Case 5, in which the Ombudsman essentially requires financial institutions to record conversations in which a contract is entered into makes for interesting reading, and has very far-reaching implications for both customers and institutions. The case related to a situation where a contract had been entered into over the telephone.
The Financial Ombudsman wrote:- "It would therefore be in the interests of the Providers to consider retaining appropriate records - including, where necessary, 'phone recordings relating to such contractual committments - for the period within which a person can complain to the Ombudsman i.e. six years."
While this makes sense, it has, I imagine, farther-reaching implications. If, for instance, a member of the public rings his or her bank and raises some query regarding his or her loan agreement, must the conversation be recorded in future? If telephone conversations relating to one type of contractual committment (a "cold-call" telephone contractual committment) must be recorded, will financial institutions have to record all telephone conversations relating to all types of contractual committments to avoid the possibility of falling foul of the Financial Ombudsman? And will it stop at recording telephone conversations?
I do not think that very many people would want their telephone (or other) conversations with their bank recorded.
Another point is relevant here - does the Financial Ombudsman not expect consumers to take any degree of responsibility for their own affairs? Personally, I would not have paid for an insurance, of all things, without reading the (big and) small print.
While not trying to defend the bank in this instance, the Financial Ombudsman needs to tell people to grow up a little, take responsibility for their own affairs, and remember the old adage of "BUYER BEWARE"!!