News Trades Hung - Issues with UK Financial Ombudsman Service
Page 1 of 732 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 318

Thread: News Trades Hung - Issues with UK Financial Ombudsman Service

  1. #1
    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.

  2. #2
    Unusually strong words from a specialist condemning the Financial Ombudsman Service.
    Http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/opin...012901.article

    I am constantly staggered at how this sector tolerates the waywardness and irrationality of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

    It is, of course, politically convenient to have some mechanism which satisfies consumers and their midsize supporters. Having this type of mechanism is the main thing, making sure it is balanced and fair and follows the law seems to be of secondary importance.

    It seems more and more of us come to the same conclusion.

  3. #3
    The adjudior:

    ”Paragraph 4.9 [...] a Pricing Error [...]. It appears to me to be improbable that the entire action involved in opening a trade, assessing the subsequent closure price, deciding to provide a final instruction to take a profit, then giving that instruction, could be completed within 29 seconds. The rate with which Mr Sacrificial Lamb completed the transactions suggests he may have known the final price and'd made the choice to shut, before he put the order to buy. It's my view that if the firm had allowed Mr Sacrificial Lamb to close the position at the price he attempted to, the profit he would have made, would have been made as a result of him using prices he either knew or should have known were mistakes. In the circumstances I consider that it was not unreasonable for the firm to regard this specific transaction to be in violation of its own terms of company and consequently, void the transactions.”

    It was not pricing error and it was the very first time that I heard about that explanation. I mentioned MIFID and told me that if he should have cancelled the trade, which was exactly my claim. He cannot rule a pricing error and leave the transaction intact. He didn't recognize it isn't sufficient to agree with the avoie of my exit, he should have voided the entrance as well. He alluded to a unrelated paragraph which affirmed my claim, i.e. the cancellation of this transaction, but was able to reject my complaint after all. The prejudice was undeniable.

    The adjudior attempted again 3 months after:

    ”Within my adjudiion I made reference to this company's terms and conditions in paragraph 4.9, which the firm had voided your transactions on the basis they were responsible for its own terms of company. I now understand this was not the situation. You'd pointed out this to me on your email and I apologise for not having dealt with it earlier. There was not any price error at the time of your contested exchange. [...] I've quoted below in the email received from the firm, which explains this.

    'I've looked at the emails you have forwarded on from Mr Sacrificial Lamb. [...] There was no pricing error on the platform at this moment. I believe terms 4.18 and 4.19 would have been a more relevant term for you to quote than 4.9.'

    Please accept my apologies for the confusion caused by my misunderstanding of the situation. I've attached a copy of the company's terms and conditions so you can see what relates to your situation (4.18 and 4.19). Despite my previous misunderstanding of this reason your trade collapsed, I am still not able to urge your complaint should be upheld.”

    As you can see, the firm told him outright which paragraph to quote to reject his own complaint, and he did. To begin with he tried to come across a paragraph voluntarily to deny my claim, the next timehe asked the firm what paragraph to use and he accepted the advice without hesitation. The powerful bias and incompetence were undeniable. Are there any chance that the adjudior picks a paragraph encouraging the company's version and principles in my favour?

    Another four months after he asked me to clarify the narrative, he then questioned the firm and steered their answer to me personally for comment. I found he asked the firm:

    ” I don't understand the way the'one pip deviation' works. Can you describe...”

    Seriously? This has been the core of the issue. He just confessed he didn't know anything when he made his decisions. It's the proof that the situation wasn't investigated, he simply chose a paragraph to deny the complaint.

    Beyond the the firm told me that my orders weren't executed despite the 1 PIP deviation, since the PIP deviation is on the fifth decimal place of this quote. It is not true. Actually, the 1/10 PIP deviation is on the fifth decimal place.

