Mr. Paul Joyce:

I believe the Ombudsman would say that is the model that exists right now in being independent and not taking sides. It should evaluate the evidence and make a recommendation which can be subject to appeal. That is fine in theory, but in practice because the consumer is coming from a position of much less knowledge, that creates of itself an imbalance. We need to consider ways to ensure that the consumer complainant is more empowered and that the procedures adopted by the FSO are less formal and less weighed down in paperwork which the complainant finds difficult to understand.

Some of the respondents made complaints on their own behalf. One person, who was very experienced in financial matters, found the system very difficult to navigate. He said at interview, "I can only imagine what it is like for people who are not familiar with this kind of stuff". The area of financial services is complicated and the consumer definitely needs assistance from the outset. It would make a big difference if there was a dedicated place for them to go to get assistance to formulate the complaint.

There should be more oral hearings.

A number of the respondents said: "I really wanted to express how frustrated I was with how the institution dealt with me, how I was stonewalled, how I was not getting answers, how I was sent from Billy to Jack and I did not get that opportunity." The Financial Services Ombudsman was saying that if we have to have oral hearings in every case, it will affect our throughput of cases and so on, but again an oral hearing is an access to justice issue, the opportunity to articulate one's complaint. I think it is about improving the service. In principle it is fine, but in practice it needs a great deal of improvement.