natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Varuh človekovih pravic je to diskrecijsko pravico uporabil v zvezi z nekaterimi pritožbami glede domnevnih previsokih bonusov družbe Equitable Life po pozivu potrošnikom, ki so se pritožili glede tega, in drugih zainteresiranih strank, da mu posredujejo pripombe in stališča, ter po obravnavi teh pripomb in stališč ...
The ombudsman exercised this discretion in respect of certain complaints about alleged 'over-bonusing' by Equitable Life, after inviting consumers who had complained about this, and other interested parties, to send him their comments and views and after then considering them ...
Ugotovil je, da je šlo za edinstven splet okoliščin, ki je pomenil utemeljene razloge za uporabo diskrecijske pravice na podlagi DISP 3.3.1R.“
He concluded that there was a unique combination of circumstances here which constituted compelling reasons why he should exercise his discretion under DISP 3.3.1R.
Strani 47 in 48. je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve navedla, da se je tako odločila zlasti na podlagi naslednjega: Prvič, verjetno je bilo, da bi varuh človekovih pravic Organa za zasebne naložbe zavrnil enake pritožbe, ker na podlagi takrat veljavnih predpisov ta varuh ni imel pristojnosti za obravnavo pritožb, kar zadeva aktuarske standarde, način izračunavanja odkupnih vrednosti in bonuse.
Pages 47 and 48. , the FOS indicated that it had reached that conclusion essentially on the following grounds: Firstly, it was probable that the PIA Ombudsman would have dismissed equivalent complaints since, under the rules applicable at the time, that Ombudsman had no power to consider complaints to the extent that they concerned actuarial standards, the method of calculation of surrender values, and bonuses.
Drugič, predmet več pritožb je bil predmet sodnih postopkov, disciplinskih postopkov in drugih preiskav.
Secondly, the subject-matter of many of the complaints was the subject-matter of court proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, and other investigations.
Tudi če v sodnih postopkih, ki so takrat potekali, ne bi bilo dokončno odločeno o zadevnih vprašanjih, bi bilo primerneje, da bi te pritožbe obravnavalo sodišče.
Even if no court proceedings pending at the time determined the issues arising conclusively, it would be more suitable for these complaints to be dealt with by a court.
Tretjič, če bi Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve začela preiskavo in v pritožbah odločila v korist pritožnikov, bi lahko njena odločitev povzročila zastoj.
Thirdly, if FOS proceeded with investigations and determined the complaints in favour of the complainants, it was likely that its decision would result in a stalemate.
Razlog za to je dejstvo, da bi bilo treba v primeru odločitve v korist pritožnikov in dodelitve odškodnine pritožnikom, potrebna sredstva črpati iz sklada za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice.
This is because, if it found in favour of the complainants and awarded them compensation, the necessary funds would have to be drawn from the with-profits fund.
Potrebna bi bila obsežna shema prerazporeditve vrednosti sklada.
A major scheme of rearrangement of fund values would be necessary.
Izvajanje takšne sheme bi moralo biti odvisno od spremljanja Organa za finančne storitve, ki bi bil odgovoren za nadzor solventnosti družbe in zagotavljanje pravične obravnave vseh zadevnih zavarovancev.
The implementation of such a scheme would have to be the subject of supervision by the FSA who would have responsibility to oversee the continuing solvency of the Society and ensure fair treatment of all affected members.
Tako bi odločitev Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve povzročila regulativno vprašanje, ki bi ga bilo treba prenesti Organu za finančne storitve.
Thus, FOS’s decision would give rise to a regulatory issue which would need to be referred to the FSA.
Kljub temu je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve že odločila, da izgub, ki so jih utrpeli vlagatelji, ni mogoče pripisati regulativnemu sistemu.
The FSA, however, had already reached the conclusion that no loss suffered by investors could be attributed to the regulatory system.
Končno, Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je pri odločitvi, da pritožb ne bo obravnavala, upoštevala širše posledice kakršne koli preiskave, ki bi lahko vplivala na skoraj milijon ljudi, v primerjavi s sorazmerno majhnim številom pritožnikov.“
Finally, in deciding not to investigate the complaints, FOS took account of the wide implications of any investigation that potentially might affect up to a million people contrasted with the relatively small number of those who complained ."
MERRICKS je v WE 56 v zvezi z obravnavo pritožb glede družbe Equitable Life na splošno navedel: „ Poudariti moram, da je naša vloga v zvezi z družbo Equitable omejena na obravnavo pritožb glede same družbe Equitable Life. dodelitve odškodnin, ki sledijo sprejetju pritožbe, pa krije sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice družbe Equitable Life kar pomeni, da zmanjšujejo sredstva, ki pripadajo drugim zavarovancem družbe Equitable.