    The adjudior promised to make a new choice at the beginning of each month, but another four months after I received an email from a new adjudior, who didn't say a single word regarding the topic of the complaint, only sent the case to the ombudsman with no excuse. Do not you believe me? This is his whole adjudiion:

    ”I am the adjudior who is looking at your complaint in Colin Phillip's lack. Having looked through the document, I feel you weren't given a fair quantity of notice to close your account. The firm gave you a week's notice of this on Friday 16 March 2012 in a letter that has been delivered to you in Hungary. It would have been improbable that the letter would have reached you until Wednesday 21 March 2012 at the earliest. I don't look at this notice to be fair in the situation and I feel an extra #150 on top of the 100 already indied should be given for the distress and inconvenience due to Could you let me know any ideas or opinions on this suggestion by 6 January 2014 at the latest please? As the complaint is currently at the ombudsman stage, I'll be passing the complaint to the ombudsman at that date”

    I asked him in 9 distinct emails to tackle the evidences, however, he denied. I proved the firm lied about the contested exchange and I proved the firm lied about the closing of my account, but they didn't say a single word about these facts. They didn't tackle any evidence and didn't answer any query. That is the reason why the ombudsman has been the primary individual to take care of the fifth decimal place lie.

  4. #4
    The ombudsman:

    PIP (percent in point) is the base unit of the foreign exchange market. It is the fourth largest place of the currency quote (or moment in the instance of this JPY).

    Once the company whined that PIP relates to the fifth decimal place of this quote, I told to the adjudior that I place the fourth decimal place as 1, and called it 1 PIP, since that's 1 PIP. Then I thought, after the'professional' adjudiions, I must get prepared for the hopeless, thus I've submitted evidences to establish that 1 PIP is the fourth decimal place of this quote, and established with the company's own data that the company itself uses the word as I do, i.e. the fourth decimal place of the quote. I thought there will not be any issue with this issue. I could not have imagined what came then. T he ombudsman picked this issue to be the crucial one and refused my complaint, stating he discovered that a major player employing the word'1 PIP' since the fifth decimal place of this quote, so my fourth playoff position assumption isn't right. Of course, the ombudsman lied. He falsified evidence.

    He started his conclusion with a harsh mockery:

    ”I've considered all the available evidence and arguments to determine what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.”

    Afterward he moved ahead:

    ”[...] When placing a transaction the trading system allows a trader to define a limit to how much the price can slide between the order being entered and executed. If the price moves by more than the agreed amount then the transaction will be rejected. Mr Sacrificial Lamb set this limitation as 1 pip. [...]

    The organization has said that a pip relates to the fifth decimal place. Mr Sacrificial Lamb considers that it relates to the fourth. [...] This complaint arises from different views of what the definition of a'pip' is. Mr Sacrificial Lamb has quoted various information sources to support his view that it relates to the fourth decimal place. [...] If the company's definition of this term was unusual then I would anticipate this to be made clearer for customers.

    I've assessed how other companies define the term. 1 major participant in these markets defines a pip in precisely the exact same manner as Mr Sacrificial Lamb i.e. the fourth decimal place of a quote. But, another major participant defines it as follows'Pip stands for percent in point, the tiniest increment where a Forex cross price varies.'

    I am so satisfied that there's no accepted definition of the term pip and that it is so reasonable to have expected Mr Sacrificial Lamb to establish the definition used by the company instead of make an assumption as to what it was.

    Because of this I am satisfied that the company acted properly in not implementing Mr Sacrificial Lamb's trades.”

    Who's that unnamed major participant? And what is the source of that blatantly misinterpreted one sentence quote? All I could see is that I have submitted different evidences to prove my point, but I cannot see anything against that point. Only the ombudsman cited the'pip stands for percent in point, the tiniest increment where a Forex cross price varies' quote, where as early as the following paragraph makes it apparent that 1 PIP is the fourth decimal place of this quote. The prejudice is undeniable. Again.

