natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Tõendis WE 56 esitab hr MERRICKS seoses Equitable Life’i vastu esitatud kaebuste käsitlemisega üldise väite, et FOSi roll Equitable’i suhtes piirdub Equitable Life’i puudutavate kaebuste käsitlemisega ning toetused, mille FOS määrab kaebuste toetamise korral, täidetakse Equitable Life’i kasumiosalusega fondist, st nad vähendavad fondi, mis kuulub Equitable Life’i kindlustusvõtjatele.
In WE 56, Mr MERRICKS makes the following general statement with regard to his treatment of complaints concerning Equitable Life: " I should emphasise that our role in relation to Equitable is limited to dealing with complaints about Equitable Life itself, and the awards that we make when complaints are upheld are met from the Equitable Life with-profits fund – that is to say they reduce the fund that belongs to other Equitable policyholders.
Nagu hr MERRICKS märkis oma varasemas otsuses, on peaaegu kõigil Equitable Life’i kriisist mõjutatutel kaebus.
As I indicated in making an earlier decision, nearly everyone affected by the crisis involving the Society has a grievance.
Kõik on kannatanud kahjusid, mis puudutab vähemalt nende ootusi.
All have suffered losses - judged at least against their expectations.
Hr MERRICKSi arvates olnuks võimatu öelda, millisele rühmale pidanuks kõige rohkem kaasa tundma, ning tänu jumalale ei pidanud ta seda tegema (WE 56).
It would be impossible to say which group could be regarded as the more deserving of sympathy, and thank goodness that is not what I had to do ."
FOSi suhtumist kajastatakse tõendis ES 3
The FOS's stance is echoed in ES 3
Lehekülg 51. , kus öeldakse, et FOS võttis muu hulgas arvesse kahte asjaolu: esiteks, et investorite kaitse peaks olema tasakaalus teiste huvidega; ning teiseks, et kõik kaebuse esitajatele määratud hüvitised tuleksid kasumiosalusega fondist ja kahjustaksid seega edasisi kindlustusvõtjaid.
Page 51. : " It appears that FOS took into account, among others, two considerations: first, that investor protection should be balanced with other interests; and secondly, that any compensation to complainants will come from the with-profits fund and would therefore be to the detriment of continuing policyholders.
c) Kindlustusvõtjate kriitika FOSi kaebuste käsitlemise kohta
Policyholders' criticism of the FOS's handling of complaints
Mitmed uurimiskomisjoni poolt ära kuulatud kindlustusvõtjad, näiteks hr LAKE (H1), hr BRAITHWAITE (H1), hr BELLORD (H2), hr WEIR (H2) ja hr SCAWEN (H3) kritiseerisid tugevalt FOSi Equitable Life’iga seotud kaebuste käsitlemist.
A number of policyholders heard by the committee, such as Mr LAKE (H1), Mr BRAITHWAITE (H1), Mr BELLORD (H2), Mr WEIR (H2) and Mr SCAWEN (H3) heavily criticised the FOS's handling of Equitable Life - related complaints. "
FOSi individuaalsete juhtumite käsitlemine oli ebaõiglane, veider, Equitable’ile poolehoidu väljendav ning selles puudus loomulik õiglus ja aruandekohustus, ütles hr LAKE (H1).
The FOS's treatment of individual cases has been unfair, bizarre, partial to the Equitable and lacking natural justice and accountability ", said Mr LAKE (H1).
Teised viitasid keeruliseks muutmistele ja üldisele obstruktiivsusele (hr BELLORD, H2) ning tahtliku viivitamise näitele (hr WEIR, H2).
Others referred to " obfuscations and general obstructiveness " (Mr BELLORD, H2) and " a pattern of deliberate delay " (Mr WEIR, H2).
Hr SCAWEN (H3) ütles, et finantsküsimuste ombudsmani teenistus on osa probleemist, mitte lahendusest”.
Mr SCAWEN (H3) said that " the Financial Ombudsman Service is ... part of the problem and not part of the solution ".
Kindlustusvõtjate konkreetsema kriitika FOSi poolt nende kaebuste käsitlemise kohta võib võtta kokku järgmiselt.
The more specific criticisms put forward by policyholders against the FOS's handling of their complaints can be summarised as follows:
Esiteks väljendasid mõned kindlustusvõtjad rahulolematust FOSi töötajate poolt kaebuste käsitlemisel näidatud pädevuse tasemega.