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.
Kot sem navedel pri zgodnejši odločitvi, so skoraj vsi, ki jih je prizadela kriza zaradi družbe, vložili pritožbo.
As I indicated in making an earlier decision, nearly everyone affected by the crisis involving the Society has a grievance.
Vsi so utrpeli škodo, vsaj v primerjavi s svojimi pričakovanji.
All have suffered losses - judged at least against their expectations.
Stran 51. : „ Zdi se, da je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve med drugim upoštevala dve stvari: prvič, da je treba varstvo vlagateljev uravnovesiti z drugimi interesi, in drugič, da bo vse odškodnine za pritožnike kril sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice, kar bo škodovalo preostalim zavarovancem.
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.
Zato zahtevki za odškodnino niso pomenili primerjave interesov vlagateljev z interesi ali sredstvi podjetnikov, ampak primer, kako uravnovesiti interese dveh konkurenčnih skupin vlagateljev. “
Thus, compensation claims were not a juxtaposition of the interests of investors vis-à-vis the interests or funds of corporate managers but a balancing exercise between the interests of two competing investor groups. "
Kritika zavarovancev zaradi načina obravnave pritožb na Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve
Policyholders' criticism of the FOS's handling of complaints
Drugi so omenili „ zmedenost in splošno oviranje “ (BELLORD, H2) ter „ vzorec namernega zavlačevanja “ (WEIR, H2).
Others referred to " obfuscations and general obstructiveness " (Mr BELLORD, H2) and " a pattern of deliberate delay " (Mr WEIR, H2).
SCAWEN (H3) je povedal, da je „ Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ... del težave in ne del rešitve “.
Mr SCAWEN (H3) said that " the Financial Ombudsman Service is ... part of the problem and not part of the solution ".
Bolj specifične kritike zavarovancev zaradi načina obravnave pritožb na Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve so povzete v nadaljevanju.
The more specific criticisms put forward by policyholders against the FOS's handling of their complaints can be summarised as follows:
Prvič, nekateri zavarovanci so izrazili svoje nezadovoljstvo zaradi ravni usposobljenosti osebja Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve med obravnavo pritožb.
Firstly, some policyholders expressed their dissatisfaction with the level of competence shown by the FOS's staff in the course of treatment of complaints.
SCAWEN v WE 23
In WE 23
Na primer, vložil sem pritožbo ... in povedali so mi, da je moj zahtevek zavrnjen zaradi dogovora o zajamčeni renti.
For example, I made a complaint ... and was told in return that my claim was rejected due to the GAR compromise.
Ker sem se zelo natančno prepričal, da moj zahtevek nikakor ni bil povezan z nobenim vidikom dogovora ali se skliceval nanj, sem napisal ostro pismo, v katerem sem jih opozoril na njihovo napako.
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.
Odgovorili so mi, da bodo zdaj moj zahtevek obravnavali.
In return, I received a reply saying they would now consider my claim.
Povedal bi rad, da sorazmerno dobro poznam ta vprašanja, zagotovo bolje kot velika večina zavarovancev.
The point I am making is that I am reasonably knowledgeable about the issues, certainly more so than the overwhelming majority of policyholders.
Predvidevam, da bi večina upravičencev sprejela to tako imenovano odločitev in se ne bi več ukvarjala s tem.
I suspect that most claimants would have accepted this so-called 'ruling' and let the matter rest.
Tak standard ni sprejemljiv za državni organ, ki bi moral biti natančen in pošten “ .
This is not an acceptable standard for a Government Department, which should have a clear duty to ensure accuracy and fairness ."
Odvetniška družba Clarke Willmott je tudi zelo kritična do dela Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve in navaja, da „ prepogosto ni bilo “ zahtevane „ ravni prizadevnosti “ (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
Stran 25. ): „Po naših izkušnjah je dober primer v zvezi s tem veliko število pritožb o zlorabah pri prodaji, ki so jih vložili imetniki rent z življenjskim zavarovanjem s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku družbe Equitable, ki so bile zavrnjene, ker so bile ‚povezane z zajamčeno rento‘, tj. predmet odškodninske sheme družbe Equitable in njenih zavarovancev ter v zvezi s katerimi je višje sodišče 8. februarja 2002 izreklo kazen.
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.
Zaradi zavrnitve teh pritožb so nastale velike krivice.
There has been widespread injustice caused by the dismissal of these complaints.
