Comparison Irish FSO Vs UK FSO

R

Raging Bull

Registered User
Messages
348
I was reading in the paper about the FSO Bi-Annual review. I thought that the percentage of cases upheld or partly upheld at 23.5% (Page 22) seems very low for a sector that cost us as a nation 65 Billion for lax controls, no due diligence and simply negligence.

[broken link removed]

I decided to take a look at the UK counterpart to see if the results are broadly similar. Lo behold in the last quarter 69% of results in favour of consumer and the annualised trend is over 50% depending on which year you look at.

[broken link removed]

Why is it that the UK FSO upholds almost 300% more cases in favour of IRISH FSO ? Thoughts on the disparity?
 
Hi Bull

Very interesting comparison.

I look at it like this.

If the banks are genuinely trying to sort out complaints themselves before they get to the Ombudsman, then the only ones going to the Ombudsman would be the cranks and the Ombudsman would uphold a very low percentage.

If the banks reject all complaints, then the Ombudsman would uphold a much higher percentage of complaints. I think it was Joe Meade who complained that one particular unnamed lender, was using the FSO as their complaints department.

In the first case, the Ombudsman will be criticised for upholding so few complaints.

In the second case, the Ombudsman will be praised for being consumer friendly.

But the first case, where the lender sorts it out first, is much better for the consumer.


I am not saying that this is the difference between Irish and British consumers and banks, but the raw "complaints upheld" figures tell us very little.

But it would be worth investigating. For example, is there a particular type of complaint which is upheld a lot in the UK - maybe PPI claims.
 
I am amazed at Table 20

Complaints about investment

Upheld|4|2.3%
Partly upheld|29|16.8%
Not upheld|139|80%
Total|172|100%
I have seen a few of these rejected complaints and I found the decisions astonishing. I mentioned it to an investment advisor, who suggested that the Ombudsman has little understanding of the area and uses legal people , especially barristers to make the decisions. He suggested that they have no training in finance. I don't know if this is true or not, but it would explain some of the decisions.

I saw one complaint for mis-selling of an investment which was upheld, which was based on facts which were just plain wrong. The complaint should have been rejected. But although the Ombudsman said that the investor was mis-sold, he awarded him only 10% of his losses.
 
The mortgages figures are interesting as well

12% upheld
16% partially upheld
72% rejected

Does partially upheld include the guy who does not get his tracker back but gets €1,000 compensation for maladministration?
 
Hi Brendan,

Your argument could be true but I think there is a lot more to this. When I had a decision made against me I asked them to re-review or appeal saying its was flawed. I was told to go to the High Court and basically threatened they would pursue me for full costs without question if I lost. Personally I think its about money. The FSO know that very few people have the money to appeal the decision however blatantly wrong...they are more pro-banks because they know that they can appeal. If you look at FSO budget a large chunk of it is for legal fees and most tend to be consumers appealing. While this may undermine my argument its only 18 or so cases in 6 years or so.

If you cut the stats another way just on upheld 12% Vs avg of 50%+ in UK is a serious disparity
 
Raging Bull said:
. When I had a decision made against me I asked them to re-review or appeal saying its was flawed. I was told to go to the High Court and basically threatened they would pursue me for full costs without question if I lost.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the Ombudsman has no choice in the matter. The government made the law which said that he can't review his own decisions.

It is very expensive for both sides. It would not be right for the punter to be able to represent themselves in court and not be responsible for the Ombudsman's case if they lost.
 
From Ger Canning PPI. Raging Bull; Uk Ombudsman finds in 69% for the consumer. Roi Ombudsman finds max 23.5%. Does not add up.

The Uk Banks are more inclined to settle before Ombudsman so our ROI 23,5% gets worse.
From what I hear UK Ombudsman finds in PPI cases 78% for the consumer.

I think we can beat ourselves up over Statistics, But for SURE there is as you say such a disparity it smells of cosy cronyism !.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top