For the last two years, there has been talk of a financial ombudsman. But what should he do? This question came up in the discussion under an interview with TOM PROUZA, the ombudsman of Potovn spořitelna, who agreed to write a little and explain it. Here we go.
The basic philosophy has been tested in the world at the time, there would also be a willingness to use and instead of a dogmatic discussion “let’s never let the ombudsman go” to discuss what is most effective for clients and financial institutions.
For the last two years, there has been talk of a financial ombudsman. But what should he do?
The Ombudsman should be in charge of an out-of-court dispute. Let’s say a little bit dark, for his own out-of-court dispute at all.
The out-of-court dispute system is a standard way to enable consumers to resolve disputes with traders quickly and cheaply. If the trader in the Czech Republic rejects the complaint today, the consumer will not be able to wave his hand over it (usually) or file an action in court (what is complicated, expensive and will take several years).
Even in countries where the courts operate much harder than in the R, therefore, various ombudsmen or similar institutions have emerged, where the consumer can turn his complaint to a businesswoman and quickly and cheaply, without sloich formalities, reach a binding decision.
The system of work of these ombudsmen is usually so informed about the most common problems (which warns companies about things that should go before that clients do not want to be concerned) and the educated consumer in the area of their first. The consumer who knows his first will often be able to defend himself against what is always the cheapest and most effective over any dispute, including the ombudsman or the court.
And just for the sake of interest, a number of European directives concerning the financial market require member states to establish and support a system of out-of-court dispute resolution.
How many ombudsmen m bt?
Each of them has two extreme possibilities but may have one ombudsman with the right to solve all consumer disputes (from food to electronics and financial services) or the wall of several specialized institutions.
There is something better than nothing, of course, but I personally believe that it would be appropriate for a specialized financial ombudsman to work in the field of financial services. Financial services are relatively complex, the understanding of legislation and technical aspects of financial products requires a lot of effort and building experience with a dispute will be difficult.
The Financial Ombudsman would also be a logical counterpart to the supervision of the financial market in the Czech National Bank, which does not want to focus on consumer protection itself, but also to whom it would advance this agenda. The financial ombudsman should include such an existing financial arbitrator, who will only try to test the banking market. If the state decided to wall a financial ombudsman, there would be only one place that any client could turn to in any problem related to financial services.
The financial ombudsman should be divided into 3-4 divisions with responsibility for banking, savings + investment, connection and credit products. The “branch ombudsman”, responsible for the world of the world, would decide disputes in the area that concerns him and would be responsible for the quality of performance (analogues can be the director of individual sectoral supervision in the NB). An “ombudsman college” would then appeal against the decision in the first instance, similarly to the decision of the NB Bank Board or the former presidium of the Securities Commission today.
How m mt powers?
The Ombudsman may first decide disputes. It should be the case that the client first contacts his institution, and only if he is not satisfied with the excellency, I can contact the financial ombudsman. At the same time, any financial institution would have to establish complaint procedures if the internal functions of the internal appellant are not before the financial ombudsman. This should ensure a significant dispute directly between the client and the financial institution without the need to involve an external entity.
On the other hand, the Financial Ombudsman should not automatically impose sanctions in the event that the consumer’s proposal is complied with only in part (as is the case with the Financial Arbiter today), his duty may be a specific dispute and not a penalty for breach of law.
Within the framework of the organizational structure, the supervisory board should act in such a way that it does not in any way participate in a single dispute, but has an advisory function in difficult matters concerning the strategic change, smooth functioning and financial activities of the ombudsman. The members of the board should be supervised by representatives of financial services providers, consumer organizations and the state.
The question is whether the Financial Ombudsman should first have experience in drafting the disputes with the Ministry of Finance and the NB for legislative legislation (especially where the client will be able to document the problems). The issue that the financial ombudsman should devote himself to is financial education. There will be a problem at the source, which clients often pay even in the world of finance, that prevention is always better and cheaper than just a problem.
There are, of course, many specific variants and a very bad analysis of profit and cost. However, the basic philosophy is testing time in the world, there would also be a willingness to use and instead of a dogmatic discussion “let’s never let the ombudsman go” to discuss what is most effective for clients and financial institutions.
you at investujeme.cz