Demand for our assistance in resolving disputes continues to grow.
Following on from a 44% rise in demand in 2002/03, we experienced
a 57% increase in the number of complaints reaching us this year.
This increase was driven largely by waves of publicity about mortgage
endowment mis-selling, split capital investment trusts and so-called
‘precipice bonds’.
Coping with this level of demand has been a major challenge, which
we have met by – among other measures – carrying out
a major exercise to recruit and train over two hundred new staff
during the course of the year – as well as identifying new,
more effective ways of managing the increasing workload. But in
addition to ensuring that the organisation has the right level of
resources to meet its more immediate commitments, the board has
focused on developing our ability to predict future demand, as far
as this is possible, so that we can plan capacity accordingly. This
involves working closely with the industry to garner intelligence
on likely complaint trends. Increased dialogue with firms about
their own caseloads, and about the number of complaints likely to
come to us, also gives us greater opportunity to work together with
the industry, helping firms to resolve disputes at the earliest
possible stage.
Despite the huge growth in our workload, our performance measures
reveal, generally, a positive picture. We are meeting the majority
of our timeliness commitments and registering an 80% overall customer
satisfaction rating. But we are not complacent. Any organisation
facing such rapid growth needs to be constantly vigilant, so that
quality does not suffer and standards remain high. Our internal
processes keep the quality of our work under review and show us
where steps may be necessary to improve matters. As a result of
these processes, for example, we identified – and made provision
to deal with – an isolated batch of cases that we considered
unacceptable according to our quality standards. In January 2004,
we commissioned a formal review led by Professor Elaine Kempson
from Bristol University. The review involves examining the organisation’s
infrastructure, to ensure that our values – to be independent,
balanced and competent in the service we provide, and to act with
integrity – are supported and re-enforced by the systems
we use, and are embedded in the people we employ.
It is important for us to understand how our stakeholders see us
and to respond to their concerns. We regularly undertake formal
surveys to seek the views of complainants, of industry groups and
of our staff. But this year, in addition, we set up a system to
facilitate regular reporting to the board on a range of issues arising
from both formal and informal contact with stakeholders across industry
and consumer groups. The management team are committed to responding
to – and following through – the issues raised, and
this annual review provides some examples of how this initiative
is working.
This year the Financial Secretary to HM Treasury, Ruth Kelly, launched
a review of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. In response,
we have been working with the Financial Services Authority (FSA)
to review aspects of the relationship between the FSA and the ombudsman
service in dealing with cases that have wider implications. To ensure
that the public consultation to which this review will lead really
does listen to stakeholder concerns, an independent oversight panel
was set up, chaired by Colin Harris, Chairman of the Mortgage Code
Compliance Board. Membership of the panel reflects a balance of
industry and consumer views. The consultation will be an important
part of our work in 2004/05.
The coming year will present us with new challenges, including
the widening of our jurisdiction to cover mortgage and insurance
brokers, when these sectors come into the FSA’s regulatory
remit. It is also possible that we shall be asked to take on a range
of consumer credit complaints.
As we gear up to handle these future challenges, it may be timely
to remind ourselves – and our stakeholders – of our
fundamental purpose. We are not a regulator. Nor are we a consumer
champion or a trade body. Our task is to resolve fairly –
from a completely independent stance – disputes between consumers
and financial services companies. It is a task that is always likely
to be complicated and demanding. We intend to carry it out successfully
by sticking firmly to our values.
Sue Slipman OBE
June 2004
|