Ms Derville Rowland:

A dispute between the Central Bank and a bank should never go to the ombudsman. The ombudsman hears complaints from members of the public who are not satisfied with an event or occurrence with regard to their financial service product, approach or process. The first step of the expected procedure is for a person who is dissatisfied to make a complaint to and seek resolution from the lender that provided the service. If the lender, such as a bank, for example, does not resolve it to the satisfaction of the customer, the customer is then within his or her rights to make a complaint to the ombudsman, who will determine the matter. That determination would be between the customer and his or her lender on whatever is the issue. My understanding is that such decisions of the ombudsman are binding.

However, if the Senator is asking this in the context of the tracker mortgage examination, we were very clear and set out on a number of occasions that lenders were to ignore those decisions, start again with the tracker mortgage examination, take into account all relevant considerations and not be blinded by the decision of the ombudsman. The ombudsman supported that message. That is how we expected matters to be conducted in the examination. It is not particularly a question for me to answer but more for the ombudsman. The ombudsman is bound by his decision but if there is new information or a different aspect on things, my understanding is that it can open it up again from a different point of view.