Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is it independent or is it controlled by a corrupt Bank?
FOS states on its website; “About us - what we do; The Financial Ombudsman Service provides accessible fair and independent dispute resolution for consumers and financial services providers".
Have you had dealings with FOS?
As a result of an enforceable undertaking ASIC imposed on the bank I had previous dealings with which I will refer to that bank as the Financial Service Provider (FSP) FSP was made waiver the time and money limits to allow FOS to assess our case, FSP had to abide by whatever the FOS ruling was on any compensation figure.
FOS made a determination on our case, after which I discovered my witness statements were altered and falsified to favour FSP and a number of my evidence documents were withheld from the panel that made a determination on our case.
Our FOS case manager made a totally corrupt determination which FOS posted on its website. My former accountant was asked to attend a meeting with FSP senior employees on 17 July 2015. He then made relating statements which were passed on to FOS.FOS case manager made a number of references to the accountant’s statements which he included in his determination.
My former accountant read our determination on the FOS website, after which he wrote a letter to FOS Executive General Manager on the 2nd February 2017 which he never received a response, the following is part of that letter;
After reading the document in particular the sections which referred to my statements as the
applicant's Accountant I was shocked and disturbed to see a number of statements that were
attributed to me had been falsified to support FSP case. These statements in no way
represented the truth or the content from the statements I provided.
I myself have never had any personal dealings with the Financial Ombudsman Services. I did observe while on the website it stated "About us - what we do; The Financial Ombudsman Service provides accessible fair and independent dispute resolution for consumers and financial services providers".
There was nothing fair or independent about the determination document I read on the Financial
Ombudsman Services Website the material I supplied was altered or misquoted to benefit the
financial services provider.
I am shocked that an independent and fair organisation like the Financial Ombudsman Services
would allow the content of information provided by an independent professional to be altered and
misstated which I have witnessed.
Can you please explain the actions in which the case manager has clearly changed and fabricated my initial statement to support the financial services provider case? These actions have had a clear bearing on this case, what is being done to rectify and correct this outcome?
I also complained to FOS after reading the determination and internal FOS documents which I was given by mistake days after receiving the determination. The internal FOS documents substantiated my view on corruption within the FOS process. Following is from one of the internal documents; “Hi everyone
Mr W has requested a copy of the panel file.
I have attached the above documents which were omitted from the panel copy.”
There were 11 documents listed, it was sent to the panel members after our determination was written. It included an important document I submitted on the 9 March 2016 which detailed the lies FSP told and a number of evidence documents FSP presented to support their position which were nothing but carefully prepared fake documents. These documents were subsequently not supported as being genuine by FSP’s own employee whom we were dealing with at the time.
I made a submission to FOS to reassess the massive discount they gave to FSP relating to our compensation payment figure and to address my concerns of corruption and bias. This resulted in FOS lead ombudsman spending over a month going over our case file, where she totally ignored the evidence and issues I presented and came up with the following on 9 December 2016;
“FOS takes allegations of misconduct, unethical behaviour or bias on the part of its employees during their handling of disputes very seriously. I have reviewed the file and am of the view that the staff approached their duties in good faith and there is no evidence of apprehended bias or being overborne by pressure from the FSP.”
Subsequently my wife and I were asked to sign a document (by our new FOS case manager the 4th in 2 years) before FOS would continue with our 2nd case.
My wife and I signed a document which stated; “I will cooperate with you as was the case with our first case manager Claire in answering questions, supply information and documents in a timely manner.”
This was despite the fact that at no time prior to or since have I ever been late supply information and documents.
FOS asked my wife and I to sign a document and did not ask FSP to do the same. If the facts which I detail below don’t show complete bias to FSP, then I don’t know what constitutes bias.
I had a discussion with our first FOS case manager Claire relating to FSP’s previous late submission of information which I felt FSP was deliberately stalling the FOS process.
Following that discussion on the 20 April 2016 Claire emailed FSP to provide a submission; “you must provide all of the requested information by no later than 4 May 2016.”FSP was 2 weeks late in making their submission on 17 May 2016.
Email from FOS to FSP “To assist the Panel in its fair resolution of this dispute, please have your client provide the following information by close of business 1 August 2016: It is essential this information is provided by the due date.” FSP did not comply FSP provided the information on the 5 August 2016.
Email from FOS to FSP 9 January 2017.
“You must provide all of the requested information by no later than 23 January 2017.”
On the 17 January FSP requested an extra week they were given until 30 January. FSP did not comply with the extra time to submit the requested information.
