Mr. Ger Deering:

I thank the Chairman. The question on the difference between the role of the Central Bank and the CCPC and that of my office is a very good one because there is often confusion in this regard. The simplest way I can describe it is that the Central Bank, as regulator, has overall responsibility for how financial services providers conduct themselves in terms of setting regulations and enforcing those regulations, whereas we deal with individual complaints and individual complainants. How the tracker mortgage issue was handled is a good example of that. In fact, I believe it was handled very well here compared with how we have seen some neighbouring countries handle such situations. More than 40,000 people have got tracker mortgages back as a consequence of the tracker mortgage examination directed by the Central Bank. From the figures we are talking about here today, we can see how long it would have taken us to get through those individual complaints. What the Central Bank was able to do was deal with what it described as cohorts of customers. Within those cohorts, there could be individual customers who may have a different set of circumstances and a particular contract, piece of correspondence or telephone call that did not apply to the other cohort of people but did apply to them individually.

We look and that is why it takes considerable resources for us to get through the number of complaints we deal with. Once a complaint goes into a formal investigation, all of the correspondence must be examined. We see individual complaints arriving in numbers of boxes of files and we have to go through years of information. Particularly with tracker mortgage cases, we are going back, in some instances, to 2008 or 2006 and dealing with files and records of that vintage. There is a lot of work involved in dealing with individual files. That is the basic difference in terms of our role but the key point is that we co-operate very well with the Central Bank and the CCPC. Similar to the Central Bank, the CCPC has an overall role in terms of competition. The kind of things we do in terms of co-operation would be where we see an individual complaint and we have a concern that it might be a systemic issue or one that might apply to other customers, we will draw that to the attention of the Central Bank. Likewise, if we find something we think is particularly egregious, we will bring it to the attention of the Central Bank. The key difference is that the latter has an overall responsibility, while we can only deal with complaints we receive from individuals. We have no power to do anything off our own bat. That is as it should be. The role of an ombudsman is to react and respond to complaints.

The Chairman is correct in saying that we got an increase in resources. Certainly, we increased the number of complaints we deal with. We currently have 4,750 complaints on hand, which is down from the larger numbers that were previously there. It is very difficult ever to have enough resources but we must acknowledge that we got an increase in resources and we are grateful for it. The Chairman rightly points out that with things like Covid-related complaints and tracker mortgage complaints, which are quite complex, all the resources we have certainly are fully deployed. We look at drawing down external resources if and when we can.

In regard to the age of the complaints on hand, we have complaints that are older than we would like and that have been with us for longer than we would like. However, it is important to point out that a considerable number of the complaints that are with us longer have complex histories. Sometimes, those complaints were closed but, due to a change in legislation to extend the time limits, for example, they were reopened. The strict limits laid down in the legislation mean that if somebody wants to reopen a complaint, we allow it to be done because the person might otherwise lose the ability to progress the complaint on the basis that it is out of time. The downside of that for us as an organisation is that it makes those complaints look very old. There is sometimes a complaint that looks like it is six, seven or eight years old but, in fact , it may well have been closed five, six or seven years and then reopened a year or two ago. Such complaints keep the same complaint reference. We acknowledge that issue, however, and we are working hard to increase the speed of dealing with those complaints. It will always be the case that the speediest resolution of complaints is through dispute resolution and mediation. Ms McGovern will probably talk more about this point later but there have been decisions of the courts recently, particularly the Supreme Court, that make it very clear that quasi-judicial bodies like us are, in some sense, administering justice and must be very careful about having fair procedures and how they carry out those procedures. It takes time to get that right.

I hope I have answered the Chairman's questions. We are conscious that the tracker mortgage cases keep coming in and we are working hard to keep ahead of them. I should point out as well that we are dealing with those complaints in the order in which we receive them, which means we must deal first with the older complaints before getting to the ones that have come in more recently. It is important that I manage expectations in this regard. While I have upheld complaints and directed that people be put back on tracker mortgages, and customers have benefited from that, there are some unrealistic expectations in this regard. There are some people who feel they should have got a tracker mortgage simply because they would have liked to have one or they knew someone who got one. It is important to point out that there must be a basis on which a person has an entitlement to a tracker mortgage. Once a complaint is made, we will investigate it fully to establish whether the complainant has that right.