Robert Troy
Longford-Westmeath · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“Only last weekend, I had the honour of representing the Taoiseach at the commemoration of those who had lost their lives at the Battle of the Somme. The presence of the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland was a very positive development. I understand that it was the first time she was present in Dublin for that commemoration.”
“People deserve to know and understand not just the aspiration but the implication for their livelihoods, public services and future. Transparency is something I have tried to foster during my term as Minister of State in the Department of Finance. People expect it and are savvy enough to find it themselves.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate on the financial implications of Irish unity. It is fair to say that it is an important discussion and one that deserves to be approached with seriousness, honesty and respect.”
“If we are serious about unity - I believe we all are - we must be equally serious about preparation. That includes asking the difficult but necessary questions, including about the role of the UK in supporting any transition, whether financial contributions over a defined period would form part of any agreement and how the EU could be inv…”
“While many will view these as barriers so as to delay and misinform, we need to realise that our island has overcome its fair share of barriers in the past and we have the capacity to overcome any barriers in the future. What we should be looking at are the opportunities that a united Ireland presents.”
“It can be secured through reassurance, actions and compromise. Deputy Lahart indicated some of the compromises that may need to be considered. From a financial perspective, we need to look for clarity. Some fundamental questions need to be addressed. What would happen to public services? How would taxation be structured?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,108 lines we hold for Robert Troy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 23.
“It is not unusual for a complaint file which does not directly concern health or medical insurance to contain very sensitive medical details which a complainant may offer by way of context or background to their financial situation. The disclosure of such data to the public will very often be inappropriate because of the particularly sensitive nature of such medical and financial data in the evidence gathered for complaint investigations. From the day after the Zalewski judgment in April 2021, whenever the FSPO forms the opinion that an oral hearing would be desirable to take evidence on an oath or affirmation, both parties have been asked their preference for the hearing to be in public or private. I think I answered all of the questions.”
“The subject matter and nature of complaints heard by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman may be of such sensitivity for the participants that they believe it merits presumptions in favour of private hearings. As a result, the data processed by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman in the course of its complaint investigations is of particular sensitivity as it generally includes highly confidential personal financial details which may not be suitable for disclosure to the public. A high proportion of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman complaints include significant medical details which the GDPR identifies as special category data warranting particular protection. Some Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman complaints directly relate to medical and health insurance.”
“Justice O'Donnell in the majority judgment of the Zalewski case stated "it may ... be permissible to have a presumption in favour of private hearings at first instance". Officials have worked with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman can hold public oral hearings, having consulted the parties to the complaint and having considered the nature of the circumstances of the complaint. The other elements of the investigation would still be conducted in private. The function of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman is to investigate complaints about the conduct of financial services and pensions providers.”
“On Senator McDowell's query about the presumption of private hearings versus public, section 12 of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act outlines various ways the ombudsman may conduct an investigation, including a formal investigation with oral hearings, if required. Section 56(4) of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act provides that investigations "are conducted otherwise than in public". This includes informal means, mediation and formal investigations or a combination of these processes as provided for in section 12. The Bill provides that the ombudsman can decide to hold an oral hearing in public if it is in the interest of justice to do so. The ban on public oral hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission's adjudication officers was deemed unconstitutional. The comments by Mr.”
“If the Senator is talking about amendments specifically for people where there are two parties to the account and it requires the two parties' signatures to refer the complaint to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, this was highlighted during the discourse in the Dáil. We are advised, from a contractual perspective, that we are not able to facilitate making the complaint with just one party's signature. I accept it is a particular bone of contention where there is domestic abuse or coercive control in financial matters. That is why we wrote to my colleague, the Minister for Justice, and to the FSPO to see if there is a mechanism so that, in extreme circumstances, issues can be dealt with. How much time do I have left?”