    If you think it was an innocent mistake, dear FOS worker, just think it over:
    (I) The ombudsman didn't care that I undisputedly established my point, utilizing the financial company's own data, that even they believe 1 PIP function as fourth decimal place of this quote. How was it possible to dismiss these conclusive evidences?
    (ii) The ombudsman didn't disclose his evidence in his conclusion, despite his obligation to do that.
    (iii) I needed to file a Freedom of Information Act request to see his evidence and they shipped me an internet link which proved my point.
    Http://www.saxobank.com/support/financial-glossary/pip” Pip stands for percent in stage, the tiniest increment where a Forex cross price varies. Most currency pairs are quoted to four decimal places, meaning that a movement from 1.1850 into 1.1851 for a currency pair would constitute 1 pip. For a particular place, you can calculate the worth of a single pip with the above formula. For instance, you know that the EUR/USD is quoted with four decimals, so for a specified position you can multiply the position amount from the value of a single pip, or USD 0.0001. On a EUR/USD 100,000 contract, 1 pip would equivalent USD 10. On a USD/JPY 100,000 contract, 1 pip is equal to JPY 1000 since USD/JPY is quoted with only two decimals (meaning you pip = JPY 0.01).”
    What's that! He ruled that 1 PIP is the fifth decimal place of this quote by having an internet link which proves that 1 PIP is the fourth decimal place of this quote. Using this internet link my complaint should've been upheld.
    (iv) Once I pressured them to show me evidence behind the ombudsman's stage, not my point, after fourteen days silence, they confessed that they have nothing to support the ombudsman's decision.
    (v) Whenthe ombudsman could not find anything to support his preconception, '' he falsified evidence to side with the financial company. The purposefulness is undeniable because he strove to maintain the alluded evidence hidden, despite his obligation to disclose it. He quoted just the first general sentence to generate a false pretence.
    (vi) I've never been provided with any evidence to support the rejection of this complaint. It had been the interpretation of this ombudsman, they said, to use an info which proved my point as an evidence to deny the complaint.

    So, it wasn't a mistake. It is apparent that the ombudsman knew precisely what he did. The man is so stressed that he didn't even care to appear to be fair. He understands he is untouchable. No one will call him to account for this fraud.

    Allow me to outline this crap again: I proved with the financial company's own data that the company itself considers the fourth playoff position to be the 1 PIP worth, as everyone else does.The ombudsman said the company's fifth decimal place interpretation is not unusual because he discovered someone using it the exact same way...... and cited the definition of the fourth playoff position 1 PIP worth from a public glossary. Was it reasonable and fair?

    I tried to discuss the issue with the ombudsman's team, but they didn't even answer.

  5. #5
    Service complaint:

    Let me explain how the system operates. The adjudiors as well as the ombudsmen must add within their judgment the magic” I have considered all the available evidences and arguments to decide what is fair and reasonable” statement (or something similar), then you may go anywhere, they will allude to that statement as undoubted reality.

    Would you know what'ch 22' is? You will never have the ability to address prejudice or incompetence, because you cannot prove these offenses without quoting issues from your case. When you quote issues from your case to show your accusations, they refuse to reply, stating that they cannot comment on the circumstance. Occasionally they simply deny the prejudice out of the blue without covering the overwhelming evidences of the opposite, however you will never get any answer when you try to address the outrageous incompetence. I bolded, colored, subsequently raised the text size of my main points. It didn't help. They always found everything addressed and nicely explained no matter the truth. Every time when they made these false statements I urged them to show me only one addressed debate in the adjudiions. Of course, they couldn't. They left countless false statements. I felt like their enemy, not their client.

