Chip and PIN

[Peter Tomlinson]

PeteM wrote:
> 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.
So why cannot we get them to divulge their investigative methods (if 
indeed they do investigate)? I'm currently one of a large group asking 
the Local Govt Ombudsman to rule on a planning matter that affects my 
whole area, and we would like to know what his methods are. At least he 
has documents (piles of them) on which he will adjudicate, and all those 
documents are about the actions of known people or the facts of the area 
where we all live. Its when we get into electronic methods, and the 
possibility of unknown people doing bad things that the Ombudsman 
approach breaks down. So yes, the American system with better access to 
the courts, looks to be a better way.

Peter