Financial ombudsman independent arbitrator or the Banks deflective shield?

A question about : Financial ombudsman independent arbitrator or the Banks deflective shield?

There is reoccurring piece of advice that is dispensed in the media, blogs, and forums like this. It relates to financial disputes.
I am referring to the service offered by the free financial ombudsman. I have looked through the forum to see if there are any negative postings about this service and haven’t found any (maybe I haven’t looked hard enough). So what I am about to say might make me extremely unpopular so if your offended just treat it as a bit of devils advocacy. I had the misfortune to use this service after a dispute I had with a very well known bank and I will call it, (I am not sure if reference to actual institutions on here is libellous) Auntandeer.

I had to contact the ombudsman twice because Auntandeer dismissed my complaint over the phone.
Incredibly, the ombudsman had to write to Auntandeer and tell them by not investigating my complaint properly they were breaking the law.
Auntandeer had added an additional charge not agreed too in the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. When they did investigate it, they seemed to be confused by their own contract. They explained the extra charge as calculated interest – which would have still made it an overpayment.

Auntandeer confusion continued when I took the matter to the ombudsman for the second time. This confusion was resolved by adjudicator. After considering both parties argument – then acted in a way that made a mockery of their promised neutrality. The adjudicator found in favour of Auntandeer by citing an original argument on their behalf?!
I complained about the adjudicator’s behaviour because their response was consistent with a legal department employed by Auntandeer. The adjudicator’s evaluation ignored important parts of the agreement while surreptitiously edited it in a way that brought emphasis to clauses that were not relevant.
The adjudicator could not give a reasonable explanation for their decision or the way it was handled.
It was forwarded to the ombudsman at my insistence. This stage is described again as independent, and supposed to be separate from the first stage.
I took this to mean that ombudsman would not have been told who the adjudicator had found in favour of, or which party had appealed it.
The ombudsman would only be in receipt of: my complaint, Auntandeer’s explanation, and a copy of the credit agreement.
This was not the case – every correspondence, including the adjudicator’s findings was made available to her and she actually made reference to this in her evaluation which was basically a plagiarised version of the adjudicator’s. The ombudsman service showed no inclination or remorse at not honour the mandate set out on their website.

This may seem unbelievable but I have kept all the correspondence with both Auntandeer and the ombudsman service and still have the loan agreement – so I can prove it!
If you think it is unlikely and extraordinary for the ombudsman service to behave in this way. You can find a reason. It’s in the literature on their website.
The ombudsman service does not have autonomy unless the financial institution has signed up to their service on a voluntary basis. This would mean that the only impetus for involvement is if they will benefit. This raises doubt about their promised impartiality.
My experience was one of extreme bias they served only as a prop for some very unsavoury business practices.
There is another important point that is never mentioned – even if the ombudsman finds in your favour. The other party is under no obligation to accept their findings. They can reject it – making the service itself a complete sham.
When I drafted this post I decided to double check my facts. I was under the impression the ombudsman service was funded by the tax payer. A google search revealed it’s funded by the companies that sign up for it with an annual subscription. Mmmmh enough said.

Best answers:

• Regulated Financial Services businesses are required to pay a levy and case fees to the Ombudsman Service. It's usually required as a condition of their license to trade. They cannot 'opt out' of this - consumers have a right to take their complaint to the Service if they remain unhappy after the business has investigated their complaint. The business can't turn around and say 'we don't want to be part of this, bye bye Ombudsman'.
  It sounds like you've had a hard time. However from professional experience, I've often experienced the Ombudsman Service to be far more likely to find in favour of consumers than businesses. Not always, but frequently. It very much seems to be a case of who you get there on the day!
• Have we got this right? Santander rejected your complaint, an adjudicator also rejected it, the ombudsman subsequently agreed with the adjudicator?
  Quote:
• Should have searched forum titles for ombudsman before you put your case in to the FOS as there are many moaning about them.
  You would have found out the FOS can use whatever they like to determine the outcome of your case. Laws, T&Cs, and presidents don't matter.
  I think you are a bit confused about its decisions. A bank has no obligation to accept an adjudicators opinion. However, a ombudsman’s final decision is enforceable in court if a customer accepts it.
  Web page https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...s-decision.pdf came directly as a result of FOI https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...determinations
• Thank you for your replies they were very informative. I will do more searches for other postings it will be interesting to see if their gripes are the same as mine.
  When I tried to lodge my complaint with Auntandeer they did their own version of the fingers in the ears and singing la la la la la were not listening.
  I contacted the ombudsman and they told me I had to give the company a chance to deal with it.
  I had to tell them I’d exhausted their complaints procedure – it had taken a five minute playground argument by phone.
  So because they had acted like kids the ombudsman had to treat them so. A slap on the wrist later they wrote to me to tell me my complaint would be properly investigated. Their investigation revealed the extra charge to be calculated interest. Not bad going as my complaint was about an additional administration charge.
  When I went back to the ombudsman the adjudicator investigated it realised it didn’t make any sense and gave what he thought was a reasonable explanation. When I pointed out that his interpretation was every bit as flawed as Santander’s had been, and told him the reason why he also reverted to his child hood.
  From then on the argument basically centred on the wording in the terms and conditions. They said, it was my interpretation that was flawed.
  I countered by stating, it was not an interpretation, my argument was based on what the agreement actually says.
  I told them -- that they were the ones guilty of using creative opinion. The whole thing had become a little bit heated.
  As far I was concerned I had won the argument with Santander and the adjudicator. The adjudicator’s supervisor said he would pass it to the next stage and admitted that the contract was ambiguous.
  A point of law is: ambiguity in a contract shouldn’t benefit the party who drafted it. This didn’t cut much ice with them either.
  When they passed the case to ombudsman they also sent the adjudicator’s findings and all of the correspondence, (so much for a fresh pair of eyes) I think this might have influenced her decision. If I‘d accepted her findings I would still have outstanding debit to pay on a loan that everyone including Santander agrees I paid off months ago? The monies gone and I was prepared for that, but the thing that still grates more than anything is their monumental hypocrisy. The service I got was not impartial. Nothing like it.