Firstly, some policyholders expressed their dissatisfaction with the level of competence shown by the FOS's staff in the course of treatment of complaints.
Tõendis WE 23
In WE 23
Näiteks esitas hr SCAWEN kaebuse ning talle vastati, et tema nõue lükati tagasi tagatud annuiteedimäära kompromisskava tõttu.
For example, I made a complaint ... and was told in return that my claim was rejected due to the GAR compromise.
Kuna ta oli väga konkreetselt kinnitanud, et tema nõue ei maininud kompromisskava ühtegi aspekti ega viidanud neile, kirjutas ta vastu tungiva kirja, osutades nende veale.
Since I had very specifically ensured that my claim in no way mentioned or referred to any aspect of the compromise, I wrote a strongly worded letter back pointing out their error.
Hr SCAWEN sai vastuse, milles öeldi, et nad ei käsitle tema nõuet.
In return, I received a reply saying they would now consider my claim.
Hr SCAWEN on küsimustest põhjendatult teadlik, kindlasti rohkem kui valdav enamik kindlustusvõtjaid.
The point I am making is that I am reasonably knowledgeable about the issues, certainly more so than the overwhelming majority of policyholders.
Tal on kahtlus, et enamik kaebuse esitajatest oleksid nõustunud selle nn otsusega ja asjad sinnapaika jätnud.
I suspect that most claimants would have accepted this so-called 'ruling' and let the matter rest.
See ei ole vastuvõetav standard valitsuse osakonna jaoks, kelle selge ülesanne peaks olema täpsuse ja õigluse tagamine, leiab hr SCAWEN.
This is not an acceptable standard for a Government Department, which should have a clear duty to ensure accuracy and fairness ."
Advokaadibüroo esindaja Clarke Willmott on FOSi tulemuste suhtes samuti väga kritiseeriv, väites, et nõutud hoolikuse tase puudus liiga tihti (WE 23
Law firm Clarke Willmott is also highly critical of the FOS's performance, stating that the required " degree of diligence " would " all too often " be " absent " (WE 23
Lehekülg 25. ) ning et nende kogemuste heaks näiteks on olnud Equitable’i kasumiosalusega annuiteedi saajate esitatud eksitava müügi kaebuste suur hulk, mis lükati tagasi põhjusel, et need olid seotud tagatud annuiteedimääraga, st kuulusid Equitable’i ja tema kindlustusvõtjate vahel koostatud kompromisskava alla, mille oli välja andnud kõrgem kohus 8. veebruaril 2002.
Page 25. ): " A good example in our experience has been the large number of mis-selling complaints made by Equitable With-Profits Annuity holders which were dismissed on the grounds that they were 'GAR-related', i.e. subject to the Compromise Scheme made between Equitable and its policyholders and sanctioned by the High Court on 8 February 2002.
Nende kaebuste tagasilükkamine kujutas endast suurt ebaõiglust.
There has been widespread injustice caused by the dismissal of these complaints.
Seda seetõttu, et FOS ei hinnanud, et annuiteedi saajad, kes kirjutasid kaebusi, uskusid, et Equitable’i probleemid olid tingitud tagatud annuiteedimäära kohustustest (kuna seda kirjutasid ajalehed).
This is because FOS failed to appreciate that the annuitants, writing their self-prepared complaints, believed that Equitable’s problems were caused by its GAR liabilities (because that was what was in the newspapers).
Advokaadibüroo kogemuste kohaselt ei vaadanud nad sügavamale ega avastanud, mis oli tõeline kaebuse esitamise põhjus, mis enamikel juhtudel oli poliisi sobivus koos kaasnevate riskidega (WE 23
They did not trouble, in our experience, to look deeper and find out what the real nature of the complaint was, which in most cases was the suitability of the policy, with its attendant risks " (WE 23
Lehekülg 25. ).
Page 25. ).
Täiesti erinevat arvamust FOSi lähenemisviisi kohta avaldati tõendis ES 3
An entirely different view on the FOS's approach is expressed in ES 3
Lehekülg 49. , kus väideti, et FOS käsitles kaebusi tõhusalt, täielikult ja menetlusõigusi arvesse võttes.
Page 49. : " FOS processed the claims efficiently, thoroughly and with due regard to procedural rights.
