ombudsman news issue 53 May 2006
who do they think we are?
Meetings with a number of journalists
last month had me scratching my head over the radically different
ways the ombudsman service can be perceived within the communities
we serve. On the one side, journalists from publications aimed
at independent financial advisers wanted to know how I could defend
an organisation that was virtually taking the bread out of advisers’
mouths, ‘destroying the livelihoods’ of small firms
and regularly ‘breaching their human rights’. A few
days later, meeting personal finance journalists – I was asked why we don’t
use our clout to condemn more publicly the ‘disgracefully
unjust’ behaviour of firms both large and small towards consumers.
You could say that we must have got things about right if an
equal amount of dissatisfaction is coming from two different points
of view. But I’m not so sure. In our publicity we stress
our independence and impartiality. We say we are neither a champion
for consumers nor an apologist for the industry. Unfortunately,
it’s a little easier to state what we are not, rather than
what we are – largely because ombudsmen haven’t been
around for all that long.
We try to level the playing field for consumers so that the outcome
of disputes is determined by the merits of their case, rather
than by which party has access to the greater expertise or resources.
Our service is free to consumers and they bear no legal risk if
we do not uphold their complaint. These features of our scheme
are certainly designed to give consumers a helping hand, and can
lead some consumers to think that we ought to be doing more, upholding
complaints just because we might feel sorry for them. These features
can also lead firms to conclude that we are constitutionally biased
in favour of consumers.
So treading a path between consumer and industry perceptions
is not easy. There is no agreed model or benchmark of how an organisation
like ours should position itself. Since – in making decisions
– we perform a semi-judicial function, one option would be
to operate with a more distant style, rather like the judges,
simply letting our authority speak for itself. In that case we
would not have any external liaison functions, technical advice
phone lines or publications, and I wouldn’t be talking to
journalists at all. Another option would be to operate more centre-stage,
attracting a higher profile, with more distinctly-angled messages
of advice for firms and consumers. But that
would duplicate – and could even be seen as competing with
– the role of the regulator.
By now you will be wondering how we cope with such a permanent
identity crisis. The answer is simple – by getting on with
the job. Most of the time, just dealing with the pressures of
our workload is quite enough to be getting on with. And as time
goes by, and consumers and firms get more used to what an ombudsman
service is and does, we’ll stop worrying. In the meantime
I’ll keep scratching my head.
Walter Merricks
chief ombudsman
|