Email from FOS to FSP 22 May 2017
“Please provide the following information, together with all evidence relevant to that information, any other material you consider relevant, and any comments you wish to make, within 14 days – that is, by 5 June 2017.”
Email from FOS to FSP 1 June 2017 “I have also asked him, within the same 14 day period, to provide his full response to my letter as it relates to the 2007 put options claim. It would greatly assist if you provide a complete response on behalf of FSP within the same period.”
FSP again requested an extension in time which we were both given; “confirm an extension of time to provide your submissions in response to my 22 May 2017 letter, until 2 pm Wednesday 7 June 2017.”
The following FSP sent to FOS at 4.44pm Wednesday 7 June after the deadline;
“Response to your letter dated 22 May 2017 We note that FSP's response to your letter dated 22 May 2017 is to be provided by today. FSP is in the process of compiling its response.”
Once more FSP was given an extension of time and still did not comply.
The following was from FSP’s submission to FOS where they once more tried to bully FOS in to dropping our case.
“In response to a specific request from FOS, Mr W has now confirmed that he will 'cooperate with you as case manager in answering questions, supplying information and documents in a timely manner'. However we note that he has not confirmed that he will abide by the Terms of Reference and respect the rules of the FOS process. Accordingly, his confirmation to FOS is inadequate. His conduct in not providing the complete confirmation is itself a further example of his unwillingness to abide by the process.”
My wife and I always complied with FOS’s request for documents in a timely manner and have always abided by the Terms of Reference and the FOS process.
FSP stated that I should participate in accordance with the rules of the FOS process and that I should not take steps which threaten the process and its outcome, which clearly I have not done. Whereas on the other hand, FSP has treated the FOS process with total contempt and has taken steps to alter the outcome. FOS has continually allowed FSP to abuse the FOS process and get away with it, yet FOS asked my wife and I to sign a document to say we would not do what FOS was continually allowing FSP to do?
FOS was complicit with FSP in this process which saw important evidence documents withheld from the panel, and witness statements falsified to support FSP’s case. FSP took steps which altered the process and its outcome, FSP asked FOS to make a decision to benefit FSP, FOS ignored the facts and its own terms of reference, and made a totally corrupt jurisdictional decision to abide by FSP’s request.
FOS states on its website; “About us - what we do; The Financial Ombudsman Service provides accessible fair and independent dispute resolution for consumers and financial services providers".
Have you had dealings with FOS?
As a result of an enforceable undertaking ASIC imposed on the bank I had previous dealings with which I will refer to that bank as the Financial Service Provider (FSP) FSP was made waiver the time and money limits to allow FOS to assess our case, FSP had to abide by whatever the FOS ruling was on any compensation figure.
FOS made a determination on our case, after which I discovered my witness statements were altered and falsified to favour FSP and a number of my evidence documents were withheld from the panel that made a determination on our case.
Our FOS case manager made a totally corrupt determination which FOS posted on its website. My former accountant was asked to attend a meeting with FSP senior employees on 17 July 2015. He then made relating statements which were passed on to FOS.FOS case manager made a number of references to the accountant’s statements which he included in his determination.
My former accountant read our determination on the FOS website, after which he wrote a letter to FOS Executive General Manager on the 2nd February 2017 which he never received a response, the following is part of that letter;
After reading the document in particular the sections which referred to my statements as the
applicant's Accountant I was shocked and disturbed to see a number of statements that were
attributed to me had been falsified to support FSP case. These statements in no way
represented the truth or the content from the statements I provided.
I myself have never had any personal dealings with the Financial Ombudsman Services. I did observe while on the website it stated "About us - what we do; The Financial Ombudsman Service provides accessible fair and independent dispute resolution for consumers and financial services providers".
There was nothing fair or independent about the determination document I read on the Financial
Ombudsman Services Website the material I supplied was altered or misquoted to benefit the
financial services provider.
I am shocked that an independent and fair organisation like the Financial Ombudsman Services
would allow the content of information provided by an independent professional to be altered and
misstated which I have witnessed.
Can you please explain the actions in which the case manager has clearly changed and fabricated my initial statement to support the financial services provider case? These actions have had a clear bearing on this case, what is being done to rectify and correct this outcome?
I also complained to FOS after reading the determination and internal FOS documents which I was given by mistake days after receiving the determination. The internal FOS documents substantiated my view on corruption within the FOS process. Following is from one of the internal documents; “Hi everyone
Mr W has requested a copy of the panel file.