“I accept that for some people who have had their mortgages switched to regulated entities, it is because they fell into arrears and perhaps were not able to make a switch. Therefore, they are brought under the remit of the FSPO so that they can be dealt with in a fair and proportionate manner. Senator Flynn is not present but I am sure she is listening in from her office. I am open to meeting to see if there are any amendments that can improve this Bill. That is why this is Second Stage. It is an opportunity for people to make contributions and subsequently submit amendments.”
“Now, no matter what date on which they were transferred, if these regulated entities are failing in how they are operating with their customer, the customer will be able to bring this to the FSPO, which is welcome. Another point about regulated entities is one the chairperson of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, made at the launch of the consumer protection code at the Central Bank on Monday. The number of people who are failing to avail of and take a mortgage switch is mind-boggling. Almost €1 billion of savings is being left on the table where people are failing to make a mortgage switch. This is something the CCPC needs to address by way of a publicity campaign to make people aware they can switch.”
“The Credit Review Office is different from the FSPO because its only remit is to adjudicate on a commercial decision, such as whether someone's business can afford to repay a loan. It relates only to commercial decisions, unlike this legislation. The consumer protection code, which was published this week by the Central Bank of Ireland, is intended to ensure people are aware of how they should be dealt with by financial institutions. That, again, greatly enhances and improves the consumer experience. Senator McCormack referred to financial entities commonly known as vulture funds. The Bill brings those entities under the remit of the FSPO, whereas previous to this, some were excluded because of the date on which they were transferred from the financial institution to the regulated entities.”
“He will be aware the Government has commenced the access to cash Bill, which mandates that there must be an ATM within a certain geographical location and distance to ensure that people who like to operate with what is legal tender can be facilitated to do so. There are certain hospitality businesses in my home village where, if you do not have cash, you can go thirsty, which is a matter of fact. Even so, there are places that have tried to shoehorn in the tap and contactless system and that is not fair. It disproportionately affects people in lower socioeconomic groups, vulnerable people, people with disabilities and older persons and that is why it is important the access to cash Bill pass all Stages and become legislation, as will be the case.”
“I will meet the Alliance for Insurance Reform later today and, as a Government, we will be bringing forward a new action plan on insurance reform to build on the reforms of the past year. I am certainly happy to engage with the Senators at any stage in that regard. To respond to Senator O'Reilly, the only downside of being appointed as a Minister of State is that I will no longer serve on the Council of Europe with him. His company was always enjoyable but apart from that, he does a lot of good work out there representing Ireland on a very important body. I am not sure whether he will return as a member of it during this term but if he is, I wish him luck. He made a number of points, one of which related to access to cash.”
“As Senators McDowell and Nelson Murray said, it is critical that the urgency of the case be met with the urgency of the response. Anybody who listened to the ombudsman being interviewed on the radio earlier will have heard that financial institutions and pension providers should be doing more to reduce the need for people having to seek redress through these offices. An educational aspect needs to happen. The ombudsman said he has been working with financial institutions and that some have improved in recent years. There has been a notable decrease in the volumes of complaints coming from certain quarters but, unfortunately, with others we have seen an increase, one of which relates to the insurance industry. We know how hard the insurance industry fought on the business interruption case, an issue on which I was very vocal at the time.”
“I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach and all of the Senators for their contributions. The vital role of the FSPO for consumers of financial services in Ireland was highlighted just today because it launched its annual overview of complaints for 2024. In total, €5.7 million was delivered in outcomes to consumers in 2024. The FSPO received 6,185 complaints in 2024, maintaining the historic high level of complaints received in 2023. That was a 30% increase in complaints received on 2023. It is for that reason the Minister for Finance sanctioned the FSPO's work plan for 2024-26 at the end of 2023, increasing the staff numbers from 90 to 128, or by 42%. It is important in order that when people wish to avail of an office such as this, the matter can be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.”
“This was discussed at length on Committee Stage in the Dáil and is progressing. At my request, the Minister for Finance has sent a letter to the Minister for Justice to see how this issue can be explored further, given the broader legal and contractual context at play. Officials in the Department of Finance have also further engaged with the FSPO on this matter. With this in mind, I look forward to engaging with Members on the Bill today and hope it can be sent forward to Committee Stage for further discussion and examination of this important consumer protection legislation.”
