Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 57, to delete lines 22 to 27 and substitute the following:“(5) A regulated financial service provider falls within this subsection if, in the preceding financial year, a complaint relating to the regulated financial service provider which has been made to the Financial Services Ombudsman has been found by that Ombudsman to be substantiated or partly substantiated.”.

Amendment No. 72 deals with the three-complaints rule. The legislation proposes that if the Financial Services Ombudsman thinks that it would be in the public interest to do so, a report may be made if a regulated financial service provider has, in the preceding financial year, at least three complaints made against it to the Financial Services Ombudsman which have been found to be substantiated or partly substantiated. There will be varying complaints from how people have been treated by a financial service provider to more serious cases of bad practice. The problem is that the financial ombudsman will be constrained from making a report unless a minimum of three complaints has been made in the preceding 12 months. Amendment No. 72 removes this three-complaint clause and, instead, provides that the ombudsman can issue a report if it is in the public interest and one complaint has been made. This will provide flexibility. I accept there may not necessarily be a need for a report on every complaint made. However, the legislation insists it must be in the public interest for a report to be issued. This amendment allows for the financial ombudsman to issue a report in the public interest even if only one or two complaints have been made in the preceding 12 months. It is a minor amendment but leaves power with the ombudsman.

The legislation also proposes a report from the financial ombudsman will contain the name of the regulated financial service provider, including any trading name, the identity of any group of which the regulated financial service provider is a member and the number of complaints found to be substantiated, or partly substantiated, in respect of the regulated financial service provider in the preceding financial year. For example, if complaints were made against a subsidiary of AIB - I am not making any accusations against any institution - that it was trying to move customers off tracker to variable rate mortgages in an underhand way, the financial ombudsman could issue a report on the company and state that AIB is the parent group. Amendment No. 73 proposes to ensure such a report would a brief summary of the nature and content of each complaint found to be substantiated, or partly substantiated, in respect of the regulated financial service provider in the preceding financial year. This could cover interest rates, overcharging and switching mortgages. We know the majority of complaints being currently substantiated by the financial ombudsman concern those taken off tracker mortgages to variable rate ones. The ombudsman does not have the power to name the institutions involved. My concern is that the ombudsman could have a file with up to 100 complaints about an institution but can only name the institution and the number of complaints without explaining the nature of the complaints.

See this speech in context