Mr. William Prasifka:

We were set up as an alternative to the courts. As I said in my opening statement, when we deal with a complaint we are required to act in an informal manner according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the complaint without regard to technicality or legal form. We do not operate under a criminal burden of proof and our fairness is our overall guide. The question relates to what is fair in the circumstances.

The obligations on financial institutions under the consumer protection code of conduct require that they act in the best interests of customers. Financial institutions are required to sell products suitable to customers and to get to know them. These are the kinds of points we deal with. Our actions are more scrutinised by the courts than those of any other ombudsman scheme in the world and the courts have forced us to deal with complaints in a more legalistic manner. Having said this, our fundamental ethos is fairness and we do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. We need complainants to make a substantial effort to put their cases to us and we judge the cases on the substantial merits. The office focuses on fairness.