“The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill will update the 2017 principal Act to take account of the Zalewski ruling by making targeted amendments that provide for public oral hearings when appropriate, clarity around oath-taking and affirmations process in oral hearings, and that mediation shall be conducted in private. This is complemented by a number of other targeted improvements to the wider Act. These measures will strengthen the functions and the robustness of the office of the ombudsman and improve the consumer protection framework for customers of financial services and pension providers, an aim I am sure we all share in this House. I would also like to mention the issue of a joint account holder progressing a complaint where the consent of all account holders has not been obtained.”
“This amendment would allow regulations to be made that require internal dispute resolution processes to be established by those responsible for the management of the scheme, such as trustees, personal retirement savings accounts providers or, in the case of a public authority scheme, the Minister or Ministers to whom the right of appeal applies. Section 19 is to correct a typographical error; section 62 of the Act, which refers to “a decision of the Ombudsman under section 61 or 62 in respect of a complaint” rather than to “a decision of the Ombudsman under section 60 or 61 in respect of a complaint”. Section 20 is a standard provision giving the Title of the Bill and when it will come into effect.”
“Section 15 would allow the Minister for Finance to make regulations that require financial services providers, or certain classes thereof, and pension providers, or certain classes thereof, to establish internal dispute resolution procedures for dealing with complaints and to publish their internal dispute resolution procedures. Currently, there is no statutory obligation on pension providers to have internal dispute resolution procedures in place. Furthermore, the regulation-making powers currently drafted would require the regulations to be applicable to all entities that meet the definition of pension provider.”
“However, a consumer may make a complaint to the FSPO regarding the conduct of a bank in how it has processed the application. This reflects input from the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach in the previous Oireachtas in its pre-legislative scrutiny report. Section 14 corrects a cross-referencing error. This amendment clarifies that the ombudsman may accept a complaint where a financial services provider or pension provider has initiated legal proceedings in relation to a complaint and where the ombudsman believes, based on reasonable grounds, that the provider has initiated those proceedings to frustrate or delay its investigation.”
“This includes providing a statutory basis for a member of staff to assume the position of acting ombudsman where there is no deputy ombudsman at the time. There is also a series of amendments to various sections of the 2017 FSPO Act to reflect the potential for there to be more than one person appointed as deputy ombudsman. This point is facilitated by amendments in sections 4, 5 and 7 to 11, inclusive. Sections 12 and 14 clarify the respective remits of the FSPO and the credit reviewer. The credit reviewer makes a recommendation regarding a participating bank's lending decision, as a result of which the participating bank may decide to approve the loan. The FSPO’s jurisdiction does not overlap because the FSPO will not interfere with the commercial discretion of a financial services provider or a recommendation of the credit reviewer.”
“This is the interpretation long since taken by the FSPO and its predecessor, the Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau. Having considered the matter carefully and with the advice of the Attorney General's office, the proposed legislative amendment seeks to provide further clarity to confirm the position taken by the FSPO with respect to the existing statutory powers underpinning the investigation of these kinds of complaints. Section 3 outlines the methodology for calculating expenses via percentage split. This is charged to the financial services sector by a levy for financial services complaints and expenses charged by the Exchequer for pension cases. Section 6 outlines the process for appointing an acting ombudsman during the absence of an ombudsman in a number of scenarios.”
“The third part of the amendment clarifies that the FSPO has the power to investigate complaints against a financial services provider or pension provider which met the definition of financial services provider or pension provider, as defined in the 2017 principal Act, at the time of the conduct complained of, even if that provider ceased to meet the definition of the financial services provider or pension provider, as defined in the principal Act, before the complaint was made to the FSPO or before the FSPO’s investigation of the complaint has been concluded. This proposed amendment will eliminate any ambiguity in the interpretation of the legislative provisions and it will confirm the FSPO can investigate firms which may no longer meet the definition of a financial services provider or pension provider at the time of the complaint.”
