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.
Ombudsman has just uploaded another batch of tracker decisions
- Thread starter SaySomething
- Start date
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,142
Hi Bronte
On that basis a person should go to court without any lawyers on either side. The facts would be presented in a neutral manner and the judge would decide.
In practice what happens, is that the complainant makes a complaint. Most of the complaints I have seen have been kitchen sink complaints. They threw everything at the Ombudsman and it was all over the place. The bank loves this and highlights some of the irrelevant issues and argues backwards and forwards. So it's easy for the Ombudsman to miss the key issue.
But if you look at the Ombudsman's decisions, they usually get to the nub of the issue and often point out that issues raised by the complainant and by the bank are irrelevant.
Just to be clear, the banks are shockingly bad in their defence of these complaints, making really stupid arguments.
But if the complainant can simplify the complaint and focus, they have a much better chance of winning.
But the temptation to go off on a rant about irrelevant issues is just too tempting for most complainants.
Brendan
On that basis a person should go to court without any lawyers on either side. The facts would be presented in a neutral manner and the judge would decide.
In practice what happens, is that the complainant makes a complaint. Most of the complaints I have seen have been kitchen sink complaints. They threw everything at the Ombudsman and it was all over the place. The bank loves this and highlights some of the irrelevant issues and argues backwards and forwards. So it's easy for the Ombudsman to miss the key issue.
But if you look at the Ombudsman's decisions, they usually get to the nub of the issue and often point out that issues raised by the complainant and by the bank are irrelevant.
Just to be clear, the banks are shockingly bad in their defence of these complaints, making really stupid arguments.
But if the complainant can simplify the complaint and focus, they have a much better chance of winning.
But the temptation to go off on a rant about irrelevant issues is just too tempting for most complainants.
Brendan
Indeed we are in agreement on most things.
The issue for FSPO is that the Oireachtas considerably changed the powers and influence potential of the FSPO - so why did they do that? Many politicians believed that FSPO was constrained. Yet there are fundamental principles that actually should work in favour of complainant and these are flatly ignored.
As I mentioned i don't see the influence of ECJ on the decided cases and I think that is problematic.
As they have hired people from banks I don't being in customer shoes making an appearance at all.
Also what did acting in the best interests of customers actually mean?
The issue for FSPO is that the Oireachtas considerably changed the powers and influence potential of the FSPO - so why did they do that? Many politicians believed that FSPO was constrained. Yet there are fundamental principles that actually should work in favour of complainant and these are flatly ignored.
As I mentioned i don't see the influence of ECJ on the decided cases and I think that is problematic.
As they have hired people from banks I don't being in customer shoes making an appearance at all.
Also what did acting in the best interests of customers actually mean?
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,142
Just to remind you what the Act actually says:
Section 12
(11) Subject to this Act, the Ombudsman, when dealing with a particular complaint, shall act in an informal manner and according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the complaint without undue regard to technicality or legal form.
So, it's not clear to me, that quoting the ECJ gives the Ombudsman any wider powers.
Brendan
Section 12
(11) Subject to this Act, the Ombudsman, when dealing with a particular complaint, shall act in an informal manner and according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the complaint without undue regard to technicality or legal form.
So, it's not clear to me, that quoting the ECJ gives the Ombudsman any wider powers.
Brendan