Mr. Ger Deering:

In the case of people who obtained a decision from the ombudsman and are now included, I accept that should not have happened. I will apologise if that has been a fault of our office. It is fair to point out that a number of things have changed. For example, the Deputy's Private Members' Bill allows us look at certain cases. A number of tracker mortgage complaints had been only partly examined because the sale of the product was the critical factor. We needed to determine what people were told when they were sold a product, but we could not do so at the time under the six-year rule. That piece of information would have been very relevant or could have influenced the decisions in a different manner.

Recently, additional evidence was brought to my attention regarding a complaint the office had decided on. When I received the additional information, it appeared to me to be material and would have made a difference if it had been available to the ombudsman at the time the decision was made. I contacted the provider and asked for an explanation. I was not happy with what I was told and I went to the High Court and asked that the finding be quashed. I know the Deputy knows this, but it is worth recording that I cannot review or change a previous decision of the office. I cannot re-examine an issue which has been decided because the decisions are legally binding.

In a case where evidence became available, I went back to the High Courts to have the finding quashed and the case returned to the office for a second decision. I will take whatever action is appropriate. I have spoken to the people I mentioned about the fact that they got a different outcome, and I agreed to meet them and apologise. If there are others in that position I will meet them.