What changes would you like to see in the Ombudsman's service?

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,774
The Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011 is going through the Oireachtas at the moment

It appears to be at Committee Stage.

Apparently there was a public consultation on it last year.

The following changes were proposed for the Ombudsman Service.

It's better late than never, but a lot of people on Askaboutmoney have experience of the FSO and we could lobby the Minister to make further changes. Any suggestions?

[FONT=&quot]Financial Service Ombudsman to name Financial Service Providers[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The intention is to provide the Ombudsman with the power to name financial service providers in certain circumstances in order to support the work of the Ombudsman in effectively carrying out his functions. The proposed legislative change is intended to provide incentives to financial service providers to attain/maintain a high level of performance in their interactions with consumers, as they will be aware that if a poor track record, or incidents of poor performance were highlighted in an Ombudsman report (e.g. by way of league tables or case summaries), they would suffer reputational damage.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The naming powers could facilitate consumers in making more informed decisions in regard to their preferred financial service provider(s).[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]Customer Redress[/FONT] ( Discussed in this thread)
[FONT=&quot]A key element of customer protection is that regulated firms act with due skill, care and diligence and in the best interests of their customers. This requires that errors should be corrected quickly and complainants treated fairly. The power to allow the Bank to direct regulated firms to redress customers will be an efficient and effective means of ensuring that customers are compensated quickly and with minimum inconvenience. It would be used where the loss or damage as a result of an occurrence is widespread within a particular firm or widespread across a particular industry.[/FONT]
 
Off the top of my head, here are some changes I would like to see. I will develop them further later

1) Where the Ombudsman makes a ruling against a financial institution which would apply to other customers, the Ombudsman should have the power to direct the institution to fix the problem for the other customers.

For example: AIB told people who were fixing their mortgage rate that they would be offered a choice of SVR or fixed rates or tracker when the fixed rate expired. However, they didn't offer a customer a tracker as they claimed they no longer did trackers. The FSO told them to give the customer a tracker.

The FSO should have the power to tell AIB to offer all such customers tracker.

2) Where the Ombudsman rejects a complaint where the rejection would apply to other customers, he should publish that complaint and the reason for its rejection. For example, had he ruled against the complainant in the AIB case, he could have published the decision.

This would allow AIB send a copy of the decision to people who made subsequent complaints which would save the complainant, AIB and the Ombudsman a lot of time.

The complainant would still have a right to complain, but they would have to make different arguments to succeed or else go to the High Court to get the Ombudsman's decision overturned.

3) The Appeals Process needs to be reviewed. Maybe set up an independent Appeals Board which could hear appeals?
At present, you make your complaint.
The institution replies.
You can comment on the reply.
The institution can comment on your reply.
The Ombudsman issues their decision.
You have no idea how the Ombudsman is thinking until he issues his decision.

4) The 6 year time limit needs to be changed and the Fianna Fáil bill looks reasonable.
 
The FSO needs to communicate their procedures and be more transparent

Personally I have found it very difficult to get answers to the questions i have raised against a bank in the process. I keep asking for docs and get no response and FSO does or says nothing.

The Banks still seem to think they can decide whats relevant or not for the investigation and the FSO lets them away with it

The appeal process is also currently constituted in favor of banks as they can afford to go to court where as average person can not
 
Hello,

Some very good points raised above.

I would like to also suggest some very basic and yet, what I consider to be helpful proposals ....

1. A person should be able to submit their complaint to the Ombudsman online - it's daft being asked to download a .pdf, complete it and post it to them.

2. Both my own experiences over the years and apparently, that of a couple of other people I know, is the Ombudsman's office has often suggested we write to a nominated person at a financial instituton (effectively submitting the same complain as already submitted to the same institution) prior to them progressing their investigation. This seems like something that delays what is needed, namely action from the Ombudsman's offices. Why not publish the list of contacts for all the financial institutions websites on the Ombudsman's website and allow us contact them directly, prior to possibly submitting a formal complaint, via the Ombudsman ?

Regards

Mr. Earl.
 
In the case where the FSO issues a finding, the Financial Providers should be made adhere to the Terms of the said finding. The Ombudsman should be made ensure that the Financial Providers act in accordance with this, rather than simply treating the case as closed. If new information comes to the Complainant and then submits it to the Ombudsman, then the FSO should be obliged to reopen the case, rather than the complainant being forced to the High Court to have the case reopened, regardless of the passing of time.

Moreover in certain cases where a large amount of expense has been incurred, on the failings of the Financial Providers, these should be repaid by the Providers concerned.

In cases where a complaint arises and the Providers use their legal department to issue a reply, then if the case goes to a positive finding, all the legal costs should be repaid to the complainant.

Where the Ombudsman sees a Fraud has been committed, it should be his automatic duty to report the fraud to the Fraud Sauad.

Persons acting in the selling of Financial Products , who are found to be guilty in their selling practices, should be forbidden from selling Financial Products in Ireland.
 
I would like the time limit changed to within 3 years of the customer discovering they were misold/misled/overcharged.

Agree with the suggestion that if the ombudsman finds in favour of a customer, the bank who is in error should be forced to fix that error for all customers.

Would like that that decision be published in the national newspapers by the bank so as to alert all other potential complainants - as I don't trust the banks to actually go out and find all other customers in the same situation.

