Talk:Financial Ombudsman Service
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Clean up tags
[edit]The article is quite long and not written in accordance with WP:STYLE. In addition, the majority of text seems biased against the Finanancial Ombudsman Service. Even if correct, it is not clear whether the statements are opinion or fact. In summary, the article needs to be cleaned up. It shouldn't be a big job. Millstream3 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem that long. Who would clean it up? Doesn't wikipedia work on the 'wisdom of the crowd'? If you feel that the article lacks neutrality than just add some counter-facts. The article's been edited 100s of times. Do you feel that your opinion is more important than other contributors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.195.13 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Entry update
[edit]Hello. I work for the Financial Ombudsman Service. Because of the obvious conflict of interest and for ethical reasons, I am not comfortable editing this page. However, we have recently released our annual review 2012/2013 – www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/index.html – and now would be a good time to update this entry. We’d be grateful if someone would take the time to have a look. We'd also really appreciate any suggestions on how we can update the page in the future or correct some of the errors on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanemckenna7 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Shane, I'll gladly help in updating the page. What changes do you think are needed? PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Entry update continued
[edit]Following the above discussion, Shane posted his suggested changes to the article on my talk page:
Extended content |
|---|
|
Hello Phil I hope you're well. A little while ago I was in touch with you about making a few changes to our article. Because of the conflict of interests, I don't want to make the changes myself. I've put together a document with the corrections and edits we'd like to make, but I don't seem to have the option of adding an attachement here, so I'll just copy and paste below if that okay. We may still want to make a few edits to the triennial reviews section, as it's inaccurate and out-of-date. But I'll get back to you on that. By the way, if it's easier to sort this out via email or over the phone just let me know. Thanks a lot Shane
I’ve entered the corrected or updated version in bold.
Before the ombudsman can step in, the consumer must first give the business they are unhappy with the opportunity to look into the complaint itself - before the ombudsman service can make a decision on the dispute. The business has a maximum of eight weeks to resolve the complaint. If they do not resolve it within 8 weeks or the consumer is not happy with the response then they can refer the complaint to the ombudsman service. Also, it may be better with fewer examples of the financial matters we cover – perhaps just the first nine or so (until loans and credit). Also, it would probably look better in bullet form?
… the law requires the ombudsman to take into account: relevant law and regulations; regulator’s rules …
The Financial Ombudsman Service is funded by the UK's financial services sector through a combination of statutory levies and case fees. These are paid by financial businesses that are regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) or licensed by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and are automatically covered by law by the ombudsman service.
The Financial Ombudsman Service publishes the proportion of complaints it upholds in favour of consumers ranging (in 2011/2012) between 2% and 99% DELETE depending on the financial product and business concerned. Across all complaints in 2013/2013 the ombudsman found 49% in favour of consumers. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/dealt.html#a6c …second paragraph The ombudsman was set up by parliament as an impartial and independent body, though its decisions can be criticised by the side that loses. The ombudsman was set up by parliament to be an impartial and independent body, though, as with the courts, its decisions can be subject to criticism.
[replace with] Since September 2009 the ombudsman has been publishing complaints data on its website every six months about named individual businesses. The data shows the number of new complaints – and the proportion of complaints upheld in favour of consumers – for businesses that have 30 or more new cases (and 30 or more resolved cases) in each six-month period. The complaints data shows that: - Just under 200 businesses (out of more than 100,000 covered by the ombudsman service) together generate around 90% of the complaints workload. - The number of complaints relating to each individual business ranges from 30 to over 45,000. - The proportion of cases upheld in favour of the consumer varies substantially from business to business – between 3% and 100%.' http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/dealt.html#a7
The entire ombudsman staff in 2007 (including substantial number of ancillary staff) was 960. They managed to handle 627,814 initial enquiries and close 111,673 cases which had been sent to for adjudication. Despite this incredible workload the BBC reported in September 2007 that the ombudsman planned to reduce staff numbers to 600, reflecting the decline in mortgage endowment complaints.[24] By December 2009 ombudsman staff had increased to over 1,000 - reflecting a substantially increased workload of 200,000 cases. In March 2012 the number of staff had increased to 2,000, to deal with a further doubling in the number of complaints - with up to 1,500 new cases each day just about payment protection insurance (PPI). DELETE Currently there are 3,500 people working at the ombudsman – reflecting a substantially increased workload of over half a million cases last year (2012/2013). Staffing levels at the Financial Ombudsman Service fluctuate - as does the budget year-on-year - to match the volume of disputes it is dealing with. The number of staff required - and forecasts for complaints volumes and workload - are consulted on publicly each year in the ombudsman's corporate plan and budget.
Around 90% of the disputes that the Financial Ombudsman Service resolves are settled at earlier informal stages, without the intervention of an ombudsman. An ombudsman's decision is the final stage of the Financial Ombudsman Service's process. If the consumer with the complaint accepts a final decision, it is binding on both parties and enforceable in court. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/dealt.html
The Independent Assessor is appointed by the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service. The current holder of the post is Linda Costelloe-Baker DELETE Amerdeep Somal [NEW] who has held several similar posts. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/IA-appointment-Apr2013.htm The Independent Assessor reports formally to the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service - which publishes a report in full each year on the Financial Ombudsman Service's website.
