Financial Ombudsman Service - www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

The service is packed full of former industry professionals whose bias has them leaning toward institutional professional vested interest and power. Complaints are re-written by the service and then instead of the consumers complaint, they reject their own rewritten version of it. The worst blatant aspect is the complaint handler and summariser, whose job it is to misrepresent and exclude any evidence/argument detrimental to industry interests. The whole service and its staff needs to be jettisoned and replaced with a genuine complaints service. Complain to your MP for a real service.

initially I have conflicting views I have had one good experience and currently I am dealing with a bad experience

The Good

Because of my review about Phoenix Life Ltd what I have just submitted I ended up with credit card debt this was a Barclaycard and when I hit difficulty I requested help via the Subject Access Request (SAR) I wrote 18 letters asking for help none offered to suit my circumstances but I kept these letters in my Documents folder on my computer as evidence

I contacted FOS and was appointed a female agent she listened and she read all of my letters that I sent to her and from the content of my letters she challenged Barclaycard and she got me some compensation, the compensation was a bonus but the more important thing for me was that I was able to expose the appalling service from Barclaycard again as with my other review they use data abuse as in denying access for information which then allowed them to incur unfair charges

DATA ABUSE IS IMPORTANT AND NOT UNDERSTOOD BY MANY PEOPLE

The information Commissioners Office (ICO) are the contact for data abuse

The Bad

My Phoenix complaint is currently with FOS

I have been appointed a male agent I have sent him all relevant factual evidence whereby Phoenix admit liability to altering investment growth rates and claiming commission on their own legal letter headed documents this agent has not accepted or acted on this relevant information he is totally disinterested i have complained about him but his manager is just as bad they are unprofessional and ignorant and disregard factual evidence

Having done further research and delved into public feedback it is apparent that these corrupt companies pay FOS not to investigate in a nutshell I have asked this manager if this indicates the possibility that some FOS agents may be taking backhanders and of course no response to that question

There is a lot more that I could add but I have taken further action so I will continue at a later date what happens when the CEO responds

My advice for anyone dealing with negative FOS agents is to do some research into public reviews and get a true picture do not be afraid to challenge authority they are no better than your equal

The upshot is whether you get a good agent or not but I suspect that they are are few among and far between

I took a case to them for a friend who was being tricked by AXA insurance over a subsidence claim. I provided EVIDENCE to the FoS, they totally ignored it, they came down in favour of the insurers AXA, they then want to publish a report on how good they are which is full of lies and totally inaccurate information. They are a waste of time, I wonder how much the CEO gets paid to run this bunch of know nothing, cant be bothered pen pushers with no idea what they are doing. I suggest go straight to Court and use the reviews on here to support the reason why using them is pointless and wastes your time. They are funded by the very people they investigate, why would you get an HONEST decision? I have written to the Chair Baroness, lets see if this lady can instil some honesty and work ethic into them. Perhaps the time has come for the person at the top to be accountable, without a golden handshake!! Have they all missed the appalling reviews, it is not a coincidence.

Process takes far too long.

Final response from the Ombudsman insinuates that I am a liar and not credible. These are his opinions and not based on facts. The service is supposed to be fair and unbiased. In my opinion it is not.

A former barrister made the outcome decision in my case. He may know the law but he definitely needs to go back to basics and learn how to write an inoffensive decision.

Would I use the service again, absolutely not.

It is interesting that you can’t leave feedback on their site but you can complain to the independent assessor which is what I am going to do.

Corrupt organisation that is NOT impartial

These Financial Ombudsman Service is completely biased toward the finance institution it represents.

From my experience they appear to be a corrupt and very deceiving organisation that is in no way whatsoever impartial .

This service is utterly inept, lacking competence, customer service, or indeed the concept of responding to cases in a timely manner.

My claims assessor took 10 months to investigate my complaint (insurer refusing to pay out for storm damage), and seemed to have no concept of the fact that a storm will cause lasting structural damage to a property.

When I requested that this was looked at again, the 2nd assessor, also declined the complaint. They then had the audacity to ask me if I was happy with the result of the complaint, and when I explained that I obviously wasn't, they just closed it anyway!

Looks like a trip to the small claims court to follow. Don't waste your time with these incompetent cretins!

STRAIGHT AWAY = over 8months!!!!!!