To se je zgodilo, ker Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni upoštevala, da so rentniki, ki so sami napisali pritožbe, menili, da je imela družba Equitable težave zaradi obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent (ker so tako poročali časopisi).
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).
Po naših izkušnjah se niso potrudili, da bi zadevo podrobneje preučili in ugotovili, kakšna je prava narava pritožbe, ki je bila v večini primerov primernost police in s tem povezano tveganje “ (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
Stran 25. ).
Page 25. ).
Popolno drugačno stališče o pristopu Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je izraženo v ES 3
An entirely different view on the FOS's approach is expressed in ES 3
Stran 49. : „ Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je obravnavala zahtevke učinkovito, temeljito in z ustreznim upoštevanjem procesnih pravic.
Page 49. : " FOS processed the claims efficiently, thoroughly and with due regard to procedural rights.
Drugi zavarovanci so omenili zavlačevanje in zamude pri obravnavi njihovih pritožb s strani varuha človekovih pravic.
Other policyholders referred to obstructions and delays in the treatment of their complaints by the Ombudsman.
WEIR je te trditve podprl z navedbo pisma, ki naj bi ga prejel od zavarovanca DEPPEJA. „Vložil sem pritožbo [pri Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve] in navedel, da so bile rente z življenjskim zavarovanjem s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice, ki jih je januarja 2001 spodbujala družba Equitable Life, napačno predstavljene zaradi dejstva, da so bile informacije, povezane z obstojem zajamčenih rent in obveznosti, povezanih z njimi, prikrite.
Mr WEIR sought to underpin these allegations by quoting a letter he claimed to have received from policyholder Mr DEPPE: "I complained to [the FOS] and stated that With-Profits annuities instigated by Equitable Life in January 2001 had been misrepresented by virtue of the fact that information relating to the existence of GAR's and the liability they had created had been concealed.
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve najprej ni želela obravnavati pritožbe zaradi ‚velikega obsega dela‘.
The FOS were initially reluctant to examine the complaint on the basis of 'pressure of work'.
Nato so izgubili mojo pritožbo, potem sem uporabil napačni obrazec itd.
They then lost the complaint, then I had used the wrong form etc.
Nazadnje so le priznali, ‚da bi lahko obravnavali‘ pritožbo.
They finally acknowledged the complaint 'as one they could look at'.
Pritožba je nato šla iz rok v roke in zaslutil sem, da so jo vsakokrat posredovali ‚višje‘.
The complaint was then passed around the office and I sensed it was being passed 'upwards'.
Nato so mi svetovali ..., da je družba Equitable Life zaprosila za odškodninsko shemo in da pred glasovanjem moja pritožba ne bo obravnavana.
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.
Takoj sem se pritožil, da sem se na Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve obrnil v zvezi s pritožbo o obstoječi pritožbi o družbi Equitable Life, ki je bila že priznana.
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.
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve se ni zganila, čeprav je bila seznanjena z delom družbe Equitable Life.
The FOS, in the full knowledge of what Equitable Life were doing, refused to budge.
Zdaj trdijo, da je bila moja pritožba zavrnjena zaradi [dogovora] o odškodninski shemi.
They now claim my complaint was compromised by the compromise [agreement].
Nikoli niso imeli nobene pripombe v zvezi z dejansko temo, ki je bila podlaga za pritožbo, ki sem jo predložil leta 2001.
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. ”
“ WEIR sklene, da „ je Deppe zdaj ‚ujet rentnik‘, ki ne more zapustiti sklada ali dobiti odškodnine.
Mr WEIR concludes that " Mr Deppe is now a 'trapped annuitant' unable to leave the fund or obtain redress.
Njegova pokojnina se vsako leto znižuje in malo je upanja, da se bo kaj izboljšalo “ (WE 6
Each year his pension is being reduced with little hope of improvement " (WE 6
Kot je poudarila Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve v WE 27
As pointed out by the FOS in WE 27
Stran 5. , je „ tistim, ki so ... vložili pritožbe, ... pisala o primernosti vodenih pokojnin in končala obravnavo teh pritožb ter poudarila, da bodo te pritožbe vključene v revizijo [vodenih pokojnin] družbe Equitable Life, in pojasnila, da bodo lahko te osebe ponovno predložile svoje pritožbe, če po pregledu njihove zadeve še vedno ne bodo zadovoljne “.
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 ."
