Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 2000 to March 2001 - Case No. C.502/97 and C.1711/00
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 2000 to March 2001
Volume 4 - 2nd REPORT - SESSION 2001-2002
Chapter 2
Case No: C.502/97
Procedural flaws during a licence revocation process
Mr N and Mr O, both former directors of company D, complained that the Office of Fair Trading had failed to keep an undertaking to consult the company if it (or its subsidiary companies) were in danger of being issued with “minded to revoke” notices for their consumer credit licences. Among other matters, they further complained that the Office of Fair Trading’s decision to issue notices in October 1995 had been flawed because a ‘Chinese wall’ intended to ensure the independence of the adjudicating officer had been compromised by improper and inaccurate advice from colleagues.
The Ombudsman found there had been a direct and serious breach of the ‘Chinese wall’; that the whole revocation process had been thoroughly compromised; and that there were fundamental and integral faults. He found that substantial maladministration had led to injustice for Mr N and Mr O.
The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading did not see the whole revocation process as having been subverted, but accepted that there had been a number of instances of maladministration in the Office’s handling of the case for which he unreservedly apologised. He offered ex gratia payments to Mr N and Mr O.
Back to top
Case No: C.1711/00
Failure to provide assistance
Mr G complained that the Office of Fair Trading had failed to adequately assist him in line with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to resolve disputes that had arisen with two credit reference agencies over entries contained within his credit file. Mr G also complained that the Office of Fair Trading had failed to reply to correspondence, and that there had been delays in dealing with his complaint. The Ombudsman found that there had been delays in the handling of Mr G’s complaint and that letters had gone unanswered. The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading apologised for those errors. However, the Ombudsman found that the Office of Fair Trading had offered Mr G all reasonable assistance to resolve the disputes with the credit reference agencies and there was no evidence that they had failed to fulfil their obligations under the Consumer Credit Act.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
