Iain Clifford Stamp is a fraud, he defrauded me out of over £11,000. I nearly lost my business due to Matrix Freedom. The FCA are taking him to court and he is on the run.

@Yvonne Dailly The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is supposed to be independent and consumer-facing, but there are structural limits and incentives that make many people (rightly) suspicious that it ends up closer to the financial sector than to the aggrieved consumer. Below I’ll explain why that impression happens, what the FOS actually can and can’t do, and practical moves you can use to push back if you think they aren’t actually acting impartially. Why it feels like they’re “pledging allegiance” to banks 1. Funding model / industry link — the FOS is funded by fees paid by the financial firms it oversees (case fees + levies). Even if operationally independent, that funding relationship creates a perception (and pressure points) that favour industry outcomes. 2. Remit / legal constraints — the FOS decides complaints on what is “fair and reasonable” within its statutory remit. That gives wide discretion and means technical legal arguments (or statutory defences banks use) can win even when a consumer feels badly treated. 3. Practical resourcing — caseworkers handle large caseloads and often resolve many cases by negotiation; complex, novel claims requiring deep forensic work may not get the resource/time they need. 4. Outcome distribution — many routine complaints are upheld and consumers are compensated, but the high-profile or systemic cases where consumers expect big wins are often rejected, fuelling cynicism. 5. Industry knowledge asymmetry — banks and insurers are large, repeat players with experienced legal/compliance teams; FOS staff may default to industry practice if it appears standard, even when that standard is unfair. 6. No formal precedent — FOS decisions aren’t binding precedent. That lets them reach different (apparently inconsistent) outcomes that can favour firms in ambiguous areas. 7. Communication style — letters/reports that use legalistic or regulatory language conceal the real weaknesses in a firm’s case, so consumers feel stonewalled rather than listened to.

@Red Sed seems very similar, all are getting stricter on what they reveal unfortunately.

where is the link to video as i have court next month

searched in classroom tab but can't find it

In the same position and would also like to know.