Have you ever gone to an ombudsman?

I went to the Financial Ombudsman re Endowment Mortgage, when I discovered there was a short fall in Mortgage repayment. at the time we took the Endowment was 1981. we were advised that we would receive a lump sum on maturity, which wasn’t materialising the nearer we got to the mortgage end. I contacted my mortgage provider who said the financial advisor was an independent, I found I was getting nowhere, so contacted Ombudsman. they found in favour of mortgage provider. end of story. then some years later I had friends who had same problem, I helped them with Ombudsman as I had previous dealings. I helped them get a lump sum back, so thought I would try Ombudsman again, again I was denied so gave up. but although mortgage is finished and we did have short fall to pay, I do still think we were miss sold policy. as other options where not made available to us. in the end I chalked it up to an experience never to repeat. I was successful helping friends but not myself.

I would like Which to highlight Isbjorn’s experience in a future topic, either about ombudsmen or car security and features

https://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/section-75-legal-rights-credit-card-claim-backs/comment-page-1/#comment-1388965

and read all the way down

My experience with the FOS has been a shocking and costly waste of a year – https://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/section-75-legal-rights-credit-card-claim-backs/comment-page-1/#comment-1388965. I have now commenced a complaint against the ombudsman as the final decision report simply does not address my original complaint – but I am being stonewalled with “the ombudsman’s decision is final and cannot be changed” – this appears to hold true even if an ombudsman has exhibited gross negligence or incompetence (so what’s the value in the FOS inviting complaints about its service?). The adjudicator misrepresented the basis of my complaint – I expressed my objections and invited the adjudicator to revise her findings before forwarding my case to an ombudsman for review. The adjudicator unilateraly referred my case to an ombudsman without any revisions and without consulting with me, i.e. she made no effort to reconcile the differences in her INTERPRETATION of my complaint against the meaning that the originator intended – that is a shocking fundamental error. I then had to send a “chaser” letter, directly to the ombudsman in an effort to mitigate the adjudicator’s mistakes and pleaded the ombudsman to have a dialogue with me to make sure my case was understood. The ombudsman never made any attempt to so verify her understanding of my case – another fundamental error. It seems the ombudsman is omnipotent, in many respects, including selecting which of all of the material facts he chooses to take into account and what goes into the final decision report. The final decision report on my case does not contain ANY material facts and therefore the ombudsman has immediately failed to demonstrate an understanding of the case; neither does it contain an evaluation of the merits for and against my case; indeed it actually contains two false statements which constitute falsifications of the record of the case, all of which strongly suggests that the ombudsman lacks competence or, and I think is more likely, the ombudsman was not prepared to make a decision of magnitude that could ripple right through the motor industry and thus created an environment in which to avoid openly and honestly presenting and discussing my case. It should be MANDATORY, to demonstrate that the case has been understood and analysed fairly, that the final decision report MUST contain an expression of the material facts and an open discussion of the merits of the case, but, I am told, by the FOS, that it is the ombudsman who decides what goes into the report. Thus, if as it seems to be the case, the FOS has so little control over its ombudsmen, then this calls into question the integrity and the credibility of the FOS as an organisation.

If you are making a complaint to an ombudsman I strongly recommend limiting the basis of your complaint to just ONE issue. I took advice from Trading Standards before making my section 75 claim and a part of that advice proved to be incorrect and fatal. The ombudsman gave preference and prominence to dismissing a minor aspect of my case that I had been wrongly advised by Trading Standards to include in the grounds of my complaint (misrepresentation). The principal and valid component of my complaint about the goods themselves not meeting the requirements of the Sale of Goods Act, i.e. what my case was really all about, was relegated to a trivial matter at the end of the final decision report – so badly presented and discussed that my principal complaint was almost indiscernible (https://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/section-75-legal-rights-credit-card-claim-backs/comment-page-1/#comment-1388965). In my opinion, the minor issue provided the ombudsman with the opportunity to use diversion to distract attention from having to properly and fairly address a challenging decision (“smoke and mirrors”) which he/she was reluctant to make.

So, keep your complaint to ONE issue so as not to provide the ombudsman with an easy “escape route”.

If complaining to the FOS, consider what it may cost you to provide yourself with alternative goods for the duration of the FOS’s handling of your case. Once you have decided to reject goods, you should not continue to use them as this would be seen, by default, as constituting acceptance of them – thus inherently undermining the legitimacy of your complaint. My complaint was about a car; once I commenced my complaint then I could no longer use it, so I had to use another car – I didn’t expect the ombudsman to take a year to handle my case, thus it’s been very costly (about £1,000) and my original car has devalued by about £10,000 (and now, because the ombudsman didn’t support my case, I’m stuck with it – I would have been better off just getting rid of it straight away instead of pursuing my consumer rights). When I complained to the FOS about the excessive delay, I was told that running another car was my choice and therefore they were not liable because of their delays (I live in the remotest rural part of England; suggesting that I should be car-less for a year is ridiculous). I was also told that I could have avoided these costs by not pursuing my complaint in the first place! (i.e. I should have forfeited the pursuance of my consumer rights to avoid incurring the costs) – what a ridiculous statement coming from the likes of the FOS.

I went to offgem over a problem with an energy company. In my view offgem were useless, biased in favour of the industry and excruciatingly slow. I won’t use offgem again but I will examine my small claims options instead.