Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Mr. Prasifka makes an important point because in some debates the bogeyman of frivolous complaints has been raised and some of us have suggested this is a red herring. Regarding complaints that are not upheld, I take the point about people not understanding the products they bought. Some people might say financial service providers should take greater responsibility to explain things properly. People may not be fully informed of matters covered in small print.

I wonder about the burden of proof in disputed situations and how it works. Must a person making a complaint against a service provider prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complaint is justified or is it decided on the balance of probability? I know of cases where people made complaints to a financial institution relating to decisions perceived as unfair. As far as I was concerned the complainants were honest and the complaints were true but the bank simply said "you cannot prove it so tough luck". In one case the person was a long-standing customer of a financial institution and there was not enough money at stake for anyone to believe the customer was playing fast and loose with the institution to make a few bob. However, the customer could not absolutely prove the case. How does the Financial Services Ombudsman deal with such cases?