| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
A key feature of our ombudsman scheme, and that of the Financial Ombudsman Scheme, is that the decisions of the ombudsmen are final; if accepted by the complainant, they bind both parties. Ombudsman schemes, such as the one that we are creating, are meant to provide a free, quick and simple service to complainants so that they can resolve a dispute without the need to go to court. My noble friend Lord Whitty has talked about the importance of that. A complainant will have a choice as to whether he or she accepts the decision. If the choice is to reject the decision, the complainant can pursue the complaint through the courts. But if a complainant chooses to accept the ombudsman’s decision, it is binding on both the respondent and the complainant. The choice rests with the complainant, which is why we do not consider it appropriate or desirable to see a formal review of this sort against an ombudsman’s decision. Our view is supported by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association.
It would be inappropriate for the OLC to be considered akin to approved regulators in handling complaints. It will have a very different relationship with the LSB from the approved regulators. The LSB will appoint members of the OLC and will approve all its rules. In certain circumstances, as we have already discussed, it could remove members.
It would be wrong to say that the OLC should be treated like an approved regulator, but it would be equally wrong to say that the OLC will operate like
21 Feb 2007 : Column 1167
That does not mean that mistakes do not happen from time to time. How these mistakes are dealt with is a matter for the OLC, and I expect that, like any other responsible organisation, the OLC will have internal management arrangements to deal with this. If it is looking for a model to develop an internal complaints-handling service, it might look to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which has an independent assessor who considers complaints about the service provided by FOS staff. But he does not consider the merits of a decision made by the ombudsman.
The terms of reference for the assessor do not allow him to consider the merits of an investigation. The FOS system, like the one that we are creating in Part 6, makes it clear that the decision of the ombudsman is final and, if accepted by the complainant, binding. I am not persuaded that management decisions of the OLC should be set out in the Bill.
We believe that with the best practice—for example, with the Financial Ombudsman Service—the OLC should establish internal arrangements for handling complaints, but these are management decisions not to be set out in the Bill. An internal arrangement to deal with complaints about the service should not extend in any way to a review of determinations made by an ombudsman. This is already clearly a view supported by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association and consumer organisations. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
21 Feb 2007 : Column 1168
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am not surprised that the British and Irish Ombudsman Association supports what the Minister is putting forward because, in essence, that is the end of it. The decision of the ombudsman, which may be against the consumer, is the final say. There may be some internal review process and I do not think that the Minister entirely shut out judicial review. But the strength of the present system is the position of the independence of the Legal Services Commissioner and the Legal Services Ombudsman. As the Minister knows, many complaints have gone to the ombudsman which have been successfully resolved. If the Office for Legal Complaints fails or is not a success there is no redress.
I have not seen the whole of the noble Baroness's reply to the earlier amendment. I should not make any further comment until I have read what she said then and considered what she has said now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139B and 139C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 139D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 139E not moved.]
Clauses 156 and 157 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 139F not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 9.55 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |