Awaiting an Ombudsman decision but now bank wants to return to mediation!!!

L

Louis

Registered User
Messages
10
I have a case with the Ombudsman for 4 years.
It went through the normal processes - complaint to the bank and Ombudsman mediation before the exhausting exchange of correspondence.
The bank has been absolutely firm in their dismissal of any of my arguments.
It's been well over a year since it went to adjudication and I am waiting for the decision any day now.

And now out of the blue, the bank has asked the Ombudsman to refer it back to mediation.

Has anyone heard of this before? Is it worth going back to mediation?
 
Hello,

If you don't want to return to mediation, just say so. You can say the you've no confidence in it resolving matters to your satisfaction, having tried it previously.

My guess is that the institution in question has been given a signal (or just sense) that there's going to be a ruling against them.
 
Took several successful cases against Bank of Ireland, the question of mediation gave up as a tick box yes or no option when I was completing the form.

I ticked no as it was a black and white issue and I was in the right.

It never came up again and if it had I would have declined immediately.

This related to tracker mortgages 14 years ago. It took a year before BOI threw in the towel.

Ring them up (Ombudsman) and speak to the case worker and decline mediation.
 
If they want mediation after all that time then your case may be something that could trigger a bigger issue for the Bank concerned .

They probably stonewalled you in the first instance and didnt expect you to stay in the fight to get a complaint ruling in your favour .
Its like a "Settle on the Steps thing from a High Court Case "
 
I have not come across this before and I don't see the point of it.

Before the Central Bank tracker review, Ulster Bank used to pursue case which they knew they would lose because they had lost similar cases, all the way until the exchange of correspondence was finished. Then out of the blue, they would write to the Ombudsman and ask them to put the case on hold while they tried to resolve the matter directly with the borrower. The borrower got their tracker back and compensation. The borrower then withdrew the complaint from the Ombudsman.

Ulster Bank's strategy was that many borrowers find the process exhausting and just give up. But for the ones who don't, they settle before an Ombudsman's decision as they did not want to appear on the Annual Report with lots of complaints upheld.

It's even more serious now. The Central Bank has told the banks that if the Ombudsman upholds a case on an issue that affects other people, then they must roll out that decision to all affected customers, whether they have complained or not.

My guess here, and it's only a guess, is that the bank either thinks that it's going to lose this or even if it thinks that it is going to win it, the risk of losing it is just too high. Let's say that there are 1,000 others facing this issue. Even if the chances of losing are only 10%, it would make sense for the bank to pay anything to avoid the complaint being upheld.

If I were the bank in this case, I would play the Ulster Bank trick and ask the Ombudsman to put the decision on hold while I try to settle directly with the customer.

So why are they asking for mediation? This just makes no sense at all to me. You complained to the bank. That got nowhere. You went through mediation, that got nowhere. You have probably used up a lot of time and energy at the investigation stage. I wonder are they trying to wear you out? Is it possible that if mediation fails, then the Ombudsman would go back to Square one, and you would wait another 4 years for a decision/

Here is what might go wrong. You agree to mediation in good faith. It fails. Then you or the bank make some comment to the person who is investigating, as distinct from mediating, your complaint. The mediation process is separate, but now your comment to the investigator has compromised the investigation, so they have to excuse themselves from the process and a new investigator is appointed.

So, you politely refuse to go back to mediation. You copy the person in the bank who wrote to the Ombudsman. You tell them that while you are refusing mediation, if the bank wishes to approach you directly to settle the case to your satisfaction, they may do so, but that should not hold back the issuing of a decision by the Ombudsman. If the bank makes you a suitable settlement offer, then you can withdraw your complaint. Any discussions with the bank would be without prejudice. In other words, if they make you an offer which you decline, you cannot tell the Ombudsman.
 
Let's say that bank offers to pay you what you are asking for in full, say €10,000.

Don't just jump at it.

You are obviously well resourced and competent to get it this far. There may be others affected by the same issue who don't even know that they have a complaint.

If you can afford to, it might be better to risk losing the case, so that hundreds of others affected by the issue would also benefit.

In particular, if the bank makes the offer subject to a non-disclosure agreement, you should refuse it.
 
I am interested in the Ombudsman's approach to this.

I think that they should have smelled a rat here and declined to reopen the mediation process even if both parties agree.

If banks are settling cases quietly and confidentially, without notifying the Central Bank, then I think that they are in breach of the rules.

Brendan
 
@Brendan Burgess

I agree entirely.

