Consultation on proposals for implementation of strategic review

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

Q.1: Which member category are you currently in?

Q.2: Which scheme do you represent?

We had 31 responses to the consultation. That breaks down as:

  • 15 Ombudsman members (c.50% of the 28 members)
  • 9 Complaint handlers (c.33% of the 26 members)
  • 7 Individual associate members (c.15% of the 46 members)

Ombudsman Members (15)
Isle of Man Financial Ombudsman
Ombudsman Services
Local Government Ombudsman
Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau
Garda Ombudsman
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
Ombudsman for the Defence Forces
The Property Ombudsman
Gibraltar Public Services Ombudsman
Legal Ombudsman
Public Services Ombudsmanfor Wales
Waterways Ombudsman
Pensions Ombudsman
Financial Ombudsman Service
Office of the Ombudsman, Ireland
Complaint Handler Members (9)
Independent Complaints Reviewers
Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal
Law Society of Ireland
Scottish Information Commissioner
The Dispute Service
Disclosure & Barring Service
An CoimisineirTeanga
Advertising Standards Agency
Individual Associate Members (7) /
  1. Independent Complaints Reviewers
  2. Individual Associate member
  3. Individual Associate member
  4. Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
  5. Isle of Man Financial Ombudsman
  6. Ombudsman Services
  7. Local Government Ombudsman
  8. Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau
  9. Individual Associate member
  10. Garda Ombudsman
  11. Individual Associate member
  12. Individual Associate member
  13. Individual Associate Member
  14. Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
  15. Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal
  16. Ombudsman for the Defence Forces
  17. Law Society of Ireland
  18. The Property Ombudsman
  19. Scottish Information Commissioner
  20. The Dispute Service
  21. Disclosure & Barring Service
  22. Gibraltar Public Services Ombudsman
  23. Legal Ombudsman
  24. Public Services Ombudsman for Wales
  25. An CoimisineirTeanga
  26. Waterways Ombudsman
  27. Pensions Ombudsman
  28. Financial Ombudsman Service
  29. Advertising Standards Agency
  30. Office of the Ombudsman, Ireland
  31. Ann Abraham

There was near universal support (90%) for the enhanced services described in the consultation paper, however as responses to later questions indicate there is significant opposition to the proposals (universal membership and revised subscription rates) that are necessary to provide the funding envelope required to deliver those enhanced services.

Reasons for ‘no’ answers:

  • Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau: we remain to be convinced
  • Scottish Information Commissioner: Answered ‘no’ to all questions. Would prefer to be an Associate member, but depends on access to services
  • Advertising Standards Agency: Activity aimed at Ombudsmen, little confidence that training would be developed with their scheme in mind.

Schemes that said ‘yes’:

  • Ombudsman Services: hot-desking, not permanent
  • Local Government Ombudsman: hot-desking, not permanent
  • Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal
  • The Dispute Service: At cost, in new offices in Hemel Hempstead
  • PSOW: for all or some, subject to details of agreement
  • Financial Ombudsman Service: for all 3, subject to scoping.

80% of those who responded supported the proposed ‘Vision’. There were some suggestions for amendments /additions.

Qualified ‘yes’:

  • The Property Ombudsman: include that the complaint is dealt with quickly, fairly and effectively by experienced staff
  • Legal Ombudsman: include ‘open’ or ‘transparent’

Reasons for ‘no’ answers:

  • Disclosure and Barring Service: Vision does not say what the OA’s role is in all that e.g. ‘By developing the professionalism…’ Add ‘at the earliest stage’ to 3rd bullet.
  • Ann Abraham: Too long, too narrow e.g. no reference to remedy/redress, not sufficiently ambitious.
  • Scottish Information Commissioner: no to all questions.

68% of those who responded supported the revised ‘Objects’ of the Association. Of the 29% who either qualified their support or answered ‘no’, several suggested additions or alternative wording.

Qualified ‘yes’:

  • The Property Ombudsman: Provided that promotion of knowledgeable, experienced and suitably trained staff is included.
  • PSOW: Add bullet point about providing an early warning system regarding developments at national and EU level.
  • Disclosure and Barring Service: Object 1, place ‘support’ before ‘promote’. Object 4: queried if ‘public accountability’ in terms of private sector schemes is simply publishing an annual report; change to ‘support the principles of independence and accountability’; add ‘develop’ to ‘endorse’.
  • Waterways Ombudsman: Given the proposal for universal membership, object 2 should refer to all members. Noted point made in consultation document that protection of the role ombudsman was no longer prime function.
  • Financial Ombudsman Service: Highlighted thatOmbudsmen would no longer be recognised simply through membership.

Reasons for ‘no’ answers:

  • Pensions Ombudsman: Identify Ombudsman as ‘best practice’ model, where appropriate.
  • Individual Associate #13: Does this make it a ‘Complaint handlers Association’ rather than the Ombudsman Association?
  • Ann Abraham: Key elements lost: definition of criteria for recognising ombudsmen and facilitation of mutual learning and best practice.

Q.7: Do you agree with the proposal to move to universal membership?

Overall, 42% of those who responded supported the move to universal membership, with 32% giving qualified support and 26% opposing. The qualified support ranged from concern through reluctant support to effective opposition.

