Walter Merricks, chief ombudsman

ombudsman news gives general information on the position at the date of publication. It is not a definitive statement of the law, our approach or our procedure.

The illustrative case studies are based broadly on real-life cases, but are not precedents. Individual cases are decided on their own facts.

ombudsman news

issue 10

October 2001

why we publish case studies

Many firms tell us they find the case studies in ombudsman news a very helpful way of keeping their staff up to date with ombudsman decisions. Of course, not all the cases will be directly relevant to every firm’s business – and some may appear to turn on a unique set of events. But the cases can all be useful in illustrating our general approach and giving examples of both good and bad complaints-handling practice among firms. The lessons to be learnt can help firms settle any disputes quickly and satisfactorily themselves, without the need for our involvement.

It appears, from a letter we were sent recently, that customers’ advisers sometimes pay more attention to ombudsman news case studies than the staff of insurers’ claims departments do. An insurance broker wrote:

"… I recently obtained payment [for a client] of £27,000 under a personal accident policy. The man had held for some years a … personal accident policy that contained a £27,000 lump sum benefit for loss of sight in an eye. A splinter shot into his eye and after two years a claim was made for the capital sum…

"[The insurer] requested an examination by their specialist and this was held 30 months after the accident. Despite repeated requests by the man’s solicitor [the insurer] refused to pay, contending that sight had not been lost as 3% remained.

Unwilling to bear Court Costs of further action by the solicitor, the man sought my aid … The same week you published an identical case [January 2001 – case 01/18 – where we concluded that an insurer should meet a claim for loss of sight from a lady who was left with only an estimated 2-3% vision after an accident]. The insurer duly paid but omitted to add £1,500 by way of an index-linked increase in the amount. When I drew this to their attention the further £1,500 was duly paid."