Lõpuks tagas ta kõigi osapoolte võrdse võimaluse arvamust avaldada ning enne lõplike otsuste tegemist leidis aset täiendav konsultatsioon.
It went at lengths to ensure that all parties had a proper opportunity to be heard and an extensive consultation process took place before final determinations were made ."
Lisaks väideti, et puuduvad tõendid oletamaks, et FOS ei töötanud hoolikalt, nii tõhusalt kui võimaik antud tingimustes ning võttes arvesse kõigi asjaomaste osapoolte huve.
He went on to say that " there is no evidence to suggest that the FOS [didn't] work diligently, as efficiently as possible in the circumstances and with due regard to the interests of all parties involved ".
Teised kindlustusvõtjad osutasid takistustele ja viivitamistele nende kaebuste käsitlemisel ombudsmani poolt.
Other policyholders referred to obstructions and delays in the treatment of their complaints by the Ombudsman.
FOS ei tahtnud alguses uurida kaebust tööpinge tõttu.
The FOS were initially reluctant to examine the complaint on the basis of 'pressure of work'.
Seejärel nad kaotasid kaebuse, seejärel oli hr Deppe kasutanud vale vormi jne.
They then lost the complaint, then I had used the wrong form etc.
Lõpuks nad tunnistasid kaebust kui ühte, mida nad võiksid käsitleda.
They finally acknowledged the complaint 'as one they could look at'.
Seejärel ringles kaebus ametis ja hr Deppe tundis, et see saadeti „ülespoole”.
The complaint was then passed around the office and I sensed it was being passed 'upwards'.
Pärast seda teavitati teda, et Equitable Life oli taotlenud kompromisskava ning nad ei käsitle tema kaebust enne hääletamist.
I was then advised ... that Equitable Life had applied for their Compromise and they would not look at my complaint in advance of the voting.
Hr Deppe esitas kohe kaebuse, et tema mure puhul on tegemist olemasoleva Equitable Life’i puudutava kaebusega FOSi suhtes, mida nad olid tunnistanud.
I complained immediately that my business was with the FOS in relation to a complaint about an existing complaint concerning Equitable Life which they had acknowledged.
FOS, olles täielikult teadlik selle kohta, mida Equitable Life tegi, keeldus järele andmast.
The FOS, in the full knowledge of what Equitable Life were doing, refused to budge.
Praegu väidavad nad, et tema kaebust kompromiteeris kompromissleping.
They now claim my complaint was compromised by the compromise [agreement].
Nad ei kommenteerinud kordagi tema poolt neile 2001. aastal esitatud kaebuse tegelikku põhjust.
They have never once made any comment about the actual subject that formed the basis of the complaint that I presented to them in 2001. ”
Hr WEIR järeldas, et hr Deppe on lõksu püütud annuiteedi saaja, kellel ei ole võimalik fondist lahkuda ega saada hüvitust.
Mr WEIR concludes that " Mr Deppe is now a 'trapped annuitant' unable to leave the fund or obtain redress.
Igal aastal vähendatakse tema pensioni väikese lootusega paranemisele (WE 6
Each year his pension is being reduced with little hope of improvement " (WE 6
Hallatud pensioneid puudutavate kaebuste suhtes kritiseeris hr BAIN (H8) asjaolu, et FSA andis FOSile loa külmutada kõik kaebused.
In relation to complaints concerning 'managed pensions', Mr BAIN (H8) criticised the fact that the " FSA gave the FOS permission to freeze all ... complaints ". "
Ombudsman oli külmutanud kõik kaebused ja keegi ei pääsenud kuhugi kahe kuni kolme aasta jooksul, mis hr Baini arvates ei ole kindlasti viis, millega on Ühendkuningriigis koheldud mõne teise kindlustusseltsi kaebuse esitanud klienti (hr BAIN, H8).
The Ombudsman had frozen all the complaints and nobody was getting anywhere for a period of two to three years which, I think, is certainly not the way any other customer at any other company with a complaint in the UK has ever been treated " (Mr BAIN, H8).