Ombudsman Members

Yes / Qualified support / No
  1. Isle of Man Financial Ombudsman
  2. Ombudsman Services
  3. Local Government Ombudsman
  4. SPSO
  5. Ombudsman for Defence Forces*
  6. Gibraltar Ombudsman
/ 1. PSOW
2. Legal Ombudsman
3. Pensions Ombudsman
4. The Property Ombudsman
5. Waterways Ombudsman
6. Financial Ombudsman Service / 1. Ombudsman, Ireland
2. Garda Ombudsman
3. Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau, Ireland

Qualified support:

  • PSOW: Real reservations. Whilst noted intention not to weaken Association’s purpose, the bar in relation to meeting full membership criteria will have to be lowered.
  • The Property Ombudsman: Provided that titles of ‘complaint handler’ and ‘ombudsman’ remain and that OA carries out research to determine the difference between the two titles.
  • Pensions Ombudsman:Reservations about where private sector criteria discussion may lead and very uncomfortable about having different tests for public and private sector.
  • Waterways Ombudsman: Different designations: some more equal than others? Why one subscription rate if this is the case?
  • Legal Ombudsman:Question around how we define ‘ombudsman’. Clearly needs to be clarified, particularly within private sector.
  • Financial Ombudsman Service:Wary of creating further benchmarks/ designations within universal membership

Reasons for ‘No’:

  • Garda Ombudsman: Not convinced members (particularly small, complaint handler) can afford new fees; think it will dilute ombudsman brand; thinks ‘full/associate’ member can accommodate all; but will not precipitate crisis if decided this is way forward.
  • Ombudsman, Ireland: see Peter Tyndall’s letter

Irish Members’ responses

Irish members were considerably more likely to oppose the proposals. The Ombudsmen members’ main concern was the weakening of the brand as a result. Although the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces expressed support for universal membership, he did not support the increased subscription rates and noted at the briefing meeting in Dublin that he would leave the Association if other Irish members did. The complaint handler members who opposed did so because they could not afford the increase in fees and did not desire equal voting rights.

Yes / No
  1. Ombudsman for Defence Forces*
  2. Law Society of Ireland
  3. Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal
/
  1. Ombudsman, Ireland
  2. Garda Ombudsman
  3. Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau
  4. Language Commissioner
  5. Press Ombudsman* (expressed in briefing)

The majority of responses, 74%, supported the proposed changes. Those who gave reasons why they did not, or qualified their support, (3 Ombudsmen, 3 Complaint handlers, 1 Individual associate) were concerned that the changes would result in the different constituencies not being represented. The fact that the ‘core’ Policy Network mirrors the Executive Committee magnified those concerns.

The majority of responses, 77%, also supported the changes regarding the changes to the Validation Committee. However, nearly a quarter of responses either opposed or queried the value of the changes.

There were discussions in the briefing meetings about having more than one member of the Executive on the Validation Committee, to ensure representation if a conflict of interest is declared, of having an independent member as chair, and co-opting individuals from outside the Association’s membership. In their responses the Legal Ombudsman, Pensions Ombudsman and Waterways Ombudsman specifically supported co-opting independent members.

Reasons for ‘no’ answer or query:

  • Ann Abraham: Don’t understand question; already a sub-committee
  • Garda Ombudsman: Don’t see the difference it will make
  • Individual Associate #13: Need more detail, unclear what difference will be.
  • PSOW: Need to protect ‘separation of powers’ from Executive, especially in light of dilution of membership criteria.
  • Independent Complaints Reviewer: (no reason given)
  • Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau: Overlay of Governance not required?

Q.10: Do you support the review of the subscription size bands and rates?

Overall, there was almost an equal split between those who supported the review of the subscription rates and bands and those who either opposed it or offered qualified support. Concerns coalesced around the steep increase for complaint handler members, with some arguing for a phased approach and others noting it was simply unaffordable. Similar concerns were raised regarding smaller ombudsman schemes. Larger schemes highlighted the need to be convinced of added value.

Reasons for ‘no’ / qualified support:

  • Ombudsman for Defence Forces: Steep increase will lead to internal review of benefits of membership.
  • Waterways Ombudsman: Unfair proportion of budget. Add XXS category.
  • Isle of Man Financial Ombudsman: Too high an increase for complaint handler members; should be phased.
  • Legal Ombudsman: Increase for smaller ombudsman members and complaint handlers not proportionate. Consider different approach.
  • Gibraltar: Overseas members should pay same rate as other members, with special consideration for financially strapped schemes. Interest Group for Overseas Members.
  • Financial Ombudsman Service: Need to be assured of value
  • Ombudsman, Ireland: Benefits for members outside England need to be clear.
  • Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau: Not convinced of added value
  • AnCoimisineirTeanga: Cannot afford increase.
  • Law Society for Ireland: Smaller complaint handlers will struggle with increase.
  • Disclosure & Barring Service: Transitional arrangements needed to phase increase for complaint handlers.
  • Office of Immigration Services Commissioner and Scottish Information Commissioner: would want to switch to Associate membership, depending on access to services
  • Advertising Standards Agency: Not convinced will see benefit in enhanced services.
  • Individual Associate #11: Think it will need to be reconsidered to stop schemes leaving.

Q.11: If the proposed changes are approved will you renew your membership?

35% of those who responded said they would either leave or consider their membership if the proposed changes were approved. Within that category are some who appear likely to leave the Association regardless of any changes. However, it is likely that if the national Ombudsman for Ireland chose to leave the Association the other Irish members in both categories would follow.

Ombudsman Members

Qualified / No
1. PSOW
2. Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau
3. Ombudsman for Defence Forces / 1. Ombudsman, Ireland
  • PSOW: Monitor dilution of membership criteria / Ombudsman brand
  • Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau:Unconvinced about value of services and change to membership criteria
  • Ombudsman for Defence Forces: Increase in subs, plus if national ombudsman does.

COMPLAINT HANDLER Members

Qualified / No
1. Law Society for Ireland /
  1. Advertising Standards Agency
  2. OISC
  3. Scottish Information Commissioner
  4. An CoimisineirTeanga
  5. Press Ombudsman* (did not respond)