A holiday ombudsman?

unholyangel

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Obviously in insurance we dont get a choice about if we subscribe to the ombudsman or not and as such the FOS has no need to market themselves to us. Most of my prior clients were not the sort of companies that decided what to do with complaints based on the economies of the ombudsman fee.

Sometimes it really is good to be able to pass things off to the ombudsman and let them deal with particularly annoying customers who wont listen to logic, legislation, common sense or anything else... its £450 well spent!

I know there are logical business reasons for it.

I was rather pointing out yet another gaffe they made (that rather than be there to protect consumers/their trust in the retail industry, they're there to help retailers).

Listening to TRO, you'd think you only ever came across stubborn consumers who had wrong information on the law - not that you ever come across a retailer who has it wrong and refuses to budge. The problem is that one is far worse than the other for the following reason. When a consumer has it wrong, its the consumer that has to take court action to get anywhere. When a retailer has it wrong, its still the consumer that has to take action to get anywhere.

Its the consumer thats at a disadvantage in both situations - which is why ombudsman services are usually set up to offer protection to consumers - not the retailers.