I have attached the above documents which were omitted from the panel copy.”
There were 11 documents listed, it was sent to the panel members after our determination was written. It included an important document I submitted on the 9 March 2016 which detailed the lies FSP told and a number of evidence documents FSP presented to support their position which were nothing but carefully prepared fake documents. These documents were subsequently not supported as being genuine by FSP’s own employee whom we were dealing with at the time.
I made a submission to FOS to reassess the massive discount they gave to FSP relating to our compensation payment figure and to address my concerns of corruption and bias. This resulted in FOS lead ombudsman spending over a month going over our case file, where she totally ignored the evidence and issues I presented and came up with the following on 9 December 2016;
“FOS takes allegations of misconduct, unethical behaviour or bias on the part of its employees during their handling of disputes very seriously. I have reviewed the file and am of the view that the staff approached their duties in good faith and there is no evidence of apprehended bias or being overborne by pressure from the FSP.”
Subsequently my wife and I were asked to sign a document (by our new FOS case manager the 4th in 2 years) before FOS would continue with our 2nd case.
My wife and I signed a document which stated; “I will cooperate with you as was the case with our first case manager Claire in answering questions, supply information and documents in a timely manner.”
This was despite the fact that at no time prior to or since have I ever been late supply information and documents.
FOS asked my wife and I to sign a document and did not ask FSP to do the same. If the facts which I detail below don’t show complete bias to FSP, then I don’t know what constitutes bias.
I had a discussion with our first FOS case manager Claire relating to FSP’s previous late submission of information which I felt FSP was deliberately stalling the FOS process.
Following that discussion on the 20 April 2016 Claire emailed FSP to provide a submission; “you must provide all of the requested information by no later than 4 May 2016.”FSP was 2 weeks late in making their submission on 17 May 2016.
Email from FOS to FSP “To assist the Panel in its fair resolution of this dispute, please have your client provide the following information by close of business 1 August 2016: It is essential this information is provided by the due date.” FSP did not comply FSP provided the information on the 5 August 2016.
Email from FOS to FSP 9 January 2017.
“You must provide all of the requested information by no later than 23 January 2017.”
On the 17 January FSP requested an extra week they were given until 30 January. FSP did not comply with the extra time to submit the requested information.
Email from FOS to FSP 22 May 2017
“Please provide the following information, together with all evidence relevant to that information, any other material you consider relevant, and any comments you wish to make, within 14 days – that is, by 5 June 2017.”
Email from FOS to FSP 1 June 2017 “I have also asked him, within the same 14 day period, to provide his full response to my letter as it relates to the 2007 put options claim. It would greatly assist if you provide a complete response on behalf of FSP within the same period.”
FSP again requested an extension in time which we were both given; “confirm an extension of time to provide your submissions in response to my 22 May 2017 letter, until 2 pm Wednesday 7 June 2017.”
The following FSP sent to FOS at 4.44pm Wednesday 7 June after the deadline;
“Response to your letter dated 22 May 2017 We note that FSP's response to your letter dated 22 May 2017 is to be provided by today. FSP is in the process of compiling its response.”
Once more FSP was given an extension of time and still did not comply.
The following was from FSP’s submission to FOS where they once more tried to bully FOS in to dropping our case.
“In response to a specific request from FOS, Mr W has now confirmed that he will 'cooperate with you as case manager in answering questions, supplying information and documents in a timely manner'. However we note that he has not confirmed that he will abide by the Terms of Reference and respect the rules of the FOS process. Accordingly, his confirmation to FOS is inadequate. His conduct in not providing the complete confirmation is itself a further example of his unwillingness to abide by the process.”
My wife and I always complied with FOS’s request for documents in a timely manner and have always abided by the Terms of Reference and the FOS process.
FSP stated that I should participate in accordance with the rules of the FOS process and that I should not take steps which threaten the process and its outcome, which clearly I have not done. Whereas on the other hand, FSP has treated the FOS process with total contempt and has taken steps to alter the outcome. FOS has continually allowed FSP to abuse the FOS process and get away with it, yet FOS asked my wife and I to sign a document to say we would not do what FOS was continually allowing FSP to do?
FOS was complicit with FSP in this process which saw important evidence documents withheld from the panel, and witness statements falsified to support FSP’s case. FSP took steps which altered the process and its outcome, FSP asked FOS to make a decision to benefit FSP, FOS ignored the facts and its own terms of reference, and made a totally corrupt jurisdictional decision to abide by FSP’s request.
