Mr. William Prasifka:

These matters came to our attention shortly after the legislation was passed. At the time we had 17 complaints in front of us, and the legislation clearly states there is a stay on all legal proceedings, which under the IBRC legislation includes any form of legally binding dispute resolution. That fits us to a tee. We took the view then, as we have it now, that there is a stay on proceedings. We cannot deal with these unless the stay is lifted. We have no objection to having any stay lifted. There are 17 complaints in the context of thousands, so they are not the issue; the issue is what is the ombudsman, and there is a disagreement about whether we are a regulatory authority. Simply put, we are not a regulatory authority for very simple reasons. One can go to the 2005 Act or the Central Bank Act 2004 which established us, which defines "regulatory authority" as what was then the Financial Regulator and which is now subsumed into the Central Bank. That was not done for a trivial reason but rather to establish a clear separation between the regulator and the Ombudsman. We adjudicate complaints and the regulator has a different function, as it makes rules, can investigate companies and can fine or take licences from bodies. It is very important that we are not a regulatory authority for our independence, which is fundamental.

We receive many complaints from many angry people, who may be angry for very good reasons. The question may be "Why would we trust you?". People might think we are just like everybody else, as we come from the same-----