Thanks Brendan. Yeah had checked other info on the site and appreciate the link. Bit dated so was really trying to understand what has been happening in recent years. Seems to be massive inconsistency in the FSO rulings. Trying to see if there is any logic, e.g. FSO is consumer 'friendly' re PPRs but Bank friendly on Investment Properties, or interprets the passage of time in different ways (e.g. the longer one waits until they complain the more likely it is that the FSO rules against).
Also appears that the FSO approach has 'hardened' against consumers and that the FSO increasingly has taken a legalistic approach without any regard for how the market worked in practice, requirement for 'simple English' in legal docs, etc. FSO seems to have ruled against people and said f0r example that the Bank had advised people to get legal review/advise. Yet that was not the practice.
I lost my FSO case even though two separate financial advisors (one a regular contribution to this site) told me I had what they considered a very clear case. In the case against me one of the reasons that the FSO rules was that the Bank did not offer trackers anymore (even though in other cases he ruled for he stated that the absence of a current tracker cannot be used by a Bank to deny a customer a tracker, if they had a tracker entitlement). Mine was a buy to let situation and it is my very strong sense that he ruled against me as a buy to let investor. I believe that the FSO was far too Bank friendly and accepted the Banks terms far too easily. For example, he accepted that one letter I signed was a tracker removal letter, even though that phrase or anything inferring it did not exist on the letter. In fact of the three options on the letter, one was a prevailing tracker option. So how he could accept that a letter could be called a tracker removal letter, when it actually provided an option of a tracker and wasn't called a tracker removal letter is absolutely mind boggling.
My only option was the high court where I was never going to go, cost, publicity, etc. I am approaching the end of the 6 year period from when I was moved to a SVR, despite me never agreeing. While the original documentation transferring to fixed is now 9 years old, I am still debating if I can take a second case to the FSO on a much narrower point (ie refusal to give me an option of a tracker in line with the letter). The latter is still within 6 years (much of which I spent trying to get my tracker back to no avail!).
Does anyone have any experience of doing something like this or is the FSO likely to simply reject a second case taken to it?