  6. #6
    The team manager and my service criticism:

    #8221;Your'complaints regarding our service' factsheet says: if you feel that in handling your situation we have: treated you unfairly, neglected to explain things properly....
    I had been treated unfairly, the problem hasn't been addressed, they mishandled the situation, broke the rules of this process and they were seriously biased #8230;

    (1) #8230;if the adjudior approached the situation with preconception, picked a paragraph systematically and refused my criticism when actually that sentence (4.9) affirmed my criticism. To reject a complaint with a supportive paragraph one has to be seriously biased.
    (two ) #8230;if the adjudior, after his failed adjudiion, accepted the firm's advice without contemplating or understanding my point. The firm told himI believe terms 4.18 and 4.19 could have been a more relevant term for one to quote than 4.9. He shifted the alluded paragraph and left his conclusion unchanged. He didn't handle some of my arguments and didn't explain his choice.
    (3) #8230;if the adjudior didn't do anything once I proved with documents, that the firm whined to the Ombudsman Service in relation to both sections of my criticism. He should have addressed that issue, either by recognizing it or explaining why it is irrelevant.
    (4) #8230;if the new adjudior agreed with the first incorrect adjudiion and sent it for ombudsman review without any reasoning. Actually, he refused to describe his choice.
    (5) #8230;if the new adjudiors considered it irrelevant, that the firm whined to the Ombudsman Service in relation to both sections of my criticism. He didn't even mention that development.
    (6) #8230;if the adjudiors haven't taken some of my evidences into account throughout that 21 months. If you believe that I'm incorrect, please show me where they have done.
    (7) #8230;if the adjudiors refused to answer all of my questions associated with the topic of the criticism. If you believe that I'm incorrect, please show me .

    The overview of this 1479 words answer:

    #8220; Turning now to your concerns about the manner that we've researched, I have found no evidence that the adjudior was in any way biased in favour of the firm or that he ignored your evidence. #8221;

    Did he read my service criticism? Trust me, it had been the only one sentence covering my concerns presented over. His answer was a chronological journal of these occasions and that he blamed everything on me. He committed that one sentence for my entire service complaint, denying everything. As you can see, he didn#8217;t even squander his time to describe why the things I presented above were too irrelevant to address.

    Allow me to quote this once again for you. I said the fact:
    #8221; To reject a complaint with a supportive paragraph one has to be seriously biased. #8221;
    He said: #8220; I have found no evidence that the adjudior was at all biased...#8221;
    No comment.

    That I couldn#8217;t resist to ask again:

    #8221; Please show me where the evidences have been addressed. #8221;

    Can you spot the whereabouts of any addressed evidence in his full, arrogant reaction?

    #8220;the adjudior issued his opinion predied of the evidence which was filed by the parties and that he provided his motives to you. The Ombudsman will review the matter afresh and he will decide whether the adjudior has overlooked any evidence and he might weigh that evidence otherwise. Please let me know if you would like me to arrange the payment of 150 by cheque or by BACS. If I haven#8217;t heard from you by 31 January I will arrange to send a cheque. #8221;

    Not just one addressed proof. He practically told me to choose the #150 and to shut my mouth, without giving the opportunity to escalate the matter.

    And yet another gem from the team manager: 8221;since the adjudior had told you that your situation was going to the ombudsman, I feel that he should not have entered into further discussion right now, leaving it for the ombudsman to decide whether further enquiries were required. #8221;
    He was speaking to the adjudior#8217;s fundamentally wrong choice, if he impartially refused my criticism with an unrelated paragraph that affirmed my claim. The team manager clearly said that an admittedly incorrect decision isn't a issue, the adjudior must #8217;ve left it at that without further debate. Fair play isn't a concern, closing the circumstance is. It's also clear that if the team manager, after so many months without any progress, alloed the situation to a new adjudior, he ordered him to send the complaint to the ombudsman without covering anything. It practically meant that the ombudsman was the primary individual to take care of the fifth decimal place lie. Not that it matters at all.

    Their site says: #8220;The team manager will attempt to place right #8211; as quickly as possible #8211; whatever we've done wrong. #8221;
    I don#8217;t even believe that this team manager has read it. Neither this quote nor my service criticism.

    Since nobody was able to show me some addressed evidence, not to mention the ridiculous refusal of this proven prejudice, I awakened the service complaint to the senior manager.

