-
@JDB I’m absolutely fine with their business decision to close my account, their terms allowed that.
What I will dispute is a business decision not to crystallise benefits clearly defined in those same terms!
Succinctly, how they went about it; they didn’t try the same tricks when closing the accounts more recently!@JDB I’m absolutely fine with their business decision to close my account, their terms allowed that.
What I will dispute is a business decision not to crystallise benefits clearly defined in those same terms!
Succinctly, how they went about it; they didn’t try the same tricks when closing the accounts more recently!I do understand exactly what you are saying, but the FOS cannot, in law, compensate you for a business decision by a firm, any more than a court can as it is outside their powers or ultra vires. A court and the FOS can award compensation for proven actual loss (+ interest if appropriate) and the FOS (but not the court) can direct D&I payments but the D&I threshold is that it must be beyond the regular life aggravations of say disputing a parking ticket or dealing with a difficult builder – you don’t get compensation. Of, course the breach of contract feels more serious but is not in itself compensable.
Financial service providers do regularly chuck £25-£100 at people as a cheap way of shutting people up but with these claims correctly judged that the way people framed their claims rendered them ineligible.
It’s also worth noting that in a lot of FOS claims, the customers make a big song and dance about how badly /slowly / disgracefully their complaint was handled but they always get the same answer – complaints handling isn’t itself a regulated activity so the FOS can’t comment or compensate.
Three more Creation FOS decisions landed today – one Mr C got £50 compensation, another Mr C got a bagel and Mr S received a remarkable £200 (£150 + £50) the basis of which was difficult to understand vs other decisions.
another Mr C got a bagel
A bagel?? Sound like he was awarded a free HIX breakfast!
another Mr C got a bagel
A bagel?? Sound like he was awarded a free HIX breakfast!
Bagel = 0
Bagel = 0
It’ll always be a giant bread Polo to me. Great with cream cheese and a flat white in Starbucks.
Bagel = 0
It’ll always be a giant bread Polo to me. Great with cream cheese and a flat white in Starbucks.
Well, in the City, a ‘bagel’ was seriously bad news as it meant a zero bonus. One would probably get fired these days for leaving one on someone’s desk after word got out.
These FOS cases are hilariously inconsistent. In one published a few days ago, the decision says, “As the account was closed for a legitimate reason before that anniversary, Mr M didn’t
qualify for the voucher, so he isn’t entitled to one.” In the latest batch, that view is entirely contradicted with this sentence, “I’m satisfied that Creation shouldn’t have deprived Mr S of access to the points, voucher and pro-rata refund when initially closing the account.”So which is right, FOS? Is it fair to withhold a voucher if the account is closed early? Or not?
Anyone have a coin to toss?
It is bizarre and inequitable. A few thousand points and free nights are one thing but as @JDB has highlighted previously, there are people who are suffering serious financial loss and relying on the FOS for redress.
I understand that each case stands on its own merits and has to be treated individually, but when the circumstances are pretty much aligned across a host of cases, one would imagine that there would be SOME chat between people in the FOS, and they’d come up with a boilerplate response that is tweaked accordingly.
This variation in replies doesn’t fill one with confidence in the FOS at all.
These FOS cases are hilariously inconsistent. In one published a few days ago, the decision says, “As the account was closed for a legitimate reason before that anniversary, Mr M didn’t
qualify for the voucher, so he isn’t entitled to one.” In the latest batch, that view is entirely contradicted with this sentence, “I’m satisfied that Creation shouldn’t have deprived Mr S of access to the points, voucher and pro-rata refund when initially closing the account.”So which is right, FOS? Is it fair to withhold a voucher if the account is closed early? Or not?
Anyone have a coin to toss?
That’s why the offer made by Creation to cardholders via the FOD was very attractive and some of those who unwisely rejected it are worse off. In pressing for D&I compensation, they have lost the more valuable bits and not received compensation either.
The offer did not distinguish between those whose anniversaries were very close and those that were a very long way off which was advantageous for some. The inconsistency isn’t entirely surprising because not giving the voucher was strictly correct if the anniversary fell after the closure date but the option for the FOS to exercise its ‘fairness’ discretion is much easier if the anniversary was relatively close and the spend at or close to the threshold. From the description of some of the complaints, many clearly framed them in the wrong manner and for others Creation has shared information which seems to have coloured the decisions.
It is bizarre and inequitable. A few thousand points and free nights are one thing but as @JDB has highlighted previously, there are people who are suffering serious financial loss and relying on the FOS for redress.
