If they were allowed to do so to me, then they might do so to you as well.
The Financial Ombudsman Service is not what you think it is. I discuss this story for eduional purpose, to let you look behind the curtain. I#8217;ve been trading distinct markets since 2000, but it had been my very first criticism. I've irrefutable evidences to demone the prejudice.
The procedure was only a barbaric joke. But my sense of humour is much better.
I reported them for fraud to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and to the Action Fraud, according to Fraud Act 2006 chapter 35. Letter enclosed. It's proven fact that the ombudsman created an absurd decision and it wasn't a mistake. I know, it's unusual, to say the very least, to use the Fraud Act in this context. The law is there to pursue and prosecute the small man, not the jurisdiction. Post 15.
I is recognized truth that the adjudior and the ombudsman rejected my criticism with different arguments, but equally arguments supported my claim. Employing those arguments my criticism should#8217;ve been preserved. The real nature of the FOS was introduced because of their incompetence. Posts 4 and 3.
However, the truly scandalous components were presented by the team supervisor, the senior director and the so called Independent Assessor. They covered up the mess shamefully. Posts 5-13.
At the conclusion, I will reveal to you how the Financial Ombudsman Service manipulates its own statistics. My #5,000 dismissed complaint is published on their site as upheld. Reference: DRN0281948. Post 14.
YesI am going to write about the centralized, systemic corruption of the Financial Ombudsman Service UK, in which there is no way to deal with the incredible bias and incompetence.
Can you believe me when I said the adjudior has admitted in writing that he didn#8217;t know anything when he made his 2 rejecting decisions. Yet there wasn't any way to query his own biased verdict. Post 3.
Can you believe me when I said the ombudsman falsified data to dismiss my claim. He had to, because his crap theory doesn#8217;t exist. I mean literally, it doesn#8217;t exist. Yet there wasn't any way to tackle that fraud. Post 4.
Can you believe me when I said, following the adjudior rejected my criticism with a debate which supported my claim and wasn#8217;t linked to the circumstance, replying to my service criticism the team manager clearly stated that the admittedly incorrect decision should be left intact, and the adjudior shouldn#8217;t have discussed that issue with me. What honest play? Post 6.
Can you believe me when I said the adjudior allegedly deleted one of my emails with information that he requested (probably contradicted the preconception) 20 times, and the team supervisor, the senior director, the Independent Assessor refused to recognize the matter? I was unable to tackle that problem. Post 8.
Can you believe me when I said that I had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to find the evidence that was used to reject my own criticism, which should#8217;ve been disclosed in the ombudsman#8217;s decision at the first loion? Hint: I couldn#8217;t get any evidence supporting the ombudsman#8217;s decision. You are going to see . Post 9.
I know. You can't think it. Then just read on.
You will see how serious the problem is that no one has control within an ombudsman. You will see that there aren't any real checks and balances in the system. They cover up the problems anyway, so I'm sure it's done on purpose. How can you expect the financial companies playing honest when even the legal system is that rigged?
They didn#8217;t feel any shame when they have caught cheating. They didn#8217;t reveal any regret. They don#8217;t learn from errors. They are unquestionably immoral. The goal could be real at the beginning, but the Financial Ombudsman Service is simply a subsidiary of the financial sector to protect itself from the public anger and the real accountability.