Ombudsman calls for consistency in High Court decisions

Bronte said:

But there was a poster very recently who managed to get refunded going back 6 years only, as he said it only came to his attention recently.

Click to expand...

Hi Bronte, my complaint was successful as the Ombudsman found that the original T&c’s were over ridden by undertakings given to me in letters from the provider, not because it only came to my attention recently.

The Ombudsman can only consider matters in dispute that occurred six years prior to the complaint date.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=184733

Raging Bull said:

Which is why the whole article is ironic. The Courts are simply stating that the deliberation must be simply fairly transparent, conducted in accordance with constitutional norms.

A basic premise of law inherited from Roman times is the principle of Audi alteram partem.

This means to hear both sides.

Its impossible to say FSO is doing that when ample cases discussed on these threads demonstrate that they accept everything verbally that a Financial Institution says. The only chance it seems to me that one can win a case is if there is something massively wrong in contract or paperwork. In those cases if it was me again I would go to a Court unless I had no money to go that route

Click to expand...

.................
Raging Bull .
On PPI we have a review via Central Bank on sales since Aug 2007 .
Principle Audi alteram partem , is ignored.
The Reviewers are ONLY lokking at the documents in the Banks and are NOT contacting customers,
Yet our Central Bank says this is Independent . The cEntral Banks (supposed) brief is to PROTECT consumers.
I try not to give up !!

twofor1 said:

The Ombudsman can only consider matters in dispute that occurred six years prior to the complaint date.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=184733

Click to expand...

But there was a case reported last week, where the Ombudsman's bureau looked into a case that was over six years old.

Mercman.
As a near absolute Rule , anything over 6 years gets caught under 6 rule.
In a case where it can be shown there was a strong material change to a case it May be looked at , but sadly the vast bulk of cases do not fall into that scene.

Gerry, I'm certainly not doubting you, but in cases when matters that cause a material difference to an investment but only became known after the six year rule or where in fact hidden from Investors until after six years, surely this would make a material difference both to the investment and the rules of the Ombudsman ?

mercman said:

But there was a case reported last week, where the Ombudsman's bureau looked into a case that was over six years old.

Click to expand...

Hi mercman,

Is this the case you are referring to ?

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=184733

twofor1 said:

Is this the case you are referring to ?

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=184733

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the one.

This being the important bit from that thread:

I resubmitted my complaint, stating that while the conduct complained of first occurred twelve years ago, this same conduct was repeated every year thereafter to date, and that my complaint now only related to the previous six years. My complaint was then accepted by the Ombudsman as being within his remit.

So my understanding now is that if the issue doesn't come to one's attention and has been ongoing, then it has to be looked at, but they only go back 6 years.

I think it's disgusting that despite knowing the wrongdoing goes back further that the organisation doesn't feel that in the interests of good consumer relations that they don't rectify the matter from the beginning and stop weasling out by using the 6 year rule.

If you are mis sold, or misled on any financial product, there should be no 6 year rule. Who is an ordinary person to take a large organisation to task. It's nigh on impossible.

Bronte said:

It's nigh on impossible.

Click to expand...

Not impossible, but damn expensive.

I have a number of cases pending where information has only come to hand where that either the full information was not disclosed 10 years ago (even to this date), or other investors where favoured with better terms for investment.

My own personal belief is that Irish Banks should not be allowed to sell Investment products unless a new strict set of guidelines is drawn up and adhered to.

It really is one matter for world markets to crash. It's another different thing when the Bankers are working on their own self interest.

This is one instance and case where the present Ombudsman could really make his mark, and bring a new regime to both the Ministers of Finance and Justice for implementation to stop the rot.

mercman said:

My own personal belief is that Irish Banks should not be allowed to sell Investment products unless a new strict set of guidelines is drawn up and adhered to.

.

Click to expand...

I agree with that Mercman, but I don't think it's going to happen. You yourself are constantly in the wars, does it get you anywhere though, you could spend your whole life at it.

It really is a form of criminality at its very best.

Bronte said:

So my understanding now is that if the issue doesn't come to one's attention and has been ongoing, then it has to be looked at, but they only go back 6 years.

Click to expand...

That’s what happened in my case anyway, in summary;

My initial complaint related to the previous 12 years, the Ombudsman would not investigate, quoting the six year rule.

I resubmitted my complaint for the previous 6 years only, and the Ombudsman investigated, stating in his finding;

‘’This complaint was made on xx/xx/2012 and consequently I can only consider matters in dispute that occurred after xx/xx/2006.

If this 6 year rule is ever scrapped, I will then be lodging a complaint for the previous years.