L@@k - ombudsman - the game rules revealed - FOS / IPCC

The FOS is doing exactly what it is set up to do. And by the comments on here it is succeeding! It is one more demotivating bar to get justice, a hurdle to take BEFORE anything meaningful can happen.
1) you are dealing with a not-for-profit corporation
2) who is the paymaster? The Bank
3) therefore is it likely that they are going to -bleep- in their own handbag?
4) they don't hide their bias from you either - they tell you they
4a) 'like' a judge (see the wording here - like does not mean that they ARE a judge)
4b) a corporation (whenever you see est.(ablished), incorporated, founded - here is your clue!)
4c) their 'judgement' has no legal standing because they require you to DO NOTHING for 2 weeks. In their Terms and Conditions of trading it says that only then will their judgement become lawful and binding
5) Corporations do not speak the same language as you and I (the Queens English). They invented their own language, called legalese. It is very close to English and deliberately uses words you and I think we understand and won't look up in a law dictionary. Now let's do just that and what do we get?

When it comes to legal contexts, English reference sources say varying things. Most seem to agree that judgment is preferred in legal contexts even in British English, and some say that American and British English differ in their strict legal meanings of judgment. Bryan Garner, in his Modern American Usage, says judgment in American English refers to “the final decisive act of a court in defining the rights of the parties,” whereas, he writes, the word in British English refers to a judicial opinion. We find nothing to contradict this, though there are many English reference sources that do not mention a legal/nonlegal distinction or an American/British distinction.

6) now does it make sense why you can reject their judgement within 2 weeks, when you can't do that in a Court of Law, when Law has been applied and a Judge passed Judgement?
6a) well done, it is an opinion, based on nothing, given by a body that has no jurisdiction and operates fraudulently, paid for by the enemy and presented as 'an authority' by the Banks. Do your homework!
6aa) this principle applies to everything 'the enemy' says you can do if you disagree - Police has the IPCC, Banks have FOS and then whichever 'Ombudsman' (a long and important sounding word with no actual meaning!) has been appointed (next clue - who appointed them and what is their interest?)
6aaa) Government regulators like the Financial Conduct Authority are toothless 'illusions' that's why they are called QUANGOS and answer to nobody in particular

7) -----------The Game only begins when you are past this illusion of 'justice' ---------------
Now you can take them to court and have the law applied.
7a) make sure you know which law you are taking about? The world runs on Maritime Law. The judge looks at you as a minor (since you are a warden of the state, thanks to your birth certificate) unless you present explicitly in your PROPER PERSONA as a NATURAL MAN. You are a Sovereign and as such you address the Court as MY HONOUR. Ask the person in the black robe to act as a Judge and not as a MERCHANT BANKER.
7b) You do not claim your Sovereign Status and explicitly ask the Court if they are competent and bound by their Oath and to use common law - which stands above all statues and limitations (rules society uses and corporations use, too - they call it Terms and Conditions)
7c) Under common law the dispute becomes simplified: The Judge, bound by his oath, is your servant and you 'present under special appearance' and if you need to swear on the bible you do not swear but 'affirmate'. You are a KING - behave like one!
7d) The Judge has only got one question to settle: Who is out of pocket and why?
7da) Is there a valid contract under common law
7bc) has it been broken, if so by whom
7bd) where is the balance of power? The Bank obviously .
7be) Now that Terms and Conditions do no longer apply the natural law trumps corporate law every time

And now - 2 more English lessons:
Corporation - corpse (dead)/ oratio (speak). A dead entity can only deal with your Strawman (legal fiction, birth certificate) and is a SLAVE HOLDER. It needs human slaves to act on his behalf (re-present). Any word starting with RE means NOT TALKING in legalese. When you RE-gister (you are quiet, since you sign for your Strawman) you give that item or person (you look it up - I can't do it all but a PERSON isn't what you think it is either!) ownership. So a Birth Certificate (maritime law - manifest or RECEIPT) made you a warden of the state and the REGENT the ultimate owner or a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE isn't what you think it is. There are 3 PERSONS in the relationship - look it up- and the contract you signed and for which you were receipted, is with the Government - not with your partner, UNDERSTAND

and this is just as dangerous a word, as the word OF. Understand in legalese means do you STAND UNDER my AUTHORITY? The Police etc. are Corporations and DEAD - so you have to accept their rules first in order to be bound by them. So you never UNDERSTAND as your natural person and common law is always the ACE

But you do have a contract with the Bank - therefore you must play their game till the end - and this is called FOS. Your window of opportunity comes after that:
REJECT the findings and go to Court!

The Financial Conduct Authority has come up with Banking Conduct rules (BOCUS) that are legally binding. Forget the British Banking Code or any other Code the Banks say the adhere to. They aren't enforceable if they are voluntary! The ammunition is BOCUS 'treat the customer fairly' - a chewing gum phrase that most probably can be used in your case.

The onus is on the Bank to prove that they have treated you fairly and if they have then you shouldn't be in court.

Small claims court is up to £10.000 disputes and if you lose you are not liable for costs if the Bank comes with a Million Dollar legal team that wants paying. So the worst that can happen is hurt pride and a judgement against you - and a lost lodgement fee.

Make sure you abide by the rules again. The Small Claims Court is also a corporation that speaks legalese and has T&C's. The most important one is the "letter before action' and that FOS or 'other mediating' efforts must have been made and must have been concluded (with you having rejecting the FOS opinion - otherwise it is BINDING on both parties and there is no point in going to Court - since the Judge quite rightly, will rule for the Bank).

And once you have a reply - you look for the loophole. Read their defence and pick a hole. Read the ATM manual, if you need to and find how their claim for PIN&CHIP cannot be true in your case. Look at your case objectively. Forget who is morally right or wrong and make the law work for you! I go in without a lawyer because I don't need one, as I can see that the case is so clear cut each time that by the time we come to PIN&CHIP the foundations of the ;'castle in the sky' the Bank and FOS claim is impregnable have been eroded and fallen down in one way or another. Remember PROOF. Can you or the enemy proove your claim? If not - then the judge has only one option....