  7. #7
    The senior manager and my escalated service criticism:

    ” Your'complaint regarding our service' factsheet says:' When we get things wrong, it's important that you inform us, therefore we can attempt to put matters right. This helps us enhance our service for other clients'. In fact, you did your very best to dismiss and ignore my arguments, additionally you made false statements. It surely will not help to improve your services.

    - You made an untrue statement that you could not find ignored signs, meanwhile you understood that I shipped evidences. I urged you lots of times to show me one addressed proof. You failed to do that but you keep making false statements about it. Not a single one of my evidences and arguments was addressed.
    - You stated you could not find proof of this biased attitude. I did show you many within my complaint. Please visit things 1 - 7. How can my whole complaint about your ceremony escape your observation?
    - I proved with files that the company whined to the ombudsman services. Not only you all have not addressed that fact, you all did not even answer to me personally. How can you completely ignore that point of my criticism?
    - The adudior was unable to put his findings into phrases, even when I demoned that the company whined. The adjudior refused my criticism twice and 8 months later he asked the company:' I do not understand the way the'one pip deviation' works. Can you describe...'. The one pip deviation is the core of the issue. How can he make two decisions without understanding that issue?
    -The adjudiors were shown to be entirely incompetent, although the team manager disregarded my concerns without damaging them. They did not know anything about this case. They did not handle a single proof. They did not answer a single question regarding the subject of the criticism. They did not explain their decisions. Actually, they repeatedly refused to do these things. My perception is, even though they had some ideas about the subject, they would be unable to put their ideas into paragraphs. They did not even attempt.”

    Don't you think that I did my very best to tackle their incompetence? In the meantime, I got the ombudsman's fifth decimal place fraudulent choice, I found the origin of the one sentence quote (Saxo Bank) at a minute and that I sent some heated comments regarding the ombudsman's team. Those comments and my escalated service criticism landed on the desk of their senior manager. She replied to the two difficulties:

    ”I know you believe both adjudiors did not deal with all the points you raised on your submissions. But it isn't the use of the adjudior or ombudsman to answer every question that you may wish to ask. Rather it's their role to tackle what they think about the main problems.”

    No, I don't feel that they did not handle all the points I raised. I understand that they did not address some of these points I raised. The first adjudior rejected the criticism with an unrelated paragraph that affirmed my claim, although the second adjudior just sent the case to the ombudsman without excuse. At this time, they ought to've told me why they considered everything immaterial. They did not tackle anything and they did not answer any question. They had been unable to show me some evidence of the opposite when I asked them several times.

    The senior manager also stated:”I'm satisfied that the staff manager responded to your concerns ”
    Did he? I simply brought so many problems here in order to demone that he ignored my service criticism as a whole. He refused everything in one sentence.

    She explained:”In his final choice, the ombudsman also confirmed he considered all the available evidence before reaching a decision he considered to be fair and reasonable -- he was needed to do.”
    Oh, the magic sentence. How ill this system is! I undisputedly proved my point using the firm's own data. What about those evidences? The ombudsman clearly ignored them without any excuse. How can the senior manager utilize the ombudsman's false statement to support him?

    She included disgracefully:”I'm satisfied that both adjudiors acted impartially and supplied you with the explanations for each of the conclusions that they reached.”
    No remark. That was far too low even of her. The degree of service reached a new base.

    And finally:”We carry complaints regarding our service very badly...”
    Ah, the world famous morbid British humor.

    As you can see I highlighted the incompetence problem within my escalated service criticism. Do you see her addressing that anyplace or at least mentioning it? Not a single word about that subject. We have a written confession that 8 months after his two rejecting decisions the adjudior did not know anything about the case. I wrote about that in my service criticism. Yet the senior manager completely dismissed the incompetence problem. And the prejudice concern too. I wonder why the adjudior and the ombudsman did not select a paragraph supporting the firm's model and rule in my favour. It might happen, couldn't it?

