I realise Mr Burgess is busy and doesn't read the posts carefully.
I think we are in agreement on most things.
The main difference between us, and it's a huge difference, is that if the Omubdsman rejects a complaint, you think that the Ombudsman is wrong. I think that the Ombudsman is broadly right in his decisions. I have obviously disagreed with some of them. And as I have said above, I would have given trackers to some people he refused and not given trackers in some cases where he did restore them.
The badly argued case is a problem. I have seen some good complaints very badly presented and argued. Complainants and their advisors often, I would almost say, usually, let off steam on irrelevant issues and this plays into the hands of the banks. The issues are usually fairly clear cut. The complainant should focus on the simple issue and not either go off on tangents or respond to the banks trying to take them off on tangents.
I was very worried with the AIB Prevailing Rate case. Some of the arguments put forward by the borrowers were bonkers. I was worried that the Ombudsman would dismiss a complaint before we got our complaint adjudicated. I thought that if he had rejected a complaint on the issue, the bar would be much higher for us.
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.