A frugal life is an easy life!

A PPI refund claim, which I raised with the financial ombudsman's service (FOS) has been declined, because the ombudsman, was not "persuaded that the customer would most likely have acted differently [read: refused to buy] had they been properly advised, informed and fully understood the position [of the PPI sale]"

This statement in itself, acknowledges that the ombudsman agreed with the claim, that the customer WAS NOT properly advised and informed so they could have fully understood the PPI product being sold.
How the FOS can rule against a PPI complaint because they couldn't prove that they wouldn't have bought the PPI had they been accurately informed, is a complete joke!

I wasn't aware that to find in favour of a customer reclaiming against a PPI product being mis sold, the customer must convince the FOS that, had they been given accurate information at the point of sale, they would not have bought the product?
Something that cannot be physically proven cannot be the basis of any sound judgement!
How can anyone prove that they would or wouldn't have done something, had something else been done differently?

I was under the impression that for a claim to be upheld in favour of a customer, the FOS would need to see proof that;
* The company gave the customer information [about the PPI product] that was clear, fair and not misleading, in order to put the customer in a position where they could make an informed choice about the insurance they were buying.
* In giving any advice or recommendation, that the company took adequate steps to ensure that the PPI product it recommended was suitable for the customer's needs.

If the customer can prove that any aspects of the selling process of the PPI were misleading, untrue, false, etc, or that information given about the benefits of the PPI were not as the company said they were, then surely this is ample grounds for upholding the claim and finding in favour of the customer getting a refund?
At the end of the Ombudsman's letter they acknowledge that the customer was not properly advised, therefore mislead.

Of course the real reason for refusing the complaint here is related to "middle man" company, that acts as a filter to protect the individual business from Financial services authority audit and complaints to the ombudsman.

Heres how it works: Individual business (ie. car dealership the customer buys from) - Middle man company (which receives fees from individual business for training staff in updates of FSA policies, complaint prevention,etc. and pays fees to the FSA) - financial ombudsman service (Which have ombudsmen put in place by the fee receiving FSA, the same FSA that "advises" the middle man company on policy for fees).

- Customer complains to the dealership and gets fobbed off.
- Complaint is handed over to middle man company. After "extensive review" *Ever heard a company ruling against it's own training service for which it is getting paid? No, me neither!
- Complaint is refused and customer given option to go to FOS.
- FOS looks at complaint, but never contacts the dealership in any of it's investigations, instead contacts the middle man company.
- FOS agrees with customer that they were mislead in sales process, that cancellation fees existed for PPI but customer was told they were not.
- FOS then refuses the complaint, on the grounds that they were not convinced that the customer wouldn't have bought the PPI had they known the cancellation fees existed - this is despite evidence given and witnesses to the sale backing up the complaint, that the PPI was only signed for on the premise that no cancellation fees existed!

Where the middle man company comes into it, is that the financial ombudsman service will not rule against a middle man company, as they are designated training companies of the FSA!
To rule against the middle man company would then force the FSA to stop the work of the middle man company auditing individual businesses for them, and action would have to be taken against them, which would damage their financial connection.
If the middle man company are suspended/awarded against for any reason, it would cut funding to the FSA.
How many companies do you know, that will cut their own funding by choice? *I know of none!

A clear conflict of interest exists, which the FOS and the FSA both deny.

So how about the FSA and the FOS tell us how many times they have ruled against one of these middle man companies? (There are just over 600 middle man companies, each one can have thousands of individual businesses paying them fees)
They refused.
Freedom of Information act will force them to reveal?
The act doesn't apply to the FSA or the FOS.
What about just the name of any other middle man company so they can be checked?
They refused.

This is why a complaint against a middle man company must satisfy the financial ombudsman of something that has nor will, ever happen.
I could understand the ombudsman ruling against the complaint because they were not convinced that anything misleading took place, but as they admitted in writing, they were satisfied that this was the case.
So why is it not enough to prove your case with facts, witnesses, etc?

There were other major points regarding being mislead at the point of sale, the ombudsman did their "extensive" review of the case then forgot to mention a single one of them in their refusal letter. When asked why there was no mention of them, they said, "No comment!"

If the psychic powers of the ombudsman rule that in a parallel universe, somewhere in the future, you would have bought the PPI policy had you known you were being mislead anyway, then you have no chance of winning your complaint.