I think you have read the complaints and I’m sure you will have spotted that there are slight differences although they all have the same origins. The complainants have also told different stories, made different claims and asked for different things, so those factors, in addition to the slightly different factual matrix account for some of the different conclusions. I wouldn’t have expected them each to be identical; hence the attraction of the offer to mitigate the risk.
I understand that each case stands on its own merits and has to be treated individually, but when the circumstances are pretty much aligned across a host of cases, one would imagine that there would be SOME chat between people in the FOS, and they’d come up with a boilerplate response that is tweaked accordingly.
This variation in replies doesn’t fill one with confidence in the FOS at all.
Clearly, you feel strongly about Creation but I don’t think it should damage confidence in the FOS. They make decisions on the balance of probabilities and each Ombudsman’s decisions are subjective so you inevitably get different outcomes. Although they have to comply with the law and their own guidelines, the range of permissible discretion is inevitably wide. It’s the same in the courts with civil litigation – two judges presented with the identical set of facts could reach different decisions and neither be wrong and the threshold for permission to appeal is high. As with judges, ombudsmen can attribute different weight to certain facts or perceive degrees of unfairness differently such that a threshold is or isn’t reached. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the ombudsman has all the facts upon which decisions are based whereas we only see a summary.
I understand that each case stands on its own merits and has to be treated individually, but when the circumstances are pretty much aligned across a host of cases, one would imagine that there would be SOME chat between people in the FOS, and they’d come up with a boilerplate response that is tweaked accordingly.
This variation in replies doesn’t fill one with confidence in the FOS at all.
Clearly, you feel strongly about Creation but I don’t think it should damage confidence in the FOS. They make decisions on the balance of probabilities and each Ombudsman’s decisions are subjective so you inevitably get different outcomes. Although they have to comply with the law and their own guidelines, the range of permissible discretion is inevitably wide. It’s the same in the courts with civil litigation – two judges presented with the identical set of facts could reach different decisions and neither be wrong and the threshold for permission to appeal is high. As with judges, ombudsmen can attribute different weight to certain facts or perceive degrees of unfairness differently such that a threshold is or isn’t reached. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the ombudsman has all the facts upon which decisions are based whereas we only see a summary.
I think this is a really important take home for everyone. Watching from the sidelines, it’s been educational.
There’s a much more robust system for challenging decisions made by courts though. I’m not having a go at the FOS per se as they are clearly underfunded and overworked, but I got the impression that there’s no real formal oversight of what they actually do.
There’s a much more robust system for challenging decisions made by courts though. I’m not having a go at the FOS per se as they are clearly underfunded and overworked, but I got the impression that there’s no real formal oversight of what they actually do.
Wow, those are astonishing assertions!
The FOS is an entirely free (to the complainant), impartial and optional service – if you don’t think it’s suitable or any good, you can take your dispute to a court. It was created by statute, like eg tax tribunals and unlike them is a government agency so ultimately subject to oversight by Judicial Review. An ombudsman decision is in effect on appeal from the decision by an investigator and, unlike a court appeal, all the facts can be and are re-examined. The FOS is also overseen by the Financial Conduct Authority and if a complainant is unhappy with a decision they can take their case to The Independent Assessor. While she cannot (in the same way as a court cannot) reconsider your case, she can act if processes haven’t been followed properly (including application of the law) or there is any lack of impartiality. In these Creation cases, the FOS used its powers to broker a deal better than that achieved by those who went to MCOL and better than some ombudsman decisions for those that rejected the offer. They may have been slow, but it was a messy situation and it’s better to take time and get it right. All this ‘not fit for purpose’ stuff shows a real lack of understanding about the FOS which is far from perfect but provides good solutions and a type of dispute resolution you won’t find in other countries.
In terms of underfunding and overwork (plus shortage of staff) at the FOS, that’s correct, but applies equally to HMCTS.
I’m not sure what the ‘robust’ system to which you refer for challenges to court decisions is? Civil appeals are very difficult, costly and, for most people, effectively not possible. You can’t appeal a decision simply because you don’t like that decision, and any appeal to a higher court doesn’t hear the case again – you don’t get a second bite of the cherry. It’s hard to get leave to appeal – the hearing judge will only grant leave quite rarely so you need leave from at least a Circuit Judge and the threshold is “a real prospect of success” so you can’t just appeal in the hope a decision will be overturned. The basic test is that to establish grounds for an appeal you need to show “why the order of the lower court was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity”. Basically, you have to argue that the first instance judge made an error of law, made irrational findings of fact and thus acted outside their wide range of discretion. As it is so difficult and also because many cases are small, incredibly few county court judgments do get appealed and, absent a successful appeal, you have no other recourse. No Independent Assessor, no Judicial Review.