Nagu rõhutas FOS tõendis WE 27
As pointed out by the FOS in WE 27
Lehekülg 5. , kirjutas ta neile, kes olid esitanud kaebused hallatud pensionide sobivuse kohta, sulgedes andmefailid nendele kaebustele, rõhutades, et need lisatakse Equitable Life’i hallatud pensionide läbivaatamisse ning selgitades, et neil on võimalus esitada uuesti kaebused, kui nad ei ole rahul pärast nende juhtumite läbivaatamist.
Page 5. , it " wrote to those who had ... made complaints ... about the suitability of Managed Pensions, closing our files on those complaints, pointing out that they would be included in Equitable Life’s [Managed Pensions] review and explaining that they would have a chance to refer their complaints to us again if they remained dissatisfied after their cases had been reviewed ."
Tuleb märkida, et FSA oli väljastanud loobumisotsuse, mis vabastas Equitable Life’i vajadusest uurida kaebusi läbivaatamisega hõlmatud küsimuste kohta FSA käsiraamatus esitatud standardsete ajagraafikute piires
It should be noted that FSA had issued a waiver dispensing Equitable Life from the need to investigate complaints about matters covered by the Review within the standard timescales set out in the FSA Handbook
Probleemide lahendamise eeskirjad (DISP) 1.4. , mis oli seotud ELASi kirjaliku kohustuse tingimusega, et kui ta tahab tugineda 1980. aasta kaebuse aegumist käsitlevale seadusele kui kaitsele mis tahes abikõlbliku kaebuse esitaja nõude vastu, ei kuulu see seaduse eesmärkide hulka ühelgi perioodil, mil abikõlbliku kaebuse esitaja juhtum kuulub läbivaatamise sätete alla (vt WE 27
Rules on Dispute Resolution (DISP) 1.4. subject to the condition of a written undertaking by ELAS that " if it seeks to rely on the Limitations Act 1980 as a defence to any claim by an eligible complainant, it will not count for the purpose of the Act any period within which the eligible complainant's case has been subject to the provisions of the Review " (see WE 27
Siiski kinnitasid mitmed kindlustusvõtjad hr SCAWENi väidet tõendis (H3), et paljudel juhtudel võtab FOSi otsus nii kaua aega, et ajaks, mil otsus tehakse, on kindlustusvõtja juhtum muutunud aegunuks.
However, a number of policyholders confirmed the statement made by Mr SCAWEN in (H3) that, " in many cases, the FOS ruling takes so much time that by the time a decision has been reached, the policyholder has become statute barred ".
Hr WEIR (H2) väitis, et FOS teavitas teda 2003. aastal, et kui ta esitab nõude ühe oma poliisi kohta kohtule, katkestab FOS kohe kõigi tema teiste nõuete käsitlemise.
Mr WEIR (H2) stated that he was informed by the FOS in 2003 that if he were to make a claim on one of his policies before court, the FOS would immediately drop consideration of all his other claims. "
Kaks aastat hiljem sai hr WEIR ebarahuldava pakkumise, kuid kohtule hagi esitamiseks oli juba hilja.
Now 2 years later I have received an unsatisfactory offer, but I am timed out of any court action ".
Ta eeldas, et see ei ole kokkusattumine, et FOSil võttis ligikaudu viis aastat tema nõude lahendamiseks (hr WEIR, H2).
He suggests that " it is not a coincidence that the FOS took almost five years before attempting to resolve my claim " (Mr WEIR, H2).
Tõendis WE 23
IN WE 23
Lehekülg 24. märkis üks Ühendkuningriigi advokaadibüroo, et erakliendi jaoks peaaegu puudub kohtusse kaebamise alternatiiv pärast seda, kui FOS on tema vastu otsustanud, kuna FOS ei ole kiire ja selleks ajaks, kui FOS väljastab oma otsuse, võib tähtaeg kolm aastat kaebuse aegumist käsitleva seaduse alusel olla möödas.
Page 24. a UK law firm notes that " for the private client, the alternative of suing in the courts after FOS has found against him is almost always unavailable ... because the FOS is not quick, and ... by the time FOS issues a determination, the three year time period ... under the Limitation Act ... may have expired ."
Annuiteedi osakonna tegevdirektor hr BAYLISS ütles tõendis H5, et üldiselt ta usub, et ombudsmani menetlus ei ole hästi töötanud inimeste puhul, kes on seal lõpetanud, kuid on erandeid.
Mr BAYLISS, Managing Director of 'Annuity Direct' said in H5 that " by and large, I would say that the Ombudsman process has not worked well for people who have ended up there ... [but] ... there are exceptions ".
