Name and shame - er deferred it seems

WizardDr

Registered User
Messages
1,573
This is the ONLY section of the Act that has not commenced i.e. it is not Law yet. Sometimes Sections never get commenced. Any views?

S72 of Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 contains the following:

72.— (1) Section 57BS of the Central Bank Act 1942 is amended by inserting the following after subsection (3):

“(4) If the Financial Services Ombudsman thinks that it would be in the public interest to do so, a report under subsection (1) may, in accordance with regulations made under section 57BF, include in respect of every regulated financial service provider falling within subsection (5) the information specified in subsection (6).


(5) A regulated financial service provider falls within this subsection if, in the preceding financial year, at least 3 complaints relating to the regulated financial service provider which have been made to the Financial Services Ombudsman have been found by that Ombudsman to be substantiated or partly substantiated.


(6) The information referred to in subsection (4) is—


(a) the name of the regulated financial service provider, including any trading name (if different),


(b) where applicable, the identity of any group of which the regulated financial service provider is a member, and


(c) the number of complaints found to be substantiated or partly substantiated in respect of the regulated financial service provider in the preceding financial year.


(7) For the purposes of the law of defamation the publication of the information referred to in subsection (4) in a report under subsection (1) shall be absolutely privileged.


(8) A report under subsection (1) shall not divulge the identity of any complainant nor shall anything be published in the report which may lead to the identification of any complainant unless the complainant consents in writing.


(9) For the purposes of this section if the regulated financial service provider has appealed against the Financial Services Ombudsman’s finding that a complaint has been found to be substantiated or partly substantiated the complaint is to be taken to have been so found only when—


(a) the finding is affirmed (with or without modification) on appeal, or


(b) the appeal is withdrawn, struck out by the High Court or abandoned.


(10) For the purposes of subsection (6)(b) a person is a member of a group if it is an undertaking dealt with in group accounts (within the meaning of section 150 (1) of the Companies Act 1963 ).”.


(2) Section 57BF of the Central Bank Act 1942 is amended in subsection (2) by inserting the following after paragraph (c):


“(ca) for the purposes of a report under section 57BS(1) make provision for—


(i) the form and manner in which the information specified in the report is given, including provision for the categorisation of the different classes of regulated financial service providers identified in the report, the different classes of financial services to which the complaints by reason of which they are so identified relate and the different descriptions of those complaints, and


(ii) the form and manner in which the report may be published and the information made available;”.
 
I would imagine that they would need to have to see a systemic pattern before they can blow the lid on it...but if they only find for consumer in 13% of cases that may take longer
 
Raging Bull;

The FAMOUS 13%. So Joe Soap complains to Mr Bank, Mr Bank rejects, Joe Soap goes to Ombudsman .Mr Ombudsman finds for Joe Soap in only 1 in 8 times.

On any row 33% for Joe. 33% for Ombudsman. 33% to question.To have Ombudsman finding 13% is SIMPLY wrong.
Time for him to go .
 
Yes - and do not forget, if the bank do not like his ruling in the 13% they can go to the High Court.

Failing that, they can go to the Supreme Court.

Joke
 
Taldar.
To compound insult. Banks own in house people find 20% mis-sell in their own cosy review.
Name ANY business were 1 in 5 customers were conned that heads would not roll?

I think we need Central Bank and Ombudsman sacked.

BUT HOW DO WE GET RID OF THEM?
 
Back
Top