Financial Ombudsman Service
Financial Ombudsman Service Overview
The aggregated data is based on reviews and questionnaires provided by PissedConsumer.com users.
Financial Ombudsman Service has 1.9 star rating based on 2 customer reviews. Consumers are mostly dissatisfied.
- Rating Distribution
Pros: High standard of written english.
Cons: Apparent disregard for ppi mis-selling principles, Low standard of english common sense.Recent recommendations regarding this business are as follows: "Don't waste your time with them. Better, easier and more satisfying just not to have anything to do with the financial institution you are complaining about, close the account or commence legal action in the courts.".
The aggregated data is based on reviews and questionnaires provided by PissedConsumer.com users.
Financial Ombudsman Service has 1.9 star rating based on 2 customer reviews. Consumers are mostly dissatisfied.
- Rating Distribution
Pros: High standard of written english.
Cons: Apparent disregard for ppi mis-selling principles, Low standard of english common sense.Recent recommendations regarding this business are as follows: "Don't waste your time with them. Better, easier and more satisfying just not to have anything to do with the financial institution you are complaining about, close the account or commence legal action in the courts.".
Consumers are not pleased with Customer service and Website. The price level of this organization is medium according to consumer reviews.
This review is from a real person who provided valid contact information and hasn't been caught misusing, spamming or abusing our website. Check our FAQ
Verified Reviewer |
Edinburgh, Edinburgh
To let others know not to waste their time with this organisation.
I criticised the organisation with regard to a complaint which they mishandled, and they then refused to deal with me directly on this and any further complaints and said that this decision of theirs not to deal with me may also affect their decision to uphold or reject any further complaints, irrespective of the merits of these further complaints! NO possibility of appeal against their decision. They act like a bunch of third world dicktators!
User's recommendation: Don't waste your time with them. Better, easier and more satisfying just not to have anything to do with the financial institution you are complaining about, close the account or commence legal action in the courts.
PPI claim with all the classic mis-selling clues but ruled out
Update: Just got another PPI ruling from the emanent gents at FOS (yes, spelled correctly!) Apparently, I would have needed PPI to cover £10 a month for 12 months, on my £33,000 job and wife's £28,000 salary. Jeez!
I could have *** out more money in one go! Where on Earth do they get these ombudsmen? Unbelievable is not the word!
How is anyone supposed to get justice when there are "people" making decisions like these? .
Financial Ombudsman maintains position that keeping PPI secret, not needing it or knowing about it, overcharging (Plevin) relative to others and selling by untrained personnel at a shop counter completely without any advice whatsoever - is all OK and was not mis-selling! With such a bizarre and unaccountable ruling, it is impossible to take the case any further and get even a sliver of justice.
In one case, dating back to 2003, probably 5 years before ANYONE had ever heard of PPI, a card application succeeded and along the way, signatures were requested in several boxes entirely without explanation, by an untrained counter person, not qualified in selling insurance, not even mentioning PPI or what the one-off £9:99p fee was for nor the higher rate of interest (Plevin), not asking if any insurance were wanted or needed, and so on.
The Ombudsman ruled all that was NOT mis-selling.
At the time, the applicant had been in stable employment for 7 years at the same company, salary £33,000pa, at least 3 onths sickpay, at least 3 months savings and total spend EVER on the card account was £94.
The Ombudsman ruled that the applicant would have wanted and needed the insurance "if you had known about it". Incredible! We estimate about 200 times the total repayment money that was available and yet the ruling was insurance was needed!
When the card account was taken over by the bank, no information was provided at the time or till present day and no hint was given that there could be potential implications for PPI.
The Ombudsman did not mention this aspect at all.
The Ombudsman dismissed any possible Plevin claim for reasons that we did not understand (sic!) but did not mention the age of the account in context of the deadline for Plevin claims - unbelievable!
Now, the actual value of our PPI claim was low, probably negligible but the process demonstrates how little faith can be placed in obtaining justice through the Financial Ombudsman service.
In our case, we know at least one more card account sold onto the same bank - there may be more. We are not holding our breath for fairness and despair of this country and its so-called justice.
- High standard of written english
- Low standard of english common sense
- Apparent disregard for ppi mis-selling principles
Preferred solution: common sense
Companies Similar to Financial Ombudsman Service
Australian Financial Comp...
FSCS
Parliamentary and Health ...
Banking Ombudsman Scheme
Thank You for Your Reply! We are processing your message.
Your comment is successfully posted.
I totally agree with this comment, especially with the fact that these "ombudsmen" (three of them who dealt with my complaint) could hardly speak English between them and another one, on the telephone, started asking me who the "underwriters" for a pension were! They had to admit that they got that one wrong. Very poor service by a bunch of poorly trained, illiterate individuals who act like a bunch of third world dicktators (no spelling mistake!) as soon as you criticise them, refusing then to have anything more to do with you.