Ta lisas, et ombudsmani teenistuse üldise rolli tähenduses on tal olnud tohutult järsk õppimiskõver ning ta ei ole tegelenud piisavalt hästi halduskulude ja viivitamise küsimusega, mis ärritas kliente.
He added that " in terms of the Ombudsman Service’s general role, it has had an enormously steep learning curve and has not tackled very well the issue of administrative costs and delays, which upset clients.
Hr Bayliss on hakanud selle küsimusega tegelema.
It is beginning to do that ."
Vastavalt hr McELWEE-le (H3) olid FOSi viivitused kaebuste käsitlemise protsessis tingitud „rängast töökoormast”, kuid „see muutus väga problemaatiliseks aegumistähtaegade puhul”.
According to Mr McELWEE (H3), delays by the FOS in the process of dealing with complaints were due to its " hefty workload " but " have become highly problematic when it comes to limitation periods ".
Hr STRACHAN (H4) FSAst ütleb, et mitmel juhul võib kaebusi (FOSile) käsitleda kiiresti.
Mr STRACHAN (H4) from the FSA says that, in many cases, complaints (to the FOS) can be dealt with swiftly. "
Siiski on selge, et kui kaebused on keerulised, ei pruugi see olla saavutatav, ning mõned Equitable’i kaebused kuuluvad selgelt sellesse kategooriasse, lisab ta (hr STRACHAN, H4).
However it is very clear that where the complaints are complex ... that goal may not be achievable and some of the Equitable complaints quite clearly fall into this category " (Mr STRACHAN, H4).
Antud kontekstis märkisid nii FOS (vt WE 27) kui ka hr STRACHAN (H4), et mõned FOSi viivitused olid tingitud asjaolust, et ELAS oli palunud lisaaega oma vastuse koostamiseks teatud Penrose’i raportist tulenevatele kaebustele ning et koostada hallatud pensione käsitlev ülevaade (vt ka eelmisi lõike).
In this context it was also noted by both the FOS (see WE 27) and Mr STRACHAN (H4) that some of the delays of the FOS were due to the fact that ELAS had sought extra time to prepare its response to certain complaints arising out of the Penrose report and to prepare the Review concerning 'Managed Pensions' (see also previous paragraphs).
Siiski rõhutati, et antud ajapikendusi ei arvestatud kaebuse aegumist käsitleva seaduse puhul.
It was stressed, however, that the extensions granted did not count for the purposes of the Limitations Act.
Tõendis ES 3 kommenteeritakse samuti viivitamiste küsimust, mööndes, et omal loal ei olnud FOS võimeline pidama kinni tähtajast, mille ta endale määras, nimelt lahendada 45% kaebustest kolme kuu jooksul ja 80% kaebustest kuue kuu jooksul.
ES 3 also comments on the issue of delays: " It is true that, by its own admission, FOS was not able to meet the time-limit targets that it has set itself, namely resolve 45% of complaints within three months and 80% within six months.
Siiski, võttes arvesse vastava ülesande keerulisust ja ulatust, ei tohiks seda vaadata kui FOSi läbikukkumist.
Still, in view of the complexity and the magnitude of the task involved, this should not be seen as a failure of FOS.
Mõnes mõttes olid viivitamised Equitable’i jaoks eeliseks, kuna see pigem ajendas mõned kaebuse esitajad nõustuma neile Equitable’i poolt tehtud pakkumistega kui ootama, millal otsustamisprotsess lõpule jõuab (ES 3
In some respects, delays worked to the advantage of Equitable as it prompted some claimants to accept offers made to them by Equitable rather than wait for the adjudication process to be completed " (ES 3
Leheküljed 49 ja 50. ).
Pages 49 and 50. ).
Lisaks kritiseerisid kindlustusvõtjad, et FOSi otsused olid osalised, kahemõttelised ja vasturääkivad (nt hr WEIR, H2).
Furthermore, policyholders criticised decisions of the FOS as partial, arbitrary and inconsistent (e.g. Mr WEIR, H2).
Samamoodi märgib advokaadibüroo Clarke Willmott tõendis WE 23
Similarly, law firm Clarke Willmott notes in WE 23
Lehekülg 24. , et tema kliendid kaebasid otsuste üle, millest teatati puudulikult ja mis olid muutlikud, ning lisab, et neil oli tunne, et kaebuse esitamine ombudsmanile on sageli vaid natuke parem loteriist.
