Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I wish to focus on the witness's description of his objectives. He said he provides an impartial alternative dispute resolution, ADR, process. I assume that in using the word "impartial" he means a fair dispute resolution process. I will frame my questions around that ADR process. The perspective I bring to it is that of somebody who has worked within another ADR process. The witness said when responding in a law conference in Dublin that his was one of the most powerful ombudsman offices in the world and that he could award compensation of up to €250,000 and that his findings were legally binding. I assume that is legally binding subject to the High Court on a point of law or subject to judicial review. Clearly, the witness has a significant power in the context of alternative dispute resolution.
I will outline my concerns. First, I noted that the witness accredited the fall in the number of complaints to the fact that he is now asking applicants to give him evidence that they have communicated the substance of their complaint to the original financial service provider, FSP, and that the FSP has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond. Having practised as a solicitor, I am conscious of the fact that there is a very significant difference, in most instances, in the capacity of somebody dealing with a financial institution and the capacity of that financial institution. That is the reason there is the contra proferentumrule in law. In other words, the contract should be constructed against the person who drafts it where there is any issue of unfairness. I am concerned with the statement that the substance of a complaint must be communicated. How high a bar is that level of communication? Does he offer any assistance to people who are making complaints to financial service providers to enable them to make an adequate complaint? That is the first part of one question.