The High Court has refused an appeal by David Walsh, Ursula Walsh and Office School and Computer Supplies Limited against a Financial Services Ombudsman finding concerning Bank of Ireland’s handling of their accounts.
In a judgment delivered on 27 June 2012, Mr Justice Hedigan declined to set aside the Ombudsman’s finding or remit it for review. The appeal was brought under section 57CL of the Central Bank Act 1942. The court applied the test that the appellants had to show, on the balance of probabilities, a serious and significant error in the adjudicative process as a whole.
The Ombudsman had partially substantiated the complaint in March 2011, finding several instances of maladministration that caused considerable inconvenience. The bank was directed to refund €10,903.20 for additional overdraft interest linked to commercial loan overpayments, pay €2,500 for customer service and administration failures, and amend the complainants’ credit profile to show they were not in arrears on three accounts after standing orders were reversed.
The appellants argued that the Ombudsman should also have directed the bank to keep them informed of interest-rate changes and adjust repayments accordingly. They challenged the €2,500 award as inadequate, citing stress, disruption to their business and time spent dealing with the account errors. They also argued that the Ombudsman had treated as disputed two matters they said had already been resolved or were not part of their complaint.
The judge said the requested directions had not been expressly sought in the complaint to the Ombudsman. The court also had no evidence of an ongoing banking practice causing damage that might justify intervention. Deciding whether to issue directions was within the Ombudsman’s discretion, the judge said.
On compensation, the court said the Ombudsman’s process was an informal, cost-free means of resolving disputes, not a forum for measuring damages in the same way as the High Court. A general practitioner’s note referred to a recurrence of an ulcer associated with business stress, but the judge said it did not establish that the bank was wholly responsible. The appellants had also produced no bill for the accountant’s costs they said they incurred.
The court found the Ombudsman had been entitled to address the issues presented to him, including those the appellants said were no longer in dispute. The judge saw no practical benefit in amending the finding and refused all the relief sought.