Ed: This cannot continue/ I have seen case after case like this. FOS fails to hand over the full files, fails to take notice of Bankers Code of Conduct, fails to take notice of the lead of the courts - verdicts of Judges - and uses only authorities that come from the bank lawyers and favour the banks. There has to be change:
Please sign PETITION for Royal Commission into the Banking and Finance Sector - wide TOR.
Comment daily on our PETITION - cut and paste this link. You do not have to use your surname to register or you can use “Smith” but please add State, Australia
https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-of-australia-royal-commission-australian-banking-sector
SUZY's experience with FOS:
I have settled with my bank and cannot be named but here is my opinion of FOS service:
FOS is biased in favour of the banks in many ways. Firstly, it is funded by the Banking Industry. Secondly, the banks represented by FOS deal with FOS case managers via direct phone numbers and emails. Consumers are only given the general email address and general phone number. FOS case managers rarely deal with consumers by phone anyway and when they do they don't give the consumer an opportunity to prepare and often ambush consumers with questions they do not have an opportunity to think about before answering. In effect, FOS try to trick the consumer into answering in a way that suits the bank they are representing so they can close the file asap.
I suspect that certain case managers regularly handle matters for the same banks and this allows bank representatives to form relationships with the case managers at FOS and thereby influences the decisions. Even if this is not the case, the fact that the bank is given direct email addresses and direct phone numbers allows relationships to form and encourages the informal communication between the banks and FOS case managers. The tone of the emails from my bank was clearly disparaging me at every opportunity and no-one from FOS informed the bank representatives that that was inappropriate. The bank representative would also copy in as many people at FOS as possible to every email so the word would get around at FOS and even FOS case managers who had nothing to do with my cases would be able to discuss them. I found this intimidating and inappropriate.
I have lodged several FOS complaints and never had a single determination in my favour despite all of my cases having merit. On one occasion, I requested copies of all correspondence passing between FOS and the bank. When I eventually received copies of the correspondence, I saw correspondence from the bank to FOS instructing FOS to write a letter to it stating that FOS had already informed the bank that it could proceed with legal action pending finalisation of the complaint on the grounds of preservation of the bank's asset (the security property). The bank had already proceeded to get a court order in the meantime, when in fact there was nothing in writing at that time from FOS to the bank confirming that the bank was permitted to do so. At that point, I had only received a letter from FOS stating that my complaint was currently being assessed. The bank was calling the shots! There was other correspondence that also showed that the bank was instructing FOS. FOS is supposed to independently investigate in accordance with its Terms of Reference! This does not happen in practice.
In all of my expereinces I felt as if I had no hope due to the attitude of FOS and that the outcome was already pre-determined. This affected the way I presented my case. FOS acts as a protector of the banks' poor and unlawful conduct. FOS ignores fraud and excuses it.