Ms MaryRose McGovern:

On the last question, right from the outset in March 2020, we kept a very close eye on complaints where the complainants themselves identified Covid-19 as an element within the complaint and we very specifically tagged them so that we could see the trends that were emerging very quickly in order that we could hop on them, as it were. The trends we saw from the outset were in the area of travel insurance. I will return to the topic of business interruption insurance, on which the Deputy has touched. We have not seen a surge of complaints on the banking side. I am personally not aware of complaints to any large degree concerning Covid tests impacting on a person's ability to secure services. On the Covid-related complaints that we have seen, and where we have seen significant elements emerging on the travel side, we have seen huge levels of engagement in the informal dispute resolution process that the ombudsman mentioned, which is our starting position. We really do want to see financial service providers and their customers engage in a positive way in order that they can themselves design a solution with which they will both be happy, rather than having a solution imposed on them.

We did not see the same level of engagement on business interruption insurance at the outset, although that is beginning to improve. The Deputy mentioned litigation commenced by FBD in the summer of 2020. That was what we considered to be an unprecedented challenge to the work of this office, whereby the insurer sought to have us down tools on the investigation of a number of complaints. To clarify, this was not a request that we keep going for the moment but hold our horses towards the end because some clarity was coming from the court; it was a specific challenge to the entitlement of this organisation to use the powers given to it under the Act to provide an alternative avenue of redress to a small business, including a publican, to come to this organisation to seek redress instead of going to court. The argument put forward by the insurer was that because these issues were being litigated, the FSPO no longer had jurisdiction. It was a very specific challenge that it was not a matter of discretion, the FSPO had no jurisdiction. We considered that to be an unprecedented challenge. Even if one compared it to the position taken by the banks, had a similar position been taken on the tracker mortgage situation, it would have been a significant hurdle to the work of the office.

While we certainly are aware that there has been plenty of litigation surrounding tracker mortgages, the two processes have been in a position to run parallel paths, as it were. Certainly, this office has no interest in trespassing on the jurisdiction of the courts but the Oireachtas has given this office the powers to provide that alternative avenue of redress to individuals and small organisations that come within the definition of consumer.

We vehemently opposed that challenge to our entitlement to proceed with the investigation of a publican's complaint. I am happy to state that that challenge to the court was withdrawn in February 2021. The ombudsman touched on it in his opening statement. The insurer agreed to pay certain costs in order to bring the matter to an end. In the meantime, we had reached an accommodation in the interests of both parties that we would continue to work on those particular complaints but we would hold the issue of a preliminary decision until such time as the courts had delivered judgment in that test case with the four pubs that FBD was involved in. I am happy to confirm that the complaints that were impacted by that litigation have been progressing and they are coming to a conclusion soon.

Overall, on the business interruption complaint side, as the ombudsman mentioned, we have put in place specialist teams. We prioritised those complaints from the outset because we took the view that it was really important for policyholders to understand whether or not they were covered, and if they were not covered, to get that information quickly so that they could use that information to make the appropriate decision. We recognise that some businesses might be teetering in a space where they were not entirely sure as to whether they should continue to struggle on, as it were, in anticipation of getting policy benefits. From the outset, we prioritised the progress of those investigations and we were in a position to issue our first preliminary decision on a business interruption complaint in November 2020. As the ombudsman mentioned, both parties have an opportunity after a preliminary decision has been issued to make further submissions. The process on that particular complaint file continued for quite some time and has only more recently become a legally-binding decision. We have a small number of legally-binding decisions issued. We have 24 legally-binding decisions issued on business interruption complaints but we are pleased to see that where those complaints have been upheld, certain providers have adopted a positive approach to dealing with their policyholders who have other complaints and they have applied the approach that this office has taken in terms of those claims and the policy benefits payable and they have applied them across to their other customers. We are also very much aware that the Central Bank has written to insurers to direct them to write to their customers who have not yet made a claim to point out that this is the outcome and that it is believed that they are covered if they wish to make a claim. I do not know if that covers all of the Deputy's questions.