“The amendment will now address the legitimate concern raised and will ensure all mortgage holders will have access to the FSPO if needed. This part of the amendment was welcomed by and passed with the support of Opposition spokespersons in the Dáil on 5 March. The second part of the amendment is to clarify the definition of the term “credit reviewer”.”
“The amendment will include any person engaged in the activity of credit servicing before the commencement of the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 and 2018, respectively. Currently, the FSPO may only accept a complaint relating to the conduct of a credit servicing firm where the conduct giving rise to the complaint occurred after the commencement of the relevant Act. The amendment will extend the jurisdiction of the FSPO relating to the activity of credit servicing. The FSPO will have jurisdiction to review complaints made at any point after a loan sale. This includes complaints before the commencement of either the 2015 or 2018 Acts. This issue was raised during the Dáil Second Stage debate in February 2024.”
“Section 18 outlines that a person who gives evidence on oath or affirmation that is false, and that he or she knows to be false, has committed an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both. I turn to the amendments to the 2017 FSPO Act that do not relate to the Zalewski case. Section 1 is a standard provision defining that the term "principal Act" refers to the 2017 FSPO Act. Section 2 amends the interpretation section of the principal Act. Three separate issues are addressed here. The first substantive amendment is to the definition of "financial services provider" as set out in the 2017 Act. The definition is the list of financial entities in respect of which a complainant may submit a complaint to the FSPO.”
“The procedures of the FSPO greatly encourage mediation between the parties on a voluntary basis to ensure that every effort can be made to facilitate the resolution of the complaints in the way that empowers the parties themselves to design and agree a confidential solution. This is in accordance with provisions of section 58(1) of the Act, which requires the ombudsman to try as far possible to resolve a complaint by mediation. Mediation by its very nature is a confidential process. Given that mediation is one of the various forms of "investigation" anticipated by section 12(1) of the Act, it would be contrary to the Act and the well-established procedures for conducting mediation for any FSPO investigation by way of mediation to be conducted in public.”
“This updates the principal Act to include a provision for cross-examination and that a person can make an affirmation instead of taking an oath. Section 16 provides that the ombudsman is required to take a decision whether to hold an oral hearing as provided for under section 12(1)(c) of the 2017 Act and as conducted under section 47(3) in public. This decision is taken after consultation of the parties concerned. The nature or circumstances of the complaint or other matters in the interest of justice should also be considered. This is one of the key amendments that has come about as a result of the Zalewski Supreme Court ruling. Section 17 provides that mediation shall always be conducted in private. This provides an important comfort to complainants, who otherwise may be disinclined to submit complaints to the ombudsman.”
“The consultations were to ensure the necessary amendments arising from the Zalewski ruling are put in place and to ensure the FSPO continues to administer justice within the meaning anticipated by Article 37. This includes the possibility of holding hearings in public where deemed appropriate. The Bill also improves the 2017 Act with some clarifications and correcting errors, such as typos. I will outline the main provisions of the Bill. First, I will give an overview of the main Zalewski-related amendments. I will then summarise the other amendments proposed within the Bill. Section 13 provides that the ombudsman may require any person to attend before him and be examined and cross-examined on oath or affirmation.”
“In that ruling, the Supreme Court held that the exercise of power by the adjudication officers under Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 was the administration of justice under Article 34 of the Constitution. The administration of justice is normally preserved for the courts. However, the Supreme Court found that the administration of justice as carried out by the adjudication service is permissible within the meaning of Article 37 of the Constitution as the administration of justice was limited. In light of this ruling and throughout the drafting of the Bill, the Department consulted with stakeholders, particularly the Office of the Attorney General and the FSPO.”
“Last Monday, I spoke at the launch of the Central Bank's revised consumer protection code, which updates and modernises the code and aims to ensure firms put the interests of the consumer at the centre of how they operate their business. The FSPO resolves complaints through one of two ways. The first is informal mediation. The second is through formal investigation and adjudication. This can include oral hearings, if required. This leads to legally binding decisions that are subject only to statutory appeal to the High Court. Some of the amendments to the FSPO ACt proposed by the Bill have come as a result of the ruling in the case of Zalewski v. the adjudication officer, the Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland and the Attorney General.”
