Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 40, to delete lines 41 to 43.

This amendment relates to the circumstances in which a consumer is not entitled to make a complaint to the financial services ombudsman. It sets out in section 57BX(3)(a) that a consumer is not entitled to make a complaint if the conduct complained of is or has been the subject of legal proceedings before a court or tribunal. I share the concern expressed that this allows a much more resourceful institution than the consumer complaining of a practice to issue proceedings in order to prevent a case being heard by the financial services ombudsman. This is a power that should be qualified. In amendment No. 49 I have offered a way in which it could be qualified. It sets out that if the conduct complained of is or has been the subject of legal proceedings before a court or tribunal, the financial services ombudsman may decide that it shall not investigate or shall defer its consideration of the matter if it believes that this would best serve the ombudsman's procedures. Under my amendment we would give the financial services ombudsman discretion to decide if such a matter were something which despite the proceedings having been issued, the ombudsman should nonetheless proceed to investigate because he or she felt it was in the best interests.

What I envisage is that if the Minister is agreeable to my proposal, the ombudsman would make a judgment call. If the ombudsman found that a financial services institution was using this part of the Bill in an obstructive way by trying to prevent fair procedures or trying to prevent a case being adjudicated upon, the ombudsman would then take the action outlined and would decide to go ahead with the investigation notwithstanding the proceedings having been issued. If there was another case where it was felt that the proceedings were well founded and that there was a case which should properly go to the courts for a hearing, the ombudsman would then take the opposite view.

My amendment meets the Minister's obvious concern in inserting this in the section but also prevents any abuse occurring, particularly abuse by a very resourceful financial institution compared to an individual who would not have resources at his or her disposal and could not anticipate taking on a large financial institution in a legal battle over an issue of perhaps relatively small sums of money, or even if a large sum was involved.

See this speech in context