The Ombudsman’s office acted unlawfully when not bothering to consider on its merits Financial Services Complaints Ltd’s application to use the word ‘ombudsman’ in its advertising. It bordered on contempt of court for Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier to procrastinate over a court-ordered reconsideration of Financial Services’ application while he lobbied parliament to block the application, Financial Services alleged.
Financial Services requests for approval have been turned down three times with its first application declined in 2015. The office of parliamentary ombudsman was established in 1962. It deals with complaints that government has not complied with the law. The Ombudsman’s Office is jealous of its standing; approval is needed for others seeking to use the title.
Privately-run industry dispute resolution services having approval are the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme and Financial Dispute Resolution Service Ltd. Financial Services Complaints Ltd similarly wants to add the moniker ‘ombudsman’ to its services. It currently serves schemes with memberships totalling some seven thousand.
In 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled the Ombudsman’s Office was being overly protective of its name and that Financial Services application should be reconsidered. Some fifteen months later, the Office again turned down Financial Services’ renewed application. In the interim, lobbying by the Chief Ombudsman saw government legislation passed prohibiting use of the term ‘ombudsman’ by private sector organisations with exceptions for those private sector organisations already having approval. Mr Boshier was to tell the High Court there was nothing sinister in this law change; it was intended to limit ongoing legal costs over disputes about the name. Evidence was given that Mr Boshier initially sought to exclude in the legislative change Financial Services then ongoing application for use of the name. While the changed rules did in fact allow Financial Services to continue with its third application, this application was eventually turned down.
Justice Grice ruled this third decision invalid. The Chief Ombudsman had made his mind up from the outset that Financial Services would not get approval, she ruled. At law, a pre-determined decision is not a decision at all.
Financial Services application was sent back to the Ombudsman’s Office for a fourth round of consideration. An independent outsider should be appointed to consider this application, Justice Grice suggested.
Financial Services Complaints Ltd v. Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman – High Court (26.02.21)
21.041