Surely whether a case is argued badly or well doesn't matter. The facts are what matter. I don't understand how the ombudsman can reach different conclusions based on the same facts. And once you have a decision on one set of facts, then all others with the same facts should be given the same decision.Different judges will make different decisions on the same facts. So we have had 4 different Ombudsmen since the office was set up. Of course, they will reach different decisions from time to time. And the judges are usually guided by precedent. The Ombudsman is not which is a bit of a problem for the bank, but great for the consumer.