it came it was so incredibly biased and spiteful and hostile towards me, and treated the Brokers testimony as if it was absolutely sacred, that I was totally stunned.

(The broker did NOT have an automatic taping system, and my own taping system - a cheap sanyo cassette player which I often forget to switch on, or simply run out of tapes - does not seem to have recorded the relevant conversations either.

The Ombudsman thinks I am a Liar, and that the Broker is telling the holy truth, and that I am the one who should be required to produce tapes for evidence!!!!!).





I am currently doing research to find out whether the Financial Ombudsman has shown clear BIAS and HOSTILITY in dealing with complaints from other investors too. This bias could be demonstrated by anything from use of hostile and cynical language when describing the investor, but reverent language when describing the broker, right the way through to the overall statistics of how many claims they uphold, and whether they ever compensate investors any more than the ABSOLUTE UNAVOIDABLE MINIMUM.

Another way that Bias could be demonstrated is by written judgements that only mention factors that could favour the broker, but totally ignore any factors that favour the client.



Am I the only Investor who they presume is a liar from the word go? Or is that their attitude to ALL investors - that we are liars, and Brokers are infallible saints?

Is their attitude that investors should only be compensated the absolute bare minimum they can get away with, and then only if we have PERFECT proof, whereas brokers who do not even bother to record their phonecalls can simply make up some story and the Ombudsman believes them immediately?

I have been told by someone in the Financial Media that an investor going before the ombudsman is like a mouse going before a jury of cats.

The Ombudsman is part of the industry, and many, if not most, of its staff formerly worked for commercial financial services companies.


I am currently collecting evidence (including expert legal opinion) to prove that their written judgement against me was grossly biased and malicious - not to mention hilariously incompetent in its execution.


I have contacted my MP, and intend to expose these arrogant, incompetent and biased beaurocrats through the media, Parliamentary scrutiny, European Human Rights legislation, litigation and any other avenues.

I would be very grateful if any other victims of biased Financial Ombudsman decisions could get in touch with me.

I would like to see if we can establish a widespread pattern of bias here, or whether I was just the only one treated like sh*t.

Who knows - maybe even a group action could be on the cards - if indeed it is possible to sue a government Department of this type.

And we could even set up a website to display examples of biased and incompetent judgements from the Ombudsman?

Any Lawyers in the House? Or Journalists?


Cheers

S

I am considering displaying all my correspondence with the Ombudsman on a Website - maybe others would like to join in?

If anyone wants to contact me off-thread, then please do so at:

[email protected]

Your experience seems very similar to my own.
Two years after complaining about something that should have been easy to check am still waiting for a final decision from the FOS.
The complained about firm claims to be unable to locate two critical phone calls and it appears that they are not required to do so.
The firm did not answer relevant questions and the FOS does not appear to have asked them to answer these questions.
A similar situation is apparent with the Local Government Ombudsman - according to an independent survey by MORI they reject virtually all complaints submitted by the general public.
All very puzzling and a situation that does need investigating.

 

[watch=dog]

Re: Financial Ombudsman Service

I am writing an article about the socalled incompetence of FOS please tell me if you're still around and willing to discuss. You can email me directly on [email protected]

 

[Boilersuit]

OK no posts for 4 yrs, but its relevant to all traders with UK accts, and arguably anyone else with an EU area acct.
I've got some experience helping friends with Ombudsman problems.

I have no doubt the Financial Ombudsman adjudication system is a complete and utter sham.
In short, it is a public relations stunt set up by the banks and their powerful lobbyists.
If you look at the snr staff, its ex bankers. They take up Ombudsman jobs because its "good for career prospects". They then "mingle" at the Ombudsman and finally take up jobs at the banks etc, often in the Compliance/Complaints Depts. The result? Large fin companies have their own people inside the FOS constantly who can manipulate decisions to protect their own ill gotten gains.

If it was a real organisation it would be staffed by consumer protection lawyers, ex Citizens Advice types and those of a non financial background. But ofcourse the banks/big shysters couldn't corrupt these people or control them.

I've actually seen transcripts of calls where the Ombudsman staff OPENLY state that "we dont look at the rules and regulations here, its just what we want to do". What a joke!

I've also seen utterly PERVERSE findings from the so called adjudicator. Ones in which fraud by banks is considered acceptable (and not disputed as fact) because "oh the client could always have gone elsewhere".

This has massive implications for British citizens. Personally, I no longer feel comfortable keeping large sums of money in British banks, if it involves anything beyond the deposit guarantee. Offshore banks have had the problem of "misroutes" ie money stolen by the bank, and blamed on the client's misdirection. How can we really consider our money to be safe, if the Ombudsman (and very likely the Courts too!) have been manipulated by what is ultimately just corruption.

With my forex accts, I can minimise my daily/weekly exposure. I can keep my money in lots of different places, in different asset forms. And forex firms, compared to shysters like the Halifaxs and RBSs of this world are fairly decent.

I feel REALLY concerned for the guy who has his life savings in some pension company and is promised the "Financial Ombudsman" will protect him. Because you can FORGET it, the Ombudsman is an extension of dishonourable banks.

Sure, you might get your PPI money back. The Ombudsman might hit a small financial company. But the Ombudsman exists to protect its own network.

Britain's sector might not be the very worst. But ultimately, the Ombudsman is simply a sham in many many cases. It wants people to keep funding an unscrupulous industry with its pr stunt. So it will pretend that its an impartial organisation. But the mass of cases demonstrate overwhelmingly that it is not.

Doubtless an Ombudsman pr flunky is reading this.
Perhaps you'd like to explain yourselves? I doubt it tho'! Because you can't!

Be VERY careful people. You can't trust them.

Check out financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk