I hear you Pado.
From your first post I could only make a generalised stab at your issues, so sorry if I have over stepped things.
........................
I cannot see it in FSO,s remit to force a Bank to engage.It seems you supplied FSO with good info. Yes It appears the Bank lent in a very unwise assinine manner , yes it appears they lent differently to you as per normal customers. There is no law ,against how they lent to you and no law on stupid lending.
You got compensation 300 for Bank issue on customer service.
It will be looked at that you took the money = tough.
I would suggest Fso may have thought , that since you were in Banking you should have known the pitfalls!( I know hindsight is great !)
The whole issue of 6 year rule is very unsatisfactory.
What the Law REform In 2011 proposed was that people could claim for 3 years AFTER they become aware of an issue.
Only in Very Very few cases is there an allowance on this point (if there was I would have thousands ppi cases)
You are correct .Our FSO was supposed to avoid long/expensive legal wrangling.Having deals forced to High Court is not good.
If there is any comfort for you; I strongly sense a more pragmatic view coming into Banks on arrears/mortgages . There have been some great threads on AAM , can I suggest put your figures in and see what some of the excellent contributors come back with.