Timeliness - In the ten twelve years since the ombudsman service was created… The ombudsman's most recently published annual review (2010/11) shows that half of complaints were sorted out in three months or less (47%) and three quarters (75%) in 6 months. DELETE The ombudsman’s most recent recently published annual review (2012/2013) shows that 58% of all disputes were sorted out within six months – and 43% of non-PPI cases within three months. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/index.html#a3 the fact that 35% of the Ombudsmen are solicitors DELETE Though the ombudsman service currently upholds 49% of complaints in favour of the consumer, there have been complaints that the awards are inadequate. |
These were mostly updates, and I've now made most of these changes. In a couple of cases, I preferred the existing wording, and I rephrased a paragraph to improve readability. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Triennial reviews section update
[edit]
Hello
The ombudsman is now undergoing another external review. Could you update the triennial reveiw section with the following info:
As of October 2013, the ombudsman's board has commissioned the service's fourth external review. The Future Foundation [link] – specialists in trend analysis – will conduct a review of the ombudsman's role in the changing world of financial services. The review will also encompass how changes in technology, consumer expectations and brand management will affect the ombudsman’s work.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanemckenna7 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
old / broken links
[edit]
Hi
I’ve been having a look at the article and am concerned a good few of the references are either dead links or a good bit out of date.
The following numbered links are either dead links or a good five or six years old (and therefore not of much value): 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64 and 70.
Would it be possible to remove these please?
Any help is much appreciated!
Thanks Shane Shanemckenna7 (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- No - dead links are repairable WP:LINKROT Ronhjones (Talk) 20:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Triennial reviews section
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Duplicate (older version) of the request below. |
Hello
I’m also worried that this section is too long and a bit meandering. I think a paragraph on each of the four reviews is enough. Something along the lines of the below would probably do just as well. What do you think?
Extended content |
|---|
|
The non-executive board of the ombudsman service commissions external reviews of the service: The first in 2004 involved an assessment of the operations of the ombudsman carried out by Bristol University’s Personal Financial Research Centre. The review “Fair and reasonable: an assessment of the Financial Ombudsman Service” concluded that the ombudsman is a “thoughtful, well-managed organisation doing a good job under difficult circumstances”.[1] The second, in 2007/2008, was undertaken by Lord Hunt – a former government minister – who was commissioned to conduct an independent review focusing on the openness and accessibility of the service. The review included 73 specific recommendations – such as offering a freephone service and a “wooden spoon” for worst performing businesses.[2] The third review happened in 2012 when the National Audit Office published a report into the efficiency of the service. It identified having to cope with volatile demand as a key test for the ombudsman service that “gives rise to major operational challenges”.[3] In October 2013, the ombudsman's board commissioned its fourth external review. The Future Foundation, specialists in trend analysis, conduct a review of the ombudsman's role, which has been allocated a budget of £200,000. The review will encompass how changes in technology, consumer expectations and brand management will affect the ombudsman’s work.[4] References
|
Happy to hear anyone's thoughts.
Thanks Shane Shanemckenna7 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm closing this COI edit request as a duplicate (older version) of the same/similar request below. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Triennial review section
[edit]
| Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
Hello
Hopefully someone can help. The section titled "Triennial reviews" is too long in comparison to the other sections. Is it possible to shorten this section? It would improve the article overall. I can't do it myself because of a conflict of interest. Could the entire section be replaced with something along the lines of this:
Extended content |
|---|
|
The non-executive board of the ombudsman service commissions external reviews of the service: The first in 2004 involved an assessment of the operations of the ombudsman carried out by Bristol University’s Personal Financial Research Centre. The review “Fair and reasonable: an assessment of the Financial Ombudsman Service” concluded that the ombudsman is a “thoughtful, well-managed organisation doing a good job under difficult circumstances”.[1] The second, in 2007/2008, was undertaken by Lord Hunt – a former government minister – who was commissioned to conduct an independent review focusing on the openness and accessibility of the service. The review included 73 specific recommendations – such as offering a freephone service and a “wooden spoon” for worst performing businesses.[2] The third review happened in 2012 when the National Audit Office published a report into the efficiency of the service. It identified having to cope with volatile demand as a key test for the ombudsman service that “gives rise to major operational challenges”.[3] In October 2013, the ombudsman's board commissioned its fourth external review. The Future Foundation, specialists in trend analysis, conducted a review of the ombudsman's role, which was allocated a budget of £200,000. This included extensive research into how the financial world is changing – and how this is likely to affect the relationship between businesses and their customers over the next decade.[4] References
|
I'd be very grateful if someone would kindly take the time to make this improvement.
Thanks Shanemckenna7 (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the current § Triennial reviews section is overly long and too detailed. It is also not clear enough which parts of that text are citations and which are not. The current section is also underlinked (has 0 links to other articles). --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The proposed content is not acceptable because it relies exclusively on the website operated by the subject of the article as a source, whereas the Wikipedia page should be primarily constructed from credible, independent sources. However, the current content had the same issue, and so I have stubbed it down to just a sentence. If an editor wishes to add to it, please find credible, independent, secondary sources to support the additions. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Financial Ombudsman Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704203613/http://www.which.co.uk/press/press_topics/campaign_news/personal_finance/hunt_review_apr09_571_136149.jsp to http://www.which.co.uk/press/press_topics/campaign_news/personal_finance/hunt_review_apr09_571_136149.jsp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704203613/http://www.which.co.uk/press/press_topics/campaign_news/personal_finance/hunt_review_apr09_571_136149.jsp to http://www.which.co.uk/press/press_topics/campaign_news/personal_finance/hunt_review_apr09_571_136149.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Financial Ombudsman Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315083628/http://www.networkfso.org/Links.html to http://networkfso.org/Links.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Financial Ombudsman Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927154256/http://www.fool.co.uk/news/your-money/manage-your-finances/2007/06/07/consumers_havent_lost_faith_in_financial_ombudsman.aspx to http://www.fool.co.uk/news/your-money/manage-your-finances/2007/06/07/consumers_havent_lost_faith_in_financial_ombudsman.aspx
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2303780.0.banking_complaints_justified.php - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320183027/http://www.fos-problems.co.uk/ to http://www.fos-problems.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)