A frugal life is an easy life!

With hundreds of thousands of individuals putting their trust in the independance of the Financial Ombudsman's service (FOS) every working day, to resolve their disputes, at the very least, after the months to deal with a case, you would expect them to be impartial and fair.

I had a reason to believe their own paperwork, about their "aims" and sense of "fair play" - until I looked around for some information.

The complaint I submitted was for payment protection insurance (PPI) - 10 months later it finally reached an adjudicator. He contacted me, asked about the employment status and said he'd be in touch soon.
He didn't uphold our complaint, so being the sad type, I did some digging around.

Having a moan am I?
Not likely, the following information shows that the FOS are not an impartial service at all!

Car dealership sells PPI - they have to have all the paperwork up to date for the FSA, sell it in an honest and fair manner. Should they be late submitting paperwork or it is incorrect, they risk a fine. They have to pay the FSA fees for keeping their staff up to date with FSA rules and guidelines.
At constant risk that if a complaint comes in about their conduct in selling the PPI, then the FSA could turn up and audit all their paperwork. The same applies if a complaint against them is upheld, the FSA could just turn up to audit other sales of a similar type.
They have nothing to hide though, so it wouldn't be a problem right?

Enter a new type of company - the "Principal company"
This company is accredited by the FSA to train dealership staff (and others) in the laws and selling rules of the FSA. This company pay the FSA a fee.
For a fee, the dealership join this company, it's a very attractive proposition, as this principal company advertise;

Any comebacks or complaints, the dealership refer all the paperwork to the "principal company" and they will answer questions on your behalf, when the FOS come knocking.

Yes, you guessed it, our complaint is against a dealership - now known as an "appointed representitive" company
Yes, they pay a fee to a "principal company" who are a third party company now answering questions about the sale of PPI, even though they cannot give any spoken answers, (not that it's required of them as the FOS didn't ask them any questions!)

The FOS adjudicator dealing with our case has around 20 case files all over his desk, he failed to spot several breaches of the ICOBS rules that are applicable, made no mention of the incorrect information filled out in a "demands and needs statement checklist" by the senior manager of the dealership, and completely missed the fact that the PPI policy was said to cover against unemployment for a full five years - when in fact, in the most beneficial way to the customer, it would only cover against unemployment for a maximum of 39 months (as opposed to the 60 months of five year cover).

Now the fun part...
The FOS staff are said to receive a bonus for quick resolution of a case (not sure if this still applies).
The FOS judge all cases before them based on FSA guidelines and laws, with the cost charged to the "principal company"
As an accredited training company of the FSA, the "principal company" are not audited by the FSA, neither are the dealership.

So in our case, we were told by the FOS that unless we had recorded the high pressure sales patter (that lasted more than an hour, whilst we only went down to "sign for the car") the FOS could only examine the ticklists provided and make a judgement from that.

I'll put a freedom of information request into the FOS I thought, to see how many times they have found against an accredited training company ("principal company") that represent dealerships, etc, and trains company staff on behalf of the FSA (the same FSA that receive fees from the "principal company" and whose rules/laws, the FOS are saying they try to uphold) - No I won't, as conveniently, the FOS are not covered by the freedom of information act!
OK I'll ask them outright, how many times they have ruled against them... "We are not in a position to give out that information as we are not covered by the freedom of information act!"

Let's try another track, lets ask the FSA directly, how many of these "principal companies" exist, who are exempt from the FSA auditing them?
They couldn't tell me, roughly, they guessed (over two days of being asked) around 612.
Each "principal company" pays the FSA a fee and they can have anything from one to five thousand and more, "appointed representative" companies (in this case the dealership) under each single "principal company" - who of course, all pay them a fee and are again, exempt from audit by the FSA.

I checked the "principal company" involved in our case against the FSA register for action taken.
This company have hundreds of "appointed representative" companies on their books all paying fees (ie, car dealerships) and have had hundreds more on their books in the past 5 years, since the FSA legislation came into effect.
Take a wild guess how many times, during those five years (and the hundreds of companies under their protection from scrutiny), that the FSA have had to get involved with any action against the "principal company" in our case?

NOT ONE SINGLE TIME!!!!

So I contacted the FSA and asked them could they name any other accredited training company so I could check them against the FSA register... The FSA refused to do so.

