Complaint about the regulation of Lloyds will not be investigated by Ombudsman

24 February 2005

Press release 01/05

A complaint about the regulation of Lloyds in the 1980s and 1990s, made by the Chairman of the Lloyd's Names Association and members of his Association, will not be investigated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The decision was made public today in letters from the Ombudsman, Ann Abraham, to the Association's Chairman and to all MPs.

The Chairman approached the Ombudsman in August 2004 to ask her to conduct an investigation into complaints by members of his Association about the actions of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Government Actuary's Department (GAD). Following correspondence between the Ombudsman's office and the Chairman, the Ombudsman decided not to conduct an investigation for three key reasons.

The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, setting out the powers and duties of the Ombudsman, provides that she may not conduct an investigation into any complaint put to an MP more than 12 months from when the individual became aware of the subject of their complaint - unless there were special circumstances that made it proper for her to do so. In this case the complainants were aware of the issues for approximately a decade but did not come to the Ombudsman until summer 2004. The Ombudsman was not persuaded that special circumstances existed in this case.

The Act gives the Parliamentary Ombudsman the power to investigate complaints about government departments and agencies. On the evidence provided, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that a compelling case had been made that maladministration by the DTI (which is in her jurisdiction) and GAD (whose actions in relation to the complaints are not in her jurisdiction) had been the cause of the injustice claimed. The Chairman of the Association had recognised that responsibility for the protection of Names had lain with the Council of Lloyd's and not with the DTI. As the Council of Lloyd's is not within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, she may not investigate such a complaint.

Finally, the UK government is facing legal action - under European Community Francovich procedures - based in part on some of the same issues. Therefore the Ombudsman considers it would not be proper for her to trespass on the jurisdiction of the Courts when they might consider the same matters.

Ann Abraham said: 'I have not been persuaded that special circumstances exist in this case that would make it proper for me to exercise my discretion to investigate such very late complaints. Whilst I would always consider each complaint to me on its individual merits, any case based on identical facts to this one will receive the same response.'

For more information contact: The Press Office on: 0300 061 4996 or email: press@ombudsman.org.uk

Notes to Editors

  1. About the Ombudsman - The Parliamentary Ombudsman investigates complaints that government departments and a range of other public bodies in the UK have not acted properly or fairly or have provided a poor service. Complaints have to be sent to the Ombudsman through an MP and the results are also sent to the MP as well as the complainant. The service is free and the Ombudsman is completely independent of Government and the Civil Service. For further information see the website at: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk
  2. Complaints about the regulation of Lloyds - The Ombudsman has received around 30 complaints about the regulation of Lloyds as well as enquiries from MPs. Whilst each complaint is considered on its individual merits, cases based on identical facts will be treated in the same way to this case.
  3. European Community Francovich procedures - In the Francovich v Italy case (1993), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for the first time addressed the question of state liability for breach of Community law and its basis in EC law. The ECJ held that a member state can be required to make good any losses resulting from its own failure to implement a Directive, providing there was a link between the non-enactment and the loss, and that the directive gave specific rights to individuals.