Lloyds bank, when I was with them, conned me out of a fraud claim, to which I went to the Financial Ombudsman. Despite all the evidence, that is a BCOBS 5.1.11 guideline by the FCA that Lloyds was ignoring, even though Lloyds claim they are regulated by the FCA, the FOS found nothing wrong. They claimed or claim that they find a solution which is fair to both parties. It was not fair to myself though, as I had provided evidence that I had already repeatedly done what Lloyds had asked for, but the FOS just claimed 'do it again'. Did you realise that only 1 out of 4 claims are found in favour of the issuer of the complaint at the FOS, and that they are funded by the Banks through the dealing with complaints on behalf of the banks - the FOS is a cheap way for the banks to deal with a complaint in the banks favour. And why shouldnt it be like this if the shoe was on the other foot and the FOS was given money from taxpayers through the government the onus would be to find in favour of the taxpayer - would it not. A law unto themselves. They operate with impunity. It is their own fiefdom.
I have since discovered that when they are producing a verdict, they not only use what is fair, but they use what is fair in relation to the terms and conditions of the financial company. They also claim they use FCA rules - but there is a problem with that. The FCA rules do not apply to individual account holders. That is if you have a current account with a bank then you are not covered by the FCA. Also the terms and conditions of the bank does not need to include anything about the FCA. This means that should the individual sign up for a current account and the FCA is not included, in the terms and conditions then you as an individual are not covered by the FCA. So how can the FOS use the excuse that they use the FCA rulings in their deliberations; I ask you? Only I suppose, if the terms and conditions include mention of the FCA; if not, then lets move on.
Due to this even I agree that Lloyds have done nothing wrong; at least legally.
I have now have more info after receiving the SAR documentation. I noticed that what Lloyds Bank had provided was scant. Plus there was no mention of listening to the recordings I had made of Lloyds Bank telephone staff. But focusing upon the scant information, made me thinks of three questions to put to the financial ombudsman. The first is do you bother to check that the information given by the financial institution is correct? The second question - do you bother to check the information is complete, and the third question do you check to see if the information supplied has not been 'cherry picked' by the financial institution to influence your decision? I called them this morning and the FOS do not check - period.
Update - As it happens the SAR that was promised by the FOS would answer my questions did not. So I was cheated out of £10.00. I keep contacting them asking questions and now they are stonewalling. I contacted the ICO about this whole situation. The ICO contacted by email the FOS and the FOS responded to the ICO almost simultaneously. But any replies to myself take at least five days to be responded to if I am lucky.
Its quite clear that the recorded conversations I had with Lloyds was not listened to at all by the FOS. The recordings are a vital evidence, so vital that it would determine a decision.
Upon further scrutiny, the FOS have admitted that they ask for information from both sides then select what the FOS think is relevant. In other words, because of this practise they conduct an investigation for themselves - as it turns out just like the ICO do.