DARKMATTERS
Registered User
- Messages
- 38
I think it would be highly unfair for consumers, that once a matter is before the High Court that deals with the same issue, the FSPO is precluded from investigating or adjudicating on individual complaints.
Against that, the legislation allows a consumer to go to either the Ombudsman or the High Court.
So I can see it from FBD's point of view. It would be a bizarre outcome if the High Court upheld a case and the Ombudsman rejected the same case, or vice versa.
But what I think doesn't matter. Let the High Court decide.
Brendan
Brendan,Can you explain what you mean by a "non-law" issue?
In the AIB Prevailing Rate case, we asked the Ombudsman to rule on the interpretation of Clause 3.2.
If the same question was currently being considered by the High Court, I could see why AIB might ask the Ombudsman to defer a decision.
If someone had a "non-law" issue e.g. that AIB had maladministered their account, then that would not be affected.
Brendan
Section 57 KB (4)
(4) The Financial Services Ombudsman is entitled to perform the functions imposed, and exercise the powers conferred, by this Act free from interference by any other person and, when dealing with a particular complaint, is required to act in an informal manner and according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the complaint without regard to technicality or legal form.
There is no doubt that this wider discretion gives the consumer a better chance with the Ombudsman than with the High Court.
It will be interesting to see how the Court rules in FBD's challenge.
Brendan,
I am in total agreement with you.
Personally, I think
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?