@JDB, you were the one who made a comparison with the judiciary, I was responding to that! And I said the “system” was robust; clearly there are operating rules within it. There’s no such system in place for the FOS, as far as I can tell. There doesn’t even seem to be a process by which anyone can take concerns about their case to a supervisor or manager, which is unlike any other profession I’ve encountered.
@JDB, you were the one who made a comparison with the judiciary, I was responding to that! And I said the “system” was robust; clearly there are operating rules within it. There’s no such system in place for the FOS, as far as I can tell. There doesn’t even seem to be a process by which anyone can take concerns about their case to a supervisor or manager, which is unlike any other profession I’ve encountered.
The FOS does have operating rules that govern its processes – they are set in law; you can’t really ask for more than that.
If you have concerns about the investigator or ombudsman’s handling of your case, you can take those to the Chief Ombudsman or the Independent Assessor. What you quite rightly can’t do is to ask either them to interfere with the decision.
On a more positive note, my long-gone IHG credit card gave me enough status and spare points to become Diamond Ambassador, and I am therefore currently enjoying a double upgrade to a palatial suite on a weekend free night stay at the IC Park Lane…it could be worse!
On a more positive note, my long-gone IHG credit card gave me enough status and spare points to become Diamond Ambassador, and I am therefore currently enjoying a double upgrade to a palatial suite on a weekend free night stay at the IC Park Lane…it could be worse!
Think you should celebrate with a ferrero rocher, Ambassador
These FOS cases are hilariously inconsistent. In one published a few days ago, the decision says, “As the account was closed for a legitimate reason before that anniversary, Mr M didn’t
qualify for the voucher, so he isn’t entitled to one.” In the latest batch, that view is entirely contradicted with this sentence, “I’m satisfied that Creation shouldn’t have deprived Mr S of access to the points, voucher and pro-rata refund when initially closing the account.”So which is right, FOS? Is it fair to withhold a voucher if the account is closed early? Or not?
Anyone have a coin to toss?
That’s why the offer made by Creation to cardholders via the FOD was very attractive and some of those who unwisely rejected it are worse off. In pressing for D&I compensation, they have lost the more valuable bits and not received compensation either.
The offer did not distinguish between those whose anniversaries were very close and those that were a very long way off which was advantageous for some. The inconsistency isn’t entirely surprising because not giving the voucher was strictly correct if the anniversary fell after the closure date but the option for the FOS to exercise its ‘fairness’ discretion is much easier if the anniversary was relatively close and the spend at or close to the threshold. From the description of some of the complaints, many clearly framed them in the wrong manner and for others Creation has shared information which seems to have coloured the decisions.
Fair enough – I hadn’t really considered that some rulings might have very different renewal dates, which could easily explain some apparent inconsistencies. It’s also clear that the rulings are adjusted for other individual circumstances, such as whether a complainant provided evidence that they had needed to book a stay for cash. That’s a fair and proportionate approach.
Clearly, you feel strongly about Creation but I don’t think it should damage confidence in the FOS.
Can you explain how you came to that assertion, given that my post did not refer to creation at all, but was remarking on the inconsistency in FOS responses to what are fundamentally the same complaints.
They make decisions on the balance of probabilities and each Ombudsman’s decisions are subjective so you inevitably get different outcomes.
Which might suggest that they need to review the system, there is no logic in different rulings when the only difference in the fundamentals of the complaint is the name and address of the person raising the complaint.
two judges presented with the identical set of facts could reach different decisions and neither be wrong and the threshold for permission to appeal is high.
Indeed, however that’s not the best comparison as judges heavily rely on precedent and case law. From the outside it appears that the Ombudsmen are working in isolation of each other and without any knowledge of or weight given to, outcomes from pretty much identical prior cases. It appears as a complainant, the ombundsman assigned to the case might affect the potential ruling as much as the facts of the case, even if both sides agree on the facts.
Anyone had success booking the free night after the book by date?
The free night voucher previously used to have book by date, the stay can be after the book by date.
However, this voucher issued by creation doesn’t seem to work after the book by dates.Are you trying to book it in the app? You need to use the website to make the vouchers work properly, they are book by, not stay by.
Are you trying to book it in the app? You need to use the website to make the vouchers work properly, they are book by, not stay by.
Yes, that was the issue, was trying using the app, Works fine using website. @NorthernLass, Many thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