  8. #8
    Service complaint instance:

    How they dealt with a specific matter. The adjudior pretended to not receive my email I sent 20 times, while he answered from precisely the same mailbox when he was asked about the 20 mails. I told him that finally I had sent it to the main complaint.info mailbox and obtained the automatic acknowledgement message. Miracle occurred, he received my email.

    Responding to some service complaint the team manager denied that
    in fact you had already replied but to another email address in this workplace”.

    The senior director said:
    The team manager said you had sent emails to another email address in this office in reaction to the adjudior's emailaddress. I am sorry this announcement was wrong and for any concern this caused. While I don't have any doubt you sent the mails right to the adjudior, for some reason he didn't receive them.

    Finally the reply from the Independent Assessor:
    ” I cannot include further complaint points now my critique and Opinion has been issued since it was closing. That means I cannot now start looking into additional points from you. Any additional correspondence from you will be read and placed on file but I will not be responding to any additional correspondence”

    That was all. Two contradictory explanations and the Independent Assessor absolutely ignored the matter. At least they had been loyal to their tradition and didn't address anything. It was an unquestionable service complaint but they dismissed it covered up the mess. Again. I thought missing 20 mails at a non invasive procedure is a serious problem, but there was no way to address that problem. They could delete your correspondence if they see fit without consequences. Can you see just how this agancy that is public is?

  9. #9
    My Freedom of Information Act request:

    The FOS workers refused to answer my sensible questions, so I chose to put some pressure on the problem which the ombudsman's evidence was not disclosed in the choice. I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act, asking the ombudsman's team to disclose the evidence that was used to deny my own complaint. The senior manager's team sent me this link, discussed previously:
    http://www.saxobank.com/support/financial-glossary/pip

    I expressed my objection, but they refused to comment. I repeated my request, saying that the connection proves my variant, so it obviously couldn't be used to reject my complaint. It took them two weeks to reply. Of course, they couldn't come up with anything. They confessed that there's no evidence to demone the rejection of my own complaint.

    ” The ombudsman has verified that we haven't any additional relevant information which hasn't been disclosed to you and [...] there's nobody at this ceremony who can review how he interpreted this info. [...] Because of the going forward I won't be responding to any correspondence you send unless it relates to new troubles.”
    Was it the confession of the fraud?

    I chased the two weeks silence before I obtained their response, therefore I'd lodged a formal Freedom of Information Act request with their Information Rights Officer:
    ”Please give me the information (evidence) that convinced the ombudsman the fifth decimal place of the foreign exchange quote is the 1 pip worth”.
    At the meantime, I learnt from the Independent Assessor she had discussed the problem with the Information Rights Officer, so that I asked them to tell me exactly the same, i.e. they have no longer relevant data. The Information Rights Officer amazed me
    ”[...] unfortunately I am unable to provide you with the data which you have asked. [...] This info constitutes your own personal data because it defines and relates to you personally”.
    She advised me to file a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act and cover #10 charge. The Information Rights Officer knew the information doesn't exist, nevertheless she wrongly qualified it as my private data and asked me to cover #10 for this.

    I asked them to critique their reply.
    ” [...] We are discussing the foundation unit (1 PIP) of their foreign exchange market, which uses the expression in exactly what way. [...] It would be widely available public data, if it existed. It isn't private data, it does not identify me. [...] On the other hand, in the Financial Ombudsman Service's Director's Report and Financial Statements 2010-2011, the Prior Independent Assessor, Linda M Costelloe Baker, said (page 64.) :” [...] complainants are entitled to copies of evidence that the Ombudsman would rely on in order to reach a decision and that I advoed that the #10 fee should be reimbursed”

    They could surprise me again:
    ” The only information this service holds in relation to your request are seen inside your complaint document. Having looked through this information I am satisfied you were provided with this information previously. While this information is currently accessible to you, section 21(1) of the Act says we do not have to give it to you. [...] This is because all the information in relation to your request has been sent to you in the Kind of an email [...] We do not hold any further information in relation to your petition ”

    'In connection with my request', she said. As a reminder, my request was that the information demoning the fifth decimal place nonsense. What do you believe? Perhaps you have received any information in relation to my request, i.e. demoning the fifth decimal place theory? The wording is intentionally deceptive. I obviously have not obtained any info'in relation to my request'. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest. I have not been provided with any evidence that could be employed to encourage the ombudsman's decision. First they wanted me to create a Subject Access request and paying for #10 for the non existent information, now they say that I have that info so they won't give it to me. However, this horse was obviously dead, so I ceased beating it.

