Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,774
The Department of Finance has a consultation on the legislation covering the Financial Services Ombudsman which closes on Wed 5 March. Here is the section dealing with the 6 year time rule.
Should the 6 year time limit for Ombudsman complaints be changed?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,774
Hi Bronte
Just to be clear, "he" is not asking. It's a consultation from the Department of Finance.
I think it would be perfectly legal to extend the time period retrospectively. When the FSO legislation was introduced, it was made retrospective by 6 years.
It's different from other legislation. For example, you might make speaking on a mobile phone in a public place a criminal offence. But you could not make that retrospective.
Brendan
Just to be clear, "he" is not asking. It's a consultation from the Department of Finance.
I think it would be perfectly legal to extend the time period retrospectively. When the FSO legislation was introduced, it was made retrospective by 6 years.
It's different from other legislation. For example, you might make speaking on a mobile phone in a public place a criminal offence. But you could not make that retrospective.
Brendan
The benefits to this are enormous to customers. And you can be very sure that banks will suddenly be very very careful not to mis sell any product. Up to now they could rely on the 6 year rule to get them over the line, meaning most people were beyond the 6 years when they realised there was something wrong with a product/loan/insurance etc.
There would also be benefits to the FSO office as there would be less cases.
There would also be benefits to the FSO office as there would be less cases.
Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,502
On the 6 year rule.
Couple of years back, Law Reform Commission recommended to the effect that complaints should be allowed for 2 years from the time they were noticed (largely as happens in Pensions).
Government did not act on this ,and Government would
normally take Law Reform Recommendations on board.
There is a suspicion that Government knew there would then be Payment Protection Claims PPI , to the tune of 2.5 Billion Euro. At Bank Rescue time, that hit would have floored the Banks .Could well have been Financially (wise for Banks/dept finance/government) to keep Bank protected by keeping cases out?
Also High Court cases on PPI are progressing, so either rules are changed belatedly by regulators or by courts.
. It may just be that everyone now realises that Insurance/Investment compensations can now be carried by the Banks.
Now that Banks are (stronger) Banks can now carry the PPI hit.
May also mean some hope for people mis-sold investment type bonds.
There will still be a huge difficulty in claiming on things that are more than 6 years old ,as documentation will no longer be held by customers or Banks.
In effect the delay will mean a lot less than the 2.5Billion due.
If the change comes I welcome it ,but am left to believe that Banks have largely got away with their shenanigans in the fluffy times.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,774
Hi Gerry
This sort of factual based comment would make a great submission on the consultation.
You can be quite sure that your {friends}, the banks, will be making submissions to the contrary.
Brendan
Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,502
I do not keep a file on what law reform commission proposed , but I am assured that that recommendation from the Commission and allied documentation has been forwarded.
No doubt {my friends} will be making counter agruments.
On a little point of interest . In Economist PPI was the 2nd most costly (wrongdoing) by Banks in UK.
On another little point that may surprise ; When ppi started I was very good at selling it.!
I have no gripe with Banks per se but like us all when they ere they should sort within the spirit of the law and not have to dragged to fairness.,
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,774
Anyone who has been barred from having their complaint heard because of this rule, should make a simple submission to the Dept of Finance.
If anyone has a bit of time, it would be a great help if they did a trawl of Askaboutmoney and maybe boards.ie to identify people who were time barred and to bring this thread to their attention.
If anyone has a bit of time, it would be a great help if they did a trawl of Askaboutmoney and maybe boards.ie to identify people who were time barred and to bring this thread to their attention.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,774
I will make the following submission
Changing the time period to make it the same as the Pensions Ombudsman
(a) within whichever of the following periods is the last to expire—
(i) 6 years from the date of the act giving rise to the complaint or reference, or
(ii) 3 years from the earlier of the following 2 dates, namely, the date on which the person making
the complaint or reference first became aware of the said act and the date on which that person
ought to have become aware of that act, or
(b) within such longer period as the Pensions Ombudsman may allow if it appears to him that there
are reasonable grounds for requiring a longer period and that it would be just and reasonable so
to extend the period.
Furthermore, the 6 years or 3 years should be the deadline for making the complaint in writing to the financial services provider not the date of making the submission to the FSO.
At present the FSO insists that he cannot examine anything which happened before the time limit. The law must be changed to clarify this area. "Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Ombudsman from investigating any activity which took place before the time limit"
Changing the time period to make it the same as the Pensions Ombudsman
(a) within whichever of the following periods is the last to expire—
(i) 6 years from the date of the act giving rise to the complaint or reference, or
(ii) 3 years from the earlier of the following 2 dates, namely, the date on which the person making
the complaint or reference first became aware of the said act and the date on which that person
ought to have become aware of that act, or
(b) within such longer period as the Pensions Ombudsman may allow if it appears to him that there
are reasonable grounds for requiring a longer period and that it would be just and reasonable so
to extend the period.
Furthermore, the 6 years or 3 years should be the deadline for making the complaint in writing to the financial services provider not the date of making the submission to the FSO.
At present the FSO insists that he cannot examine anything which happened before the time limit. The law must be changed to clarify this area. "Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Ombudsman from investigating any activity which took place before the time limit"
P
Piggybank
Guest
In England, where our common Law emanates from, they have amended the statute of limitations in favour of the citizen of the State who finds out they have been wronged, but not in this BANANA REPUBLIC, to many vested interests and to many skeletons in the cupboard.