The Ombudsman's office should not be permitting this, the time for mediation has been and gone (assuming it was ever there, to begin with).

I also think that they should have put a stop to the "Ulster Bank strategy", once a pattern began to emerge.

My feeling is that if a Bank wishes to propose a settlement, it should be recorded as the Bank admitting responsibility, with regards to the complaint (but the offer should not be disclosed to the Ombudsman, if the complainant doesn't accept the offer).
 
Interesting.

If I have a one off dispute with a bank or insurance company which has no implications for anyone else, then a mediated settlement is fine. The bank may well settle it without any admission of liability and that genuinely means "Well it's a grey area and we will just settle it to dispose of it".
This should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

In the AIB Prevailing Rate case, we were aware that AIB might try to settle generously with Karen, but it was part of the strategy in selecting Karen as the test case, that she would not accept a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. As it happens, AIB did not try that.

But if the OP's issue applies to others, then The Ombudsman should not allow it back to mediation.

The Ombudsman generally needs to review their approach to systemic issues. Whatever way they are settled, the CB should be notified.
 
CorkHome2022 said:
Its like a "Settle on the Steps thing from a High Court Case "
Click to expand...

It's more like settle after we have spent 5 days in the High Court and are awaiting the Judge to deliver his decision. Settling beforehand is a valid approach. But I am still scratching my head as to why they would try to settle afterwards.

If they have lost another Ombudsman's case on the same issue, it would be outrageous for the Ombudsman to even suggest mediation. So that has not happened.

It could be a new employee in the bank from another bank who has looked at the case and said "We have no chance here lads - let's settle. We don't want this decision published".

Even if the Ombudsman does not refer this to the Central Bank, all decisions are now published so the CB would be aware of it, and presumably would ask the Ombudsman which bank was involved.
 
Re the above , this demonstrates why its so important to get advice every step of the way . We have a complaint with FSPO since 2022 and advice we have is that our case is solid but our provider just shrugged us off when we complained .
We would not be inclined to mediate now as this plainly looks like the person posting the thread is on the winning side of their complaint.
For me being pragmatic it would have to take a Kings ransom to settle now so we are happy to wait knowing our provider has much more to answer for if FSPO rule in our favour .
 
Maybe I am on the wrong track but should not FSPO now make this a priority for adjudication ?
What is in your case that has the Bank worried ? Will it set a precedence for others and ultimately what could it cost the bank if you win your case as Brendan said above if Banks are settling cases without notification to the Central Bank then there is a big issue as reporting errors is a big part of the Consumer Protection Code .
FSPO should be taking a big picture view on this not just the one case awaiting a decision.
 
CorkHome2022 said:
FSPO should be taking a big picture view on this not just the one case awaiting a decision.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, the ombudsman has no sense of priority. It will write a 40 page decision about someone who complains that they lost €20 incorrectly at an ATM machine as they will give to a systemic issue which would give closure to 1,000 consumers. And the €20 complainant pushes all the rest to the back of the queue. In fact, from the Ombudsman's stats, I think that they prioritise the €20 complaint.
 
Who does FSPO answer to ? Dail Public Accounts ??? A good project for some opposition TD to get their teeth stuck into.
 
I don't think that they are answerable to anyone in that sense. They are indpendent.

They do appear before the Oireachtas Finance Committee from time to time.
 
Absolutely no way

They bank is NOT doing this in anyway shape of form to benefit you

They are concerned now

The bank might anticipate that the upcoming adjudication decision will be unfavourable to them.

By requesting mediation, they could be seeking to avoid a legally binding adverse decision & a 'mediated' settlement offers both parties more control over the outcome compared to an adjudicated decision, (which is imposed by the FSPO)

The bank would prefer a mutually agreed settlement to a decision that could set a precedent or be more punitive!!!

and an adjudicated decision, especially if appealed to the High Court by either party(this can be done) could lead to more public scrutiny or prolonged legal costs!!
 
MrEarl said:
Please remind me, who funds the Ombudsman's office ?
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter who funds the Ombudsman. The whole point of an ombudsman is that they're independent. This is supposed to protect them both from pressures from the organisations/institutions that they investigate and from political pressure from the government of the day.

The FSP Ombudsman is supervised by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Council, but they have no power to direct the ombudsman or to review or alter the ombudsman's decisions or findings. The Minister does have a power to remove the ombudsman for incapacity due to ill-health or for misbehaviour, and the Council can advice the Minister in relation to the exericise of those powers. (The Council also has the power to set the levy that financial institutions pay to fund the ombudsman's office; that's probably its most significant function.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top