“On 5 March 2025, the Bill progressed through Committee, Report and Final Stages in the Dáil. Amendments were debated and adopted by the Deputies present. Today's Second Stage debate on the general principles of the Bill is an important step in the progress of this legislation. The FSPO was established on 1 January 2018 by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017, as amended. The office is a critical part of consumer protection framework in Ireland providing an independent, impartial, fair and free service that helps resolve complaints for consumers, including small businesses and other organisations, against regulated financial services providers and pension providers. The work of the FSPO complements the wider consumer protection framework for financial services in Ireland.”
“I thank the Acting Chairperson. I welcome the opportunity to engage with Members on the Bill. The Bill will strengthen protections for financial customers in Ireland and ensure that the office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, can continue to carry out its statutory functions in line with the Constitution. Many will have heard the ombudsman, Mr. Liam Sloyan, on RTÉ this morning speaking on the FSPO's new report on complaints in 2024. That 6,185 complaints were received by the FSPO and €5.7 million was delivered in outcomes for consumers last year highlights the importance of the ombudsman as a service in demand. It also highlights the importance of progressing this Bill to ensure that it is maintained on a sound legal basis. The Government published the Bill on 19 December 2023.”
“The FSPO publishes an overview of complaints every year, as the Deputy will be aware. Where there are numerous complaints against a particular financial institution, it is named. It is at the discretion of the FSPO. The Deputy is right. If the complaint is heard in private, it is not guaranteed that the name of the financial institution will be published. However, if there are continuous complaints against that financial institution, the FSPO will publish and name it. I will have to come back to the Deputy on the threshold required in respect of the number of complaints against a particular financial institution. If there is one complaint, we can take it that will not be published. However, if there are numerous complaints, the institution's name will be published. I need to come back to the Deputy on the threshold.”
“To confirm again, it is only where the hearing has been in public. The matter that will be published has already been heard in public. No new information is being published. The only person who can decide if they are willing to have the hearing in public is the person who is bringing the complaint. If someone is willing to have their complaint heard in public, they will not have an issue with the findings being published.”
“My clear understanding is that, as the law stands, the only person who can opt to have the hearing in public is the person bringing the complaint. Therefore, it is not the FSPO who makes the decision to have the hearing in public. By virtue of the fact that the complainant is willing to have the hearing in public, he or she is giving implied permission to be known. If he or she wanted to have it in private, he or she could do so. It is his or her choice, nobody else's.”
“This is just to correct a typographical error in section 62 of the 2017 Act, which refers to a decision of the ombudsman under sections 61 or 62 in respect of a complaint rather than a decision of the ombudsman under sections 60 or 61 in respect of a complaint. The amendment rectifies the typographical error so section 62, on decisions of the ombudsman, refers to sections 60 and 61. Section 60 is related to complaints and redress in respect of financial service providers, while section 61 refers to complaints and redress in respect of pension providers. It is just a technical amendment.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “19. Section 62 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “section 60 or 61” for “section 61 or 62”, (b) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2): “(2) Subject to subsection (2A), the Ombudsman— (a) shall publish— (i) decisions made by him or her after the establishment day in relation to complaints concerning financial service providers, and (ii) case studies in relation to complaints concerning pension providers, and (b) may, if he or she considers it appropriate to do so in any particular case, publish, in such form as he or she thinks fit, a report in relation to any investigation under this Part and the result of that investigation, in such a manner that— (I) ensures that— (A) a complainant shall not be identified by name, address or otherwise, and (B) a financial service provider or a pension provider, as the case may be, shall not be identified by name or address, and (II) ensures compliance with the Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.”, (c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2): “(2A) Where the Ombudsman has, as part of an investigation into a complaint, conducted an oral hearing in public under section 56(4A), the Ombudsman may identify the complainant and either the financial service provider or the pension provider concerned when publishing decisions, case studies or reports, as the case may be, under subsection (2).”, (d) by the repeal of subsection (3), and (e) in subsection (4), by the substitution of “any decision, case study or report, as the case may be, under subsection (2)” for “any report under subsection (2) or (3)”.”.”
