jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 1, 2024 9:35:05 GMT
We are not talking about the Ombudsman case published on the FOS website. We are talking about the more recent cases related to the recent fees. AC have used the argument in all those more recent cases. Just to go back to my previous observation: I think (but it appears consistent with the facts) the argument FOS has used is the average investor saves a ton of cash when he firm does not enter administration (and subsiduary to that: for as long as it avoids administration) which in the case of the average investor benefits them - even after paying the fee. [Bear in mind, the fee is 'pro-rata' and the recoveries will be pro-rata also] Yep, as I was careful to point out, I am not questioning the logic, simply whether the reasoning put forward by AC is admissible. I have never seen it before, in fact I have seen the opposite where it wasn't admissible. There are lots of FOS cases where FOS rulings have pushed companies into administration, I have been involved in one outside p2p. Am also not suggesting it would produce the best out come. I honestly don't know. It is what it is now with multiple people being supported by legal firms in the case of AC (not me)and multiple complaints submitted
|
|
DeafEater
Member of DD Central
Extremely Moderate
Posts: 228 
Likes: 304
|
Post by DeafEater on Aug 1, 2024 11:16:42 GMT
The FOS didn't order AC to pay compensation to everyone in the wind turbine case. In fact the FOS can't do that. AC offered investors a settlement outside the FOS process. This prevented a wave of complaints hitting AC and the FOS. For those that complained via the FOS in the wind turbine mess up, AC settled just before the final Ombudsman ruling, so the rulings were never published on the FOS website. Apologies then to frank121 if I'd got your hopes up. I'd remembered that AC had felt obliged to pay up in the turbine debacle, but clearly hadn't registered that the reason was because they'd calculated the wind wasn't blowing in their direction WRT the multiple ongoing FOS complaints rather than their outcome. In those days, waiting for the judgement would have meant reputational damage in addition to cost, but I guess nowadays, futher reputational damage seems a little implausible.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 1, 2024 12:42:38 GMT
The FOS didn't order AC to pay compensation to everyone in the wind turbine case. In fact the FOS can't do that. AC offered investors a settlement outside the FOS process. This prevented a wave of complaints hitting AC and the FOS. For those that complained via the FOS in the wind turbine mess up, AC settled just before the final Ombudsman ruling, so the rulings were never published on the FOS website. Apologies then to frank121 if I'd got your hopes up. I'd remembered that AC had felt obliged to pay up in the turbine debacle, but clearly hadn't registered that the reason was because they'd calculated the wind wasn't blowing in their direction WRT the multiple ongoing FOS complaints rather than their outcome. In those days, waiting for the judgement would have meant reputational damage in addition to cost, but I guess nowadays, futher reputational damage seems a little implausible. Also worth remembering that the AC compensation for the wind turbine mess came primarily by taking out deemed excess from the Access Account Provision Funds. Somewhat ironic if the PF nows turns out to be insufficient by a similar amount. The PF figure quoted on the website is accurate as of 31st January... about as useful as a chocolate teapot for anyone lender looking to assess the strength now...
|
|
loadsahope
Member of DD Central
Posts: 84
Likes: 44
|
Post by loadsahope on Oct 28, 2024 9:58:15 GMT
|
|