Omeniti je treba, da je Organ za finančne storitve izdal odločbo o odpovedi, v skladu s katero družbi Equitable Life ni treba obravnavati pritožb o zadevah, vključenih v revizijo, v običajnih časovnih rokih iz Priročnika Organa za finančne storitve
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
Pravila o reševanju sporov (DISP) 1.4. na podlagi pisne izjave družbe ELAS, da „ če se namerava sklicevati na Zakon o zastaranju iz leta 1980 kot dokaz v zvezi s katerim koli zahtevkom upravičenega pritožnika, za potrebe zakona ne bo upošteval nobenega obdobja, v katerem so za zadevo upravičenega pritožnika veljale določbe revizije “ (glej 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
Vendar je veliko zavarovancev potrdilo izjavo SCAWENA (H3), da „ v veliko primerih do sprejetja odločitve Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve poteče toliko časa, da zavarovančeva zadeva zastara “.
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 ".
V WE 23
IN WE 23
Stran 24. odvetniška družba iz Združenega kraljestva navaja, da „ zasebna stranka skoraj nikoli ne more vložiti tožbe pri sodišču, potem ko jo Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve zavrne ..., ker Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ne ukrepa hitro in lahko ... do takrat, ko sprejme odločitev, triletni rok ... v skladu z Zakonom o zastaranju ... že poteče “.
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 ."
BAYLISS, generalni direktor družbe Annuity Direct, je v H5 izjavil, da „ lahko na splošno reče, da postopek varuha človekovih pravic ni dobro deloval za ljudi, ki so se znašli v tem položaju ..., [vendar] ... obstajajo izjeme “.
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 ".
Dodal je, da „ se je Služba varuha človekovih pravic, glede na svojo splošno vlogo, ogromno naučila ter ni ustrezno obravnavala vprašanja upravnih stroškov in zamud, kar je razjezilo stranke.
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.
Zdaj se že ukvarja s tem “.
It is beginning to do that ."
McELWEE (H3) meni, da so zamude Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve pri postopku obravnave pritožb nastale zaradi „ ogromnega obsega dela “, kar pa je „ postalo zelo problematično zaradi rokov zastaranja “.
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 ".
V zvezi s tem sta Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve (glej WE 27) in STRACHAN (H4) ugotovila, da so nekatere zamude Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve nastale zaradi dejstva, da je družba ELAS zaprosila za dodaten rok za pripravo svojega odgovora na nekatere pritožbe, ki izvirajo iz Penrosovega poročila, in za pripravo revizije v zvezi z „vodenimi pokojninami“ (glej tudi prejšnje odstavke).
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).
Vendar je bilo poudarjeno, da odobrena podaljšanja niso upoštevana v Zakonu o zastaranju.
It was stressed, however, that the extensions granted did not count for the purposes of the Limitations Act.
ES 3 vsebuje pripombe o vprašanju zamud: „ Res je, da je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve priznala, da ni mogla upoštevati časovnih rokov, ki si jih je zastavila sama, in sicer da reši 45 % pritožb v treh mesecih in 80 % v šestih mesecih.
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.
Vendar se to glede na zapletenost in obseg zadevnih nalog ne bi smelo obravnavati kot neuspeh Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve.
Still, in view of the complexity and the magnitude of the task involved, this should not be seen as a failure of FOS.
V nekaterih pogledih so bile zamude v korist družbe Equitable, ker je spodbujala nekatere pritožnike, naj sprejmejo ponudbe družbe Equitable, namesto da čakajo na konec postopka razsojanja “ (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
Strani 49 in 50. ).
Pages 49 and 50. ).
Podobno odvetniška družba Clarke Willmott v WE 23
Similarly, law firm Clarke Willmott notes in WE 23
Stran 24. navaja, da se njene „ stranke pritožujejo v zvezi z odločitvami, ki naj bi bile sprejete na napačni podlagi in samovoljno “, ter dodaja, da imajo „ v zvezi s tem občutek, da vložitev pritožbe pri varuhu človekovih pravic pogosto ni veliko boljša od loterije “.
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 ".
V zvezi s tem je Clarke Willmott izrazil svojo kritiko, ker bi morala Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ob upoštevanju Priročnika Organa za finančne storitve sprejeti svojo odločitev „na podlagi pravičnih in razumnih dejstev“ ter „upoštevati“ le ustrezne zakone in predpise (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
Odvetniška družba meni, da „ se ustrezni zakoni in predpisi prepogosto ne upoštevajo “, in navaja primer pritožbe, ki jo je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve zavrnila, „ pri čemer je popolnoma prezrla pravila LAUTRO o poslovanju življenjskih zavarovalnic, ki svetujejo o prenosu pokojnin, in jih celo ni omenila, kar je bila po splošnem mnenju groba kršitev “ (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