“It will not remove any right; it just clarifies what the right is. The Credit Review Office, as the Deputy knows, was established for people who had a grievance or felt their credit application was not dealt with appropriately by way of a commercial decision on their ability to repay a financial loan. The measure clarifies the difference between the review office and the FSPO but is not removing any right. If people still believe it is required to go to the FSPO on grounds other than commercial-decision grounds, they can still do that.”
“It is important to note that the credit reviewer reviews cases for SMEs, sole traders and farm enterprises, where the FSPO also investigates complaints by individual consumers. Nevertheless, a consumer, including a small business, may make a complaint to the FSPO regarding the conduct of the bank in how it assessed the loan application or regarding the treatment of a customer during the application process. The FSPO has jurisdiction to investigate whether the bank's conduct during the period was contrary to law or was unjust, unreasonable, oppressive or otherwise improper. The updated wording will foolproof the provisions of the legislation to prevent an overlap in the respective roles of the FSPO and the credit reviewer.”
“Section 12 clarifies the respective remit of the financial services ombudsman and the credit reviewer. There is another similar amendment to section 14 of the Bill; that section also corrects a typographical error. The credit reviewer makes a recommendation regarding a participating bank's lending decision as a result of which the participating bank may decide to approve the loan. The FSPO's jurisdiction does not overlap because the FSPO does not interfere with the commercial discretion of a financial service provider regarding its decisions to advance credit, or the conditions under which the loan facilities are offered, including interest rates or repayment period.”
“I do not accept that it is as easy as projected, but I will give a commitment to the Deputy, if he does not press the amendment, that I will speak to the FSPO to see whether anything can be done.”
“I am not saying the Deputy is wrong, but my personal experience is in a situation where there is a joint account, both signatures must now be present, even to change an address. That is probably a welcome protection that is in place. I know of examples where the courts have difficulties where both parties are not coming to the situation. Quite often, the courts will suspend and give additional time to get a party to make contact with the other party because it will make it easier. I will give a commitment that I will engage with the FSPO to see whether anything is at all possible going forward. I accept and agree with the bona fides of what the Deputy is saying, especially in respect of people who have been subjected to marital breakdown and domestic abuse, who should not be penalised unnecessarily.”
“I hear what each of the Deputies is saying but, to be fair, the review of the consumer protection code is a good, positive and concrete change. We must also acknowledge that both parties to a contract have rights and they both have obligations. Deputy Doherty mentioned that the Central Bank or the relevant financial institution or pension provider can undertake a review if one party raises an issue, but it is also fair to say that neither the Central Bank nor a financial institution or pension provider is a quasi-judicial body. As a result, they cannot issue a legally binding finding in such a scenario. I recently wrote to a bank to request a change of address on a joint account I hold with my wife. The bank would not change it without her signature. It would not even change a postal address without her signature.”
“However, I am told that in relation to the amendment, and taking account of the views of the Supreme Court in the Zalewski case, in which the Supreme Court held that any public administration body, such as the FSPO, which provides a complainant with a route to redress as an alternative to court is operating within the confines of the provisions of Article 37.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann and is administrating justice. It is against this constitutional background that the FSPO operates as a quasi-judicial function and, for that reason, must be especially cognisant of the need to adhere to fair procedures. I am advised that legally we cannot do what is proposed. The Deputies are saying we can but I have to take the advice I am being given, which is that we cannot do it.”
“The Central Bank also consulted on the introduction of a new definition of financial abuse to mean the wrongful or unauthorised taking, withholding, appropriation or use of customers' moneys assets or property; any act or omission by a person, including through the use of power of attorney, guardianship or any other authority regarding a customer, to gain control through deception, intimidation or undue over the customer's money, assets or property; or wrongfully interfere with or deny the customer's ownership, use, benefit or possession of the customer's money, assets or property. A lot of work has been done on updating the Central Bank consumer protection code to help customers in vulnerable situations.”
