Watchdog criticised for not naming rogue firms

THE Financial Ombudsman’s report into rogue companies has been dismissed as vague and woolly for not naming and shaming the offending institutions.

Opposition politicians demanded full exposure of banks and insurance firms found to have wronged customers in a move to cut the soaring number of consumer complaints.

The latest report from the Financial Ombudsman shows a 28% rise already this year in the level of cases being brought against institutions.

Although it outlines “significant decisions”, it does not name the firms.

One case involved an insurance company which refused to honour its cover for a man left unable to wash or dress himself after an horrific car crash that killed his two friends.

Kieran O’Donnell, Fine Gael’s deputy finance spokesman, said there was little point in releasing what he branded vague details without revealing the firms involved.

“It’s woolly, it gives generalities without giving specifics,” the TD said.

“The Consumer Protection Code is there to protect customers and the Financial Ombudsman has a role to carry it out and if there are offenders they should be published.

Mr O’Donnell said naming and shaming offenders would dramatically reduce such cases coming before the industry watchdog.

“We have a situation where the complaints are growing, which tells us the institutions are not taking full heed of the Ombudsman,” said Mr O’Donnell.

The Financial Ombudsman received 5,200 complaints already this year, up from 4,050 for the whole of last year.

* financialombudsman.ie

Case study: Insurance firm forced to pay €325,000 to disabled man

JOE MEADE, the Financial Ombudsman, forced an unnamed insurance company to hand over €325,000 life-cover compensation in the case of a man injured in a car crash.

The anonymous insurer told their customer he didn’t qualify for the “loss of independence” payout, even though he had to be cared for by his mother and sister.

He was unable to sit or stand for a long time, had extreme difficulty lying down, had difficulties with balance and suffered nightmares, panic attacks and severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

The company insisted their policyholder was able to dress himself, as he could “get by” in doing without socks and wearing slip-on shoes.

It also ruled he could climb stairs, despite a medical report showing he had difficulty taking one step into the shower and was regularly sleeping downstairs because he couldn’t make it upstairs.

Mr Meade said he did not have the legal powers to fully expose banks and insurance firms cheating customers out of hundreds of thousands of euro.

“I have to conduct my investigations in private,” he said.

“If I name companies, I would also have to name complainants and, indeed, lots of complainants have said they are delighted with that, as they do not want their neighbours knowing that they lost €100,000 or €200,000.”

Mr Meade insisted he was not afraid of taking cases against uncooperative firms to the High Court and where there is systemic abuse he can report companies to the Financial Regulator.