Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Section 6 relates to the findings of the Financial Services Ombudsman. The section broadens the range of findings the ombudsman can make. Currently, the Financial Services Ombudsman can only rule a complaint to be substantiated, partially substantiated or not substantiated. This section would extend the range of findings to upheld, substantially upheld, substantially rejected or rejected. It might appear minor but it is an important change as it would allow us to better assess the performance and the outcomes of the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman. At present, a consumer could have their case effectively lost, but the ombudsman would have to declare it partially substantiated even if no award was made to the consumer. That is because on the basis of a technicality, a minor issue, the ombudsman felt the consumer was correct in that area but in the major charge that was levelled against the financial institution the ombudsman found against the consumer and it would be recorded as a partially substantiated case.

I am conscious that this change would cut across the name and shame provision which was introduced to allow the Financial Services Ombudsman to name in his report financial services providers who consistently have rulings against them. I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage to section 57BS of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 to ensure that the broadened range of findings by the Financial Services Ombudsman is reflected in respect of the provision for naming and shaming. I am happy to engage with officials on the drafting of that amendment. It was also suggested to me that the ombudsman could be empowered to go further and publish findings, edited to protect identities. The Minister has talked about looking at some of the provisions in Britain in terms of the drafting, but in Britain the findings are published in the format of Mr. or Mrs. C versus the Bank of England and so forth. If the committee considers this would be a worthwhile amendment, I would be happy to consider it too.