Chip and PIN

[PeteM]

Ian Batten wrote  on 24-01-08 15:48:
> 
> On 24 Jan 08, at 1535, Roger Hird wrote:
>> But if I understand the earlier part of this debate, the isssue is that
>> this or something like this is happening and the banks etc are demanding
>> that you prove it - which one can't - and the Ombusprats are backing them
>> up.
> 
> The guy that Ross appeared with was appalling: I suspect that his 
> colleagues will be having a serious conversation today.  He came across 
> as smug, patronising and legalistic, and quite obviously viewed the 
> banks (with whom he probably has agreeable lunches to discuss cases) as 
> far more credible than individuals (inarticulate, disorganised, 
> sometimes working class).

I agree, but we on this list know Ross and tend to regard him as 
trustworthy and well informed. Whereas people who knew the ombudsman 
bloke (or who knew neither of them) might have heard the programme and 
thought, "Ha ha, well he certainly put that professor cove in his place, 
no place for ivory towers in the real world, we can be sure these bank 
chappies know what they're about all right. Jolly good show."

What frustrates me when I listen to these programmes, or read the 
corresponding newspaper articles, is that they never get answers to the 
"What *actually* happened here?" questions. I mean, on that Y&Y 
programme, there was this old guy who had obviously been defrauded and 
the bank hadn't listened to him and the Ombudsman had simply dismissed 
his case. Yet he was obviously the innocent party. He couldn't *not* 
have been, it wouldn't make sense to do that sort of fraud and then 
complain to the Ombudsman and then go onto Radio 4 about it.

So what happened? What were the facts in that case? What specific 
evidence did the Ombudsman actually look at? How did he try to verify 
it? How did he come to dismiss the possibility that some third party had 
crooked the system?  Who did he consult with for independent technical 
advice?

The difficulty is that if you ask the Ombudsman's office these 
questions, they come back with, "Can't possibly discuss individual 
cases, bleat, burble. Against the Data Protection Act, yada yada. Bound 
by confidentiality, dribble dribble." It's really hard to get past, but 
it is absolutely essential if we are to understand what is going on.

-- 
Pete Mitchell