I have had a complaint about the non existant service my letters email and/or phone going on for over 2 years with pensions firm ReAssure. The 1st year thru' my complaint to the Ombudsman I received compensation £150, the 2nd complaint the next year £150, Im now n my 3rd complaint with the Ombudsman = 3rd time 3rd year, and today after my request/complaint was started on September 20th 2021, 8 months ago the Ombudsman says and I quote 'We’re helping a lot of customers at the moment, so I’m sorry we won’t be able to reply straight away'. STRAIGHT AWAY = MORE WHENEVER.

They are a joke.

Where can I start?

How can this service be at all impartial when they get purely funded from the people whom you are complaining about?

Most of the financial Companies are aware of this and intentionally frustrate and delay each of their customer's complaints and eventually leave them with no option but for them to get salvation refer them to the Financial Ombudsman with perfect knowledge that 9 out of 10 of these complaints would never get an uphold or positive decisions.Or by extensive delays caused by them the complainant eventually get disheartened or forget about their complaints altogether.

Another unfair practice is that the person deciding on your complaint is never available to talk to for one reason or another.

More often than not the file handlers at the financial ombudsman intentionally twist the facts regarding ones complaint or intentionally turn the table around to make it that the complainant are the guilty party here for bringing their complaint to them at the first place and even in the areas where seldomly ones complaint is upheld, the penalties are extremely trimmed to the lowest amount as a payout again to minimise to the favour of the Companies complaints were made against.

All of these works perfectly well to the favour of the entity you are complaining about and that is the strategy in order to release these financial companies from their liabilities and obligations to their customers.

So it has become a norm by simply passing the Buck to the guys at the Financial Ombudsman who in affect are acting as lap dogs to these financial companies not answerable to or regulated by anyone.

The initial file handler staff are often not knowledgeable in the areas where the complaints are made and cannot and would not accept any criticism whatsoever that they are wrong in their handling or assumptions.

As soon as anyone question their actions or methods they quickly refer the complaint to an Ombudsman who should have really been the one dealing with your complaint at the first place. But delays are their strategy.

These Ombudsmen too, are like God figures who

no-one can ever approach or talk to and their involvement yet entails extreme and prolonged delays of up to a year or more before they would consider your complaint where most often they too eventually follow and provide the exact same verdict as the original file handler correct or not but this time with a little more detail and finesse.

This is just because so as not to lose face as a an organisation for entirely not bothering to do their job properly or as per their original appointment.

So as a whole the Financial Ombudsman is very much an unfair practise, basically flawed, purely one-sided ,obsolete by any standard.

If you seriously are looking for a fair hearing and a fair outcome to your complaint then forget the Financial Ombudsman as you are definitely not going to get it there.

Ombudsman said they can't dictate how Aviva run their business. Aviva used a false report in order to decline my claim. That's nothing to do with dictating to a company that's being complicit the report was never removed for me its a company maintaining a lie as they had ample time to remove the report. The appointed assessor by Aviva conducted a fake survey he stated there was no visible damage in need of repair he never evidenced the end of the house where the damage was clear this was the reason for my complaint.

Ombudsman's view on these companies were I was unhappy with the assessor's report and they don't know why Aviva didn't change there report.

Ombudsman's reason for not upholding my claim, the report stated in order to uphold the claim we must answer yes to these three conditions.

1,was there a storm at the time. Yes.

2,was the damage consistent with storm damage. Yes.

3,was the storm the main cause of the damage. Blank.

Ombudsman went on to say they think the damage may have been caused over time. My claim was declined because of a thought no reason no evidence.

It's all wrong if there are bad practices in order to decline a claim the claim should be upheld. For me making bland comments about these practices means complicity by the ombudsman. To decline a claim on a thought needs investigation. The system looks corrupt there is no reason why my claim was not upheld. I believe the Ombudsman's report would've stand scrutiny.

Slow.No copies of written correspondence with the culpable party. All way too opaque. Multiple requests for the same data. Lack of compassion nor understanding of the overall distress.....compounded by an unprofessional untrained attitude to a case. And painfully nay insulting unacceptable time to process a complaint. The FOS staff are PAID by the subscribers per case taken on. Amounts almost to a bribe. It's how case workers and ombudsmen are remunerated. What insentive is there to assist the victim? I am absolutely convinced there is an unhealthy relationship between the FoS and the Financial institution. If not, then reveal the correspondence. Don't come back with "I spoke to X bank and they said...." Then prove it.As for an Ombudsman " reviewing" a case workers decision, forget an impartial view. Cooked from beginning to end. Be#t.