Similar to Raging Bull, I never got to the bottom of why my bank refused to answer questions I raised, they were let away with 'system failure' defence, and 'we apologise' and here's some compensation.

I would like if the ombudsman would understand that it's infuriating dealing with the banks when you have a complaint. I think they get training in how not to answer a customer.
 
The big Question is does FSO have the tools but chooses not to use them or doesn't have them?

Some things they are vocal about like wanting to publicly name banks....they also seem to run into problem with the issue of natural or constitutional justice such as oral hearings etc...it would makw thinfs easier if they publish procedures etc..and at least let you know if considering some of your requests
 
..................................................................................
Agree with this , plus

1. When a Regulated Entity ie lenders, break the Consumer Protection Code on an issue that the Code says the Lender must comply ,that the FSO must then in judging find for the Consumer . Futhermore if a lender has NOT complied with the Consumer Code ,more weight to be given to a stressed consumer rather than a Lender using the faceless words of policy.
2. When a Lender claims policy the FSO ask for the name of official and if appropriate gets that official to sign an affidavit to refute the consumer.

Comment ;It appears to me that FSO does not apply the Consumer Code to Regulated Entities and ignores verbal (hard to prove) submissions by consumers.
Has anyone else experience of this bias? or is it just my paranoia!!!
 
It appears to me that FSO does not apply the Consumer Code to Regulated Entities and ignores verbal (hard to prove) submissions by consumers.
Has anyone else experience of this bias? or is it just my paranoia!!!

Yes, I have experienced cases where the FSO has ignored matters of massive importance concerning mis-selling. New evidence was found in one case and he refused to reopen a case ; in another the FP didn't comply fully with the finding of the FSO and it looks like my only option is for a judicial review. This will then bring the Financial Provider out of the woodwork and show the many thousands of their clients what really goes on behind the dark doors of Irish Financial Institutions.
 
..............................................................................................
On the plus side, on ppi, one large claims company is bypassing the Ombudsman and bringing a block of 50 cases to District Court.From experience, the Bank will yield on court steps.Sadly this will not create a precedent but will move things on . Example Ge Money settled on court steps on 24th May on 2 cases.
I believe that the Ombudsman operates on the side of (buyer beware) not on the issue that a provider of REGULATED services MUST abide by the CODES governing these services.
I will keep putting info under Payment Protection thread, and I am delighted to have my paranoia (dimmed) !!!
 
...........................................................................................

Claims after July 07 are being checked by SOME named Banks. I have heard this morning that on
2 cases where the Ombudsman found against the Customer and for the Bank have been overturned under the Review.
The Review has FOUND for the Customer.
Methinks our impartial Ombudsman may have questions to answer on how he looks @ cases and how he adjudicates re Consumer Protection Code.
 
I am working through a complaint with the BOI and FSO about not being offered my tracker again after the fixed period has expired even though orginally the Letter of Offer was a tracker!

I am using information off websites such as:
www<dot>moneybutler<dot>ie/bank-forced-to-put-clients-back-on-tracker-mortgages/


to drive my case...
Think any decision that is made by the FSO that affects other customers then it should fall back on that institution to do 'due diligence'...

Sounds obvious - but wondering why this is not publicised somewhat more?
 
Given the Non enforcement of Consumer Codes by Central Bank and my belief that Ombudsman is fairly toothless, i see no profit in Central Bank or Ombudsman starting anything.

Naiively , I think we all assumed our Regulators/Ombudsmen would be pro-active in issues such as yours.
Methinks they are only active against the little man , but the Big Boys ,Anglo,AIB etc are too big to rattle.
Hope I am wrong .
 
Gerry Canning ppi .
.....................
I am looking at a standard response from Ombudsman telling a customer that they cannot Check PPI sale for him because of the 6 year rule.

They then Quote
{I appreciate that this decision may be disappointing to you but the decision was arrived at following a full and thorough review of your case. Regrettably , the Financial Services Ombudsman is not in a position to assist you any further in the matter}

My Request to Ombudsman.

Please do not put in the above Quote as it is an untrue comment .

My reasoning, How can you have a full and thorough review if you cannot even look at the case.

Are these Ombudspeople for real ?
 
I would suggest that all complaints/results are published and that these set a precedence that can be used by others bringing similar cases. It will mean the financial institutons will have a good idea how a situation is going to be viewed and it can be used in negotiations with the financial institution before it has to go to the ombudsman. It will give teeth that the oridinary Joe Soap can use and save reptition and time for the Ombudsman.
 
GerryCanning PPI.
Thrifty,
Ombudsman has 1,000,s of upheld complaints. It would be impractical to publish them all. Joe Soap would get tired reading !!
Mr Bank is FULLY aware of when cases stack up, Mr Bank just plays the game and hopes Mr Soap goes away.
...................................................................
Can I suggest this:

The Ombudsman in future STATES that when a Provider has under THE CONSUMER CODES not done something, that the CONSUMER CODE says a Provider MUST do ,then the Complainants case will be upheld unless Mr Provider can clearly show other mitigating reasons.

{from what I see Mr Ombudsman at present takes MUST ,to mean Maybe which is making a mockery of Consumer Codes}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register