Yep-True to your word Aussie scammed-just had second mail from FOS saying that I'm in their lonnnnnnnnnnng-long queue. Still I'm bout 60/40% confident of a win because of your great outcome-
by the way, that's about 60% more than when I started. I'm also glad to say that Laurents name- is at last starting to appear in the the courts. There are claims against him from all corners of the world. My other attack from another group is not far off also. For a while we thought because of his high profile he might try to abscond. The totals scammed thru BdB/OFM are staggering. The grief he has caused is immense.
Tolly
Hi Guys-Just had long awaited response from FOS-certainly not the news I was hoping for, however I still have one more shot at this and I find that with more time, new amo becomes available.
I have 30 days now to challenge Nab's and hence FOS's rejection of my claim to reimburse all of my money.
Nab are particularly difficult to work with and I find that BdB has a longer history than OFM, even tho in reality they are the same SCAMMERS (Some BdB clients have had wins)-not so OFM!!!
Below I have pasted their reply
1.2 Issues and key findings
Did the FSP breach an obligation to the applicant?
The FSP did not have an obligation to stop the applicant from trading with the merchant. This is because:
The FSP was not on notice that the merchant was engaged in fraud and operating a scam at the time the transactions were made.
The presence of a company on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) list of unlicensed companies does not establish that the FSP was, or should have been, on notice that the merchant was fraudulent.
Financial services providers do not have an obligation to continually monitor information on ASIC’s website or customer accounts for potentially fraudulent transactions.
The FSP carried out its chargeback obligations correctly.
I have a lot v homework to do now, but I haven't given up yet. Will keep you posted-
Tolly