“Firms would also be required to secure the interests of customers in vulnerable circumstances. This approach seeks to embed an understanding of vulnerability within the operation of a firm and ensure the needs of consumers in vulnerable circumstances and that a commitment to addressing these needs is an integral part of a firm's customer focus. This should allow firms to be prepared to assist when the needs of consumers in vulnerable circumstances arise.”
“As part of that consultation process and the proposed revised code measures, the Central Bank has set out a number of important policy proposals relating to consumers in vulnerable circumstances and experiencing financial abuse, which would provide important enhancements for consumers in such circumstances. That is what Members were alluding to a moment ago. This includes a proposed new and overarching provision on securing consumers' interests, which obliges firms to effectively incorporate those interests in their strategy, business model and decision-making process, reflecting their overarching obligation to act in the best interests of their consumers. New measures on vulnerability are expected to be included in the updated code as part of the overarching duty on firms to secure the interests of customers.”
“To be brutally honest with the Deputies, when I was briefed on this Bill before coming in, I saw the merits of where they were coming from. I could see the reason for this and the examples of where it could well be needed. I could think of examples of dealing with marital breakdown in my constituency where one party has gone, never to be engaged with and the other person is unable to make contact with them. I see the rationale behind this, and it is in that context that the Central Bank's consumer protection code plays an important role in the context of wider financial consumer protection frameworks to support consumers. The code was subject to a major review by the Central Bank recently in order to deliver an updated, modernised and fit-for-purpose code for consumers of financial services.”
“Fraud is clearly a matter for An Garda Síochána, not for the financial services ombudsman. Financial abuse is to be redefined soon in the Central Bank code of conduct. I accept that when complainants are at the financial services ombudsman, they have gone through the code of conduct, but it will be redefined to assist in situations where there is a joint account before the need arises to go to the financial services ombudsman. My understanding is the process in the UK is different as the UK financial ombudsman sets out that if the consumer accepts the ombudsman's decision in a specified timeframe, the business has to do what the ombudsman has told it to do. It will be binding on the business. The consumer does not have to accept the ombudsman's decision and a rejected decision will not be binding on the business.”
“Another consideration worth noting is that joint owners who have not consented to the complaint may hold key information relevant to the investigation of the complaint. This approach is of particular importance given the views of the Supreme Court in the Zalewski case. The court held a public administrative body, such as the FSPO, which provides a complainant with a route to redress as an alternative to the courts is operating within the confines of the provision of Article 37 of Bunreacht na hÉireann and is administering justice. It is against this constitutional background that the FSPO operates a quasi-judicial function and, therefore, is especially cognisant of the need to adhere to fair procedures. On that basis, I do not propose to accept the amendment.”
“This approach is in accordance with the statutory obligation placed on the FSPO by section 56(3) of the Act, which prescribes that: Where the Ombudsman proposes to conduct an investigation into a complaint made under this Part, he or she shall provide the parties, and any other person who, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, might be adversely affected by any decision he or she may make in relation to the complaint, an opportunity to— (a) make submissions with respect to the conduct the subject of the complaint, and (b) comment on any allegations contained in the complaint or reference. Under this section, all owners of the account or policy must consent to investigation of the complaint and processing of personal data by the FSPO.”
“The FSPO has advised that where a complaint is made to it concerning a joint account or joint policy, it must recognise that all parties who own the account or policy have rights, entitlements and potential liabilities arising from that account or policy. The rights, entitlements and potential liabilities of joint owners arise not only from a legal and contractual perspective but also from other legislative and regulatory sources such as data protection legislation. Whether the complaint is resolved by way of a binding mediation settlement agreement between the parties using the confidential dispute resolutions service or is subject of a formal investigation by the FSPO leading to a legally binding decision, the rights and obligations of all joint account or joint policy holders are thereby affected.”