Open, honest, fair, impartial?
If you have the misfortune to raise a complaint with the FOS and the company you complain against are an "appointed representative" company, of a "principal company" - then first off, don't hold your breathe, secondly, the chances of you actually having your complaint upheld (against an FSA accredited training company) are nil.

The only possible winning outcome is if you had the foresight to record the sales pitch you were given at the time, and the chances are you were told it was for something mundane, like signing a form, before they hit you with the high pressure sales pitch, so you wouldn't have been expecting it.

The financial ombudsman service are not impartial, they receive funding from companies who have a complaint raised against them, the FSA receive funding from the "principal companies" which train "appointed representative" companies on behalf of the FSA.

The FSA and the FOS cannot show that they have ever ruled against an FSA accredited company, ever.

I have an absolute gutfull this week, of "tradesmen" quoting times and money for jobs, that are a complete joke!

I always compare what they will charge with the better half's wage - who does a job that only four companies in the world can do. Constantly in demand, her job has taken her all over the world over the years.
If I spent five years training, I doubt that I would be able to do her job, the same would apply without any shodow of a doubt, to so called tradesmen.

Rendering job:
I asked a plasterer working nearby, if he was available for a "foreigner" (Doing a job for cash in hand payment) that he could do in his spare time.
"Yes" came the reply, "I do them with my mate and we charge £100 per day each"
He had a quick look around to see how much the half a house would need and told me roughly, it would take around four days.

Some would say this is good value.... they would be wrong!
The better half would have to work overtime, after her 40 hour week and on a Sunday, to get £14 an hour BEFORE the taxman takes his cut of 33% (For a specialist trained job)
The tradesmen who can plaster, expect to be paid more than £1 per hour more, for working on a Saturday and having me labour for them.
It would take our lass more than three weeks wages to almost break even, with what the plasterers want for four days work.

How is this not a complete joke?

The company the plasterers work for don't pay them anywhere near £15 per hour and the cost of the full job to me the customer would be almost the same price overall, than any so called "foreigner" that these two jokers propose!

Rewiring:
I was quoted by a local electrician, that it would take four lads to come in and blitz the job, probably taking around four days to complete a full rewire. Price quoted was close to £4000!
That's a staggering £28 per hour per each of the four tradesmen I was told would be required!

I enquired through my contacts on the actual cost of wire - 100 metre rolls of twin and earth etc (100 metres is the maximum recommended length for a ring main, ie, all the downstairs plugs)
The cost per roll of wire would be around £67 each - surely there must be some mistake?
£67 per roll?
No mistake, roughly four rolls would be needed for main sockets/lights. etc. If I am generous and add on two rolls to cover any other wiring required, this brings the total cost for the wiring to £402 - a huge gap between the cost of wire and the price quoted of almost £4000 I'm sure you'll agree.

These tradesmen want wages, for four days, which would almost equal a months wage for our lass!
This quote is even more of a joke, as we don't have any ceilings, all wiring is open so there would be no floor boards to lift, just a pair of step ladders is required.

Don't get me wrong, I am not doubting that these tradesmen have worked hard and learned their chosen trade. I am not doubting their skills are up to scratch, but these quotes belong in a joke book!
Many will say that the tradesmen need to make a living, but this is just greed, plain and simple.

In the example of the plasterers - when we built the extention, our friend who is a roofer, ripped out, rebuilt and repaired the old roof and beams. They then fitted all the new beams, fitted all the new felt and then carried and laid two pallets of new roof tiles and reused half of the old tiles, charging me around the same money as both plasterers want for four days work, putting on a scratch coat and render.

When my local Tesco store were selling Lurpak at a 50p higher price than you could buy it from the same store, same shelf, if you placed an order online, I watched their shelf price for almost two weeks. Nothing changed.

Once we had run out of said Lurpak, I collared the customer service manager at the store, after I was forced to pay the higher price for it, than they were selling it for with online orders (See link above for full post) and "had a word."

In full view and earshot of the cigarette queue, I left him in no doubt that I thought he was ripping people shopping in his store off.

Imagine my surprise when 24 hours later, the same Lurpak pack sizes saw their prices in the same Tesco store, reduced to just £1 - from the £1.50 they were sold at for two weeks previously for online orders.
As they cannot advertise it as an offer - it hasn't been on sale at the higher price for two weeks according to their own price checker - they have been forced into displaying the £1 price as a standard price label!

So tonight, now that they have got some stock in, I picked up ten packs, saving me a whopping £5 - all this from one product line.
Even better is the fact that everyone shopping at the store will also benefit from the 50p saving per pack.

Amazing how, just by shouting Tesco management down in front of customers, they change their whole approach to pricing by demographics and hoping no one would notice the difference for people ordering from the store via the internet and those calling into the store.

Little victories my friends, little victories...

Little treasures children's trust charity have instructed a solicitor to act on their behalf, and attempts have been made to make, "the website with the name frugalways.co.uk, incapable of use, at least pending resolution of this matter."
If steps are not taken to do this and my personal contact information is not released (even though it would be a contravention of the Data Protection Act) then "Court proceedings maybe necessary against you." ("You" being the domain name company that I registered frugalways with)

By posting actual experiences of my dealings with little treasures children's trust and their collectors (working for east london textiles - ELT - or little treasures children's trust directly, the lady at the charity wouldn't or couldn't confirm either was correct)) at the link above, their solicitor has deemed this to be, "defamatory of our client and its business."
Using the Civil procedure rules 1998 - Defamation claims, the solicitor is demanding my personal contact information be made available.
The basis for this action I am told, both in the letter and on the telephone today from their solicitor, is from the text of my blog post, stated in their letter.
Unfortunately, the letter does not specify any specific text at all!

According to the solicitor representing little treasures children's trust, what "makes matters more serious," is the following;

• "A link from the frugalways.co.uk to the website of little treasures children's trust" - No such link has ever existed in the blog post concerned.
• "An invitation to people associated with our client, to contact the Charity commission" - No such "invitation" exists in my original blog post - I would strenuously defend that any such invitation, if it did exist, would be breaking not one single law, rule or procedure!

Facts ommitted from the letter sent by the solicitor representing little treasures children's trust, to the domain name company, include;

• Any text or links that are considered to be defamation
• Little treasures children's trust already have my personal details, these were given to the charity when I contacted them to report their delivery person - so why demand them officially and request this website be made "unusable"? Would this not be defamation of myself under the Civil procedure rules 1998?
• Both the posting of the bags and the later collection of bags in the area, without any form of licence being issued by the local authority, secretary of state or police authority, was an offence under the House to House Collections Act 1939 (and subsequent amendments)
• Little treasures children's trust charity and East london textiles ltd (collection agents of said charity) had both admitted to myself - in the case of the charity - and our local council's chief licensing officer - in the case of east london textiles ltd - that neither had a licence to carry out any house to house collections. They went further, admitting that neither of them had even applied for a licence!
• Staff at little treasures children's trust have informed me of how much they like the website frugalways.co.uk, especially "Your diary posts, we think it's really great to hear how a father handles school holidays and childcare!"

Little treasures children's trust can contact me anytime, they have my home phone number and address already. They can email me via the website, they are free to visit the website and leave comments under the original (or this) post.
As I stated to their solicitor directly, if they request I edit or review any part of my factual account, of my own personal experience, I will happily look at their requests, but as yet, they have failed to clarify which parts of my post they find defamatory.

What I will not do, is remove the post on the whim of a solicitor's letter, which is inaccurate in it's claims of website links and "invitations" to contact the charity commission in my original blog post.

I find it disturbing that a charity would go to such lengths and spend essential money, trying to have my website made "unusable" whilst they gather information that they already have in their posession?

If any staff of little treasures children's trust are reading this post, (I know you visit this website as you have told me so already) please feel free to contact me, as unfortunately, your solicitor, once I had asked for clarification of where I have posted what he claims I have posted, refuses to discuss the matter any further. (A point I will make vigorously in my defence should legal action be commenced!)

UPDATE:

Little treasures children's trust are not just targeting this website with solicitors letters - instead of sorting out the problem of doorstep collecting ILLEGALLY, they would prefer to frighten off bad publicity by stopping people from publishing their experiences on internet websites and forums.

I wonder why?

Many people still rent their televisions, freeview recorders, washing machines, tumble dryers, fridges, etc.
With a simple phone call, you can reduce how much you pay for these items.

Every so often throughout the year, the rental price of each item is reduced, normally when they are a year older.
The rental companies rely on people not knowing when this is and not checking that they are getting the best deal.

About twice a year, I contact my rental company (I rent my television) and each time the price is reduced. It may be only £4 per month cheaper, but even with that small saving, I have managed to keep another £48 a year in my family's pocket!