Page 24. that its " clients complain of decisions, which appear ill informed and capricious " and adds that " we get the impression that a complaint to the Ombudsman is often little better than a lottery ".
Seoses sellega kritiseerib Clarke Willmott asjaolu, et vastavalt FSA käsiraamatule peaks FOS langetama oma otsused nii, et see oleks õiglane ja põhjendatud, ning võtma arvesse vaid asjaomaseid seadusi ja eeskirju (WE 23
In relation to this, Clarke Willmott criticises the fact that, according to the FSA Handbook, the FOS should make its decision 'on what appears fair and reasonable' and only 'take into account' the relevant law and regulations (WE 23
Advokaadibüroo väidab, et liiga tihti ei võeta arvesse asjaomaseid seadusi ja eeskirju ning toob näiteks kaebuse, mida FOS ei toetanud, eirates täielikult, kuni selleni, et isegi ei maininud LAUTRO äritegevuse eeskirju pensioniülekannete kohta nõu andvate elukindlustusseltside jaoks, mida vastastikusel nõusolekul suures osas rikuti (WE 23
The law firm claims that " all too often the relevant law and regulations are ignored " and offers an example of a complaint which was not upheld by FOS "in terms, which entirely ignored, to the point of not even mentioning them, the LAUTRO conduct of business rules for life offices advising on pension transfers, which, by common consent, had been grossly breached " (WE 23
Hr WEIR (H2) väitis, et pärast otsuse väljastamist teatas FOS, et ta lubab Equitable Life’il või selle agentidel arvutada vastava hüvituse väärtuse, selle asemel, et kohustada seda maksma hüvitust tema arvutuste põhjal.
Mr WEIR (H2) claimed that, after having issued adjudication, the FOS announced that it would allow Equitable Life or its agents to calculate the amount of redress that was due, instead of forcing it to pay the compensation due as a result of its own calculations.
Oma märgukirjas uurimiskomisjonile märgib FOS, et suure osa kindlustusmatemaatilise tava puhul on rakendatud arvutamise metoodikat kooskõlas FOSi otsusega, pärast korrapärast kontakti FOSi aktuaariga, kuna Equitable Life töötas välja oma kahju hindamise kalkulaatorit (WE 27
In its memorandum to the committee, the FOS indicates that " a major actuarial practice has implemented the calculation methodology consistent with [the FOS's] decision, following regular contact with an FOS actuary, whilst it was developing its loss assessment calculator " (WE 27
Lisaks kaebas hr WEIR (H2), et FOS keeldus lubamast kaebuse esitajatel näha alust, mida Equitable Life kasutas oma kahjude arvutamiseks, tuues selle asemel näiteid, millest keegi ei saa aru või mida keegi ei saa kontrollida.
Furthermore, Mr WEIR (H2) complained that " the FOS has ... refused to allow claimants to see the basis on which Equitable Life calculated their losses, giving instead examples which nobody can understand or verify ".
Vastavalt temale põhinesid Equitable Life’i arvutused pigem aluseks olevatel fondi väärtustel kui tegelikel väljamaksetel.
According to him, Equitable Life's calculations were based on underlying fund values rather than actual payouts.
Seega süüdistab ta FOSi, kuna see lubas teenuse osutajal võtta erinevatest arvutusalustest osasid, mitte väljendada teatud püsivat suunda (hr WEIR, H2).
He therefore accuses the FOS of " allowing the provider to cherry pick from among different bases of calculation, rather than arguing in any sort of consistent fashion " (Mr WEIR, H2).
Tõendis WE-CONF 32 täpsustatakse lisaks väiteid ja nõudeid selle kohta, et vorm, mida FOS lubas Equitable’il kasutada, ei ole õiglane ja võib olla tahtlikult määratud vähendama hüvituse kulusid.
WE-CONF 32 further specifies these allegations and claims that the formula that FOS has allowed Equitable to use would not be fair and may have been "deliberately designed to reduce the cost of compensation" .
Hr YOUNG (WE 88) kaebas samuti hüvituse arvutamiseks kasutatud meetodite kohta.
Mr YOUNG (WE 88) also complained about the methods used for calculating redress.