  10. #10
    Independent Assessor:

    that I am likely to spend more time discussing this useless window dressing place, since she is assumed to be independent from the FOS structure. I let you pick.

    Their'complaint about our service' factsheet says” if you're not pleased with the service you've received If we get things wrong, it is important that you tell us, so we can attempt to put matters right. This also helps us enhance our service for other clients. We wish to understand if, by way of example, you believe that in managing your case we have: treated you rudely or unfairly; neglected to explain things correctly; or caused unnecessary delay”

    This is precisely what I attempted to do. Addressing the unfair treatment, unexplained things, i.e. prejudice and incompetence. I mentioned issues, the majority of them presented here earlier, to prove these offenses. Obviously, I didn't ask her to comment on those problems, I used them to prove my point. This is the way I began my service criticism:




    And so on. Is not it clear? Nevertheless the Independent Assessor flat out refused to manage my service criticism.
    The most important thing of her answer:”You are going to see that the Ombudsman Service explained I can start looking into complaints of poor service. Service complaints are all about practical managing problems such as; the Ombudsman Service composing to the incorrect address or taking a long time. The majority of the complaints which you made to me is all about the merits of your criticism [...] You have not made an agency complaint that falls into my own Terms of Reference so I will not be able to investigate your concerns”
    Of course, she didn't even cite bias or incompetence in her refusal, although I committed almost the complete criticism to prove their bias and incompetence. But that does not surprise us anymore, does it? Is prejudice accusation not about the sensible handling of the case? Is there any way to deal with bias and incompetence in this corrupt system? I was not smart enough to loe that manner.

    They stated anywhere on their website they are so eager to improve their service they want to hear our opinions to reach this majestic aim. I took that literally. For that reason I recommended to employ a minumum of one adjudior with some market experience. I believe it is indisputable that these men were absolutely clueless. Not so fast, as the consistently helpful independent assessor stated:
    ”I also don't become involved with the day to day running of the Ombudsman Service. I wouldn't therefore be able to comment on what experience it seems like in the Adjudior's it selects to recruit”.
    Another bad excuse. The qualifiion and experience are egic questions, have nothing to do with the day to day running of an agency. But I understand she wished to dismiss my proposal in accore with her capabilities.

    The reality is that the Financial Ombudsman Service's Director's Report and Financial Statements 2012-2013 says on page 42:
    ” The independent assessor meets with members of the executive team and the Board on an official foundation quarterly, and at other times as appropriate. During these meetings that the independent assessor's opinions and recommendations are discussed, as well as any underlying themes in the complaints she has received -- and the action that is being taken to tackle them”.
    What a surprise! She was not sincere, to say the least. It's her obligation to report these problems. But wait! There is more. She alluded to her Terms of Reference. Let us see her Terms of Reference:
    ”17) Every calendar year, the independent assessor will report to the board of the ombudsman service on the quantity and character of the complaints they have received”.
    It appears there are far more ways to report an issue. Again, it is not only possible but it is her obligation to report these problems. I underline the fact that I suggested' it wouldn't cost anything to employ a minumum of one adjudior'. I didn't say increased degree of eligibility for all the clueless, I stated one man with some market experience, for god's sake. At least that one man could reject complaints correctly, in a workmanlike manner. Evidently, they do not wish to improve their service. On the other hand, they won't ever recognize the incompetence issue so they won't ever do anything to fix this issue.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.