Thanks SaySomething,However, the Ombudsman has a little bit more discretion when it comes to rulings, compared to the strict legal interpretation that the courts would apply to evaluating whether or not a bank has breached guidelines. This means that the Ombudsman can reject a complaint partially and yet rule that the bank should make a payment to the complainant due to a lack/failing of customer care.
No doubt the banks are well aware of this. One example of the banks' indifference to the CPC is their routine applying of interim legal costs to mortgage accounts before repossession cases are even close to conclusion. Only a judge can award legal costs in litigation. So it's two fingers from the banks to the CPC and the courts. This is their version of mending their ways after the tracker scandal.CCMA has the same legal standing as CPC, and is mandatory
@NoRegretsCoyote was this for the non-provision of a tracker rate?I took a case to the Ombudsman about non-provision of interest rate data to me on the grounds that it breached the consumer protection code.
I could have probably calculated some hypothetical loss when making the case, but I didn't. I decided not to for two reasons: (a) my case hinged on a point of law and wasn't at all due to error/oversight on the bank's part; (b) it might have made Ombudsman less likely to rule in my favour if there were broader financial implications for the banks.
He ruled in my favour and there was no mention of redress.
I believe the term is to make one wholeHi NoRegretsCoyote,
So, for the avoidance of doubt, the Ombudsman found that the bank beached the CPC and accordingly ruled in your favour? Please confirm! And very well done!
Bit cheeky to ask (I know!) but did the Ombudsman's ruling, as our American pals say, "make you hole" - i.e. were you put back on the right interest rates and was the overpaid interest rates returned in some form? Was "compensation" paid in addition? [I think getting these answers would be hugely beneficial to AAMers as the bank has great visibility on the thinking of the Ombudsman and Joe Soap hasn't much - albeit the recent publication of rulings is a very helpful step in redressing this imbalance!]
No. It was very technical and I'd like to avoid specifics but relates to information relating to the calculation of interest rates by the bank.
FSPO already has 1,000 complaints regarding trackers awaiting adjudication with more on the way. This whole tracker fiasco could take years before it's eventually sorted out.If you are looking for advice on how to make a complaint:
The whole process still took nearly two years!
- Make a complaint to the bank in writing, seeking their final reply
- If you are unhappy with their response, make a detailed, but coherent written complaint to the Ombudsman
- Include all information - even that which might make the bank's case - otherwise they'll feel you're hiding something
- Attach scans of all correspondence