Report comment

Anon @ 9.12

if the Ombudsman had investigators who were literate, properly educated and had the necessary skills and experience to deal with the matters before them then we might have confidence that the decisions reached would be fair, reasoned and appropriate and in such circumstances the 'polluter pays' principle would be one I would support.

The absence of a review mechanism short of Judicial Review makes challenging the decision of the Ombudsman, in practical terms, impossible.

Here is my experience of the Ombudsman.

We represented a client in a claim, she was 'proofed' by counsel in conference and throughout presented a cogent, credible and reasoned case. The claim proceeded with the support of her BTE insurer to trial.

Under the weight of the Court room and pressure of x-exam she admitted she'd made the whole thing up and was found to be fundamentally dishonest with costs against her.

The Ombudsman found that the service was inadequate, not because we didn't warn the client about fundamental dishonest (we did, counsel did, she endorsed his brief accordingly), not because the claim was not properly presented (they found it was) but because despite the client having BTE, we failed to advise her about ATE or take out a policy.

So, a finding against us for not doing something that we didn't need to do and should not have done.

The result £nil compensation to the client.

Apropos Private Eye, if that's justice then I'm a banana.