Financial Ombusman releases 21 significant findings

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,682
Financial Services Ombudsman, Joe Meade, today on his website (PDF)

gives details of 21 significant findings made in the investment area in the July/November 2008 period - 11 were upheld and the other 10 rejected. Findings in the banking and other credit institutions area will be published in January 2009.

(Mod's note: I have moved the Insurance findings to the insurance forum)

Upheld

  • €250,000 unsuitable investment in a geared property fund to be refunded
  • Fall of €13,500 in €100,000 investment after one year merits an award of €3,000
    [*]Allegation of €35,000 Investment Bond fraud against a foreign broker merits payment of €25,000 by an Irish insurance company
    [*]PRSA charging structure and complaint handling by Insurance Company was highly unsatisfactory- €14,000 compensation and premiums refunded
Not upheld




    • Daughter’s €90,000 investment allegedly for 90 year old mother
    • SSIA roll over
    • Proper notification to transfer funds was not given
    • Charges applied to investment bond were correct
      [*]Encashment value of policy could not be based on phone value
 
Hi Sumatra

Do you mean the consumers whose claims were rejected?

In particular, the woman who claimed to be investing for her mother should be outed in my opinion.

Brendan
 
Brendan,

I assume the Ombudsman talks to the Financial Regulator who in turn imposes suitable reprimands on the intermediary?

I've heard many in the media asking for naming and shaming and I haven’t heard Mr Meade outline reasons he won't (perhaps the interview was too short). I’d imagine naming and shaming could probably be embasassing, time consuming and costly for Mr Meade’s office should the named party feel they had legal rights to bring a claim for defamation so the only solution is strike them off as I feel far too many feel comfortable with their PI.

The Ombudsman’s figures on payouts are commendable and it appears are increasing. Is this increase because more people are aware of the complaints procedure or is it increasing due to some failure in regulatory and compliance issues?

I’m with you 100% Brendan - malicious or fraudulent complaints should be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.

Sumatra
 
Sumatra said:

I haven’t heard Mr Meade outline reasons he won't (perhaps the interview was too short).
Click to expand...

Actually, in last year's Annual Report (or it may have been the previous one's), he gave the reasons in full and asked the public to comment on these reasons as he was reviewing his approach.

I don't think he got any submissions.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top