The number of complaints to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman jumped 13 per cent last year to 7,004, according to a breakdown of grievances published today.
Customer service was the most complained of conduct with 19 per cent of complaints concerning such an issue of customer.
[ Record number of complaints made to Financial Services and Pensions OmbudsmanOpens in new window ]
A total of 3,802 banking complaints were received amounting to 54 per cent of the total while insurance related issues made up 2,142 of the complaints.
A total of 34 per cent of all banking complaints received were related to the conduct of disputed transaction, up 28 per cent since 2024.
READ MORE
Here are some of the anonymised case studies highlighted by the FSPO.
Private health insurance problem
Arthur was insured with a private health insurance company. He attended a private medical facility in January 2024 for a scan, which he paid for in full on the day. He submitted a claim to the health insurance company in March 2024 for reimbursement and did not hear back so sent further communication looking for an update. There were more delays by the insurance company, including a failure to return calls to Arthur.
He was contacted by the health insurance company to tell him that certain information was not returned by the hospital and he said he contacted his doctor, who said that no request for information was received.
Are Government's fuel measures betting on a quick resolution to the conflict in Iran?
This week the Government introduced a €250 million package of measures to help businesses and households with their fuel bills over the next couple of months.But will it be enough? And is it merely a bet by Government on the Iran conflict being resolved quickly?Joining host Ciarán Hancock in studio to tease this out are Cliff Taylor of The Irish Times and Fergal O’Brien, director of lobbying and influence at employers group Ibec.But the episode starts with Irish times political correspondent Cormac McQuinn taking us through the various fuel measures introduced by Government. Produced by John Casey with JJ Vernon on sound.
Arthur submitted a complaint to the insurance company in November 2024 and received a holding letter. He received no further communication from the insurance company and subsequently contacted the FSPO in May 2025.
The FSPO wrote to the insurance company seeking a review of the complaint and asking it to complete its internal investigation on the complaint. The insurance company contacted the FSPO with a resolution. They offered Arthur a full refund of his scan (€750) and €540 as compensation for the failures in their customer service. They also apologised for the poor handling of Arthur’s claim.
Mortgage protection fiasco
Sinéad had a mortgage through a Local Authority. In December 2021, Sinéad was diagnosed with a life changing illness and was forced to retire early from work. She was told there was a mortgage protection element to her policy for serious illnesses, but that she needed to contact the insurance company to submit a claim.
Sinéad was unsure who to submit a claim to and found it difficult to get information from the Local Authority which she had the mortgage with. She was worried as her mortgage repayments were due and she looked for guidance from the Local Authority.
Sinéad was told by the Local Authority that it was liaising with the insurance company, but no details were provided. In December 2024, Sinéad contacted the FSPO seeking to make a complaint, given the lack of progress being made by the Local Authority with the insurer.
Sinéad was contacted by phone by the FSPO to discuss the complaint. Sinéad expressed her frustration at the lack of information from the Local Authority. As a year had passed since she had first contacted it about the claim. Sinéad was informed she needed to submit a complaint to the insurance company and give it the opportunity to review the complaint.
She contacted the insurance company which she thought was responsible, seeking a final response letter, but was informed that it had only assumed responsibility for underwriting the policy from 1 January 2023.
As she had begun taking sick leave from work in December 2021, it told her she needed to submit her complaint to the previous insurance company.
When the FSPO received evidence that Sinéad had a policy with the previous insurance company, it wrote to it and asked it to review the complaint and issue a final response letter. The insurance company reviewed the complaint file and contacted the FSPO to confirm it would pay Sinéad’s mortgage protection claim in full and it would take steps to finalise payments to the Local Authority as soon as possible.
Missing motor insurance
Enrique contacted a broker to arrange motor insurance cover for his son and gave the necessary details to the agent and accepted a quote for €2,100 which he paid.
A number of days passed but no insurance disc arrived for the vehicle. Enrique called the broker but was unable to speak to the agent who had arranged the quote for him. Further follow up calls went unanswered. Enrique subsequently received a call from another agent at the broker’s office a few weeks later to explain that the original quote was incorrect and could not be honoured as the vehicle had been incorrectly classified as a private vehicle rather than a commercial vehicle.
This agent requested a further premium of €2,200 to avoid cancellation of the policy. Enrique was unhappy to hear his policy might be cancelled as the vehicle was in use that day, so he agreed for the agent to take payment of €2,200 in two separate instalments.
The agent said he would contact Enrique the following day to process the payment but failed to do so. Enrique contacted the broker himself and paid the second instalment to ensure the policy remained in effect.
He was upset at the failure of the broker to supply a correct quote and separately, not to rectify the matter immediately when it noted that an incorrect quote was provided and he expressed his disappointment at the poor customer experience he received.
When the FSPO received evidence of a complaint to the broker, it wrote to the broker requesting it review the complaint file. The broker issued its final response letter acknowledging service failings, including having provided incorrect information to Enrique. The broker agreed to honour the original quote and refund the additional payment.
Bank negotiation difficulties
Conan had outstanding debts with his bank and wished to reach a resolution with it regarding his repayments. Conan appointed a third-party representative to assist him negotiate with the bank.
Conan explained that initially the bank’s representative was engaging and progress was being made to try to resolve matters. However, Conan claimed that after a period of time, the bank’s representative ceased communicating with Conan’s representative.
Conan was worried as this debt was impacting his credit rating, which would have implications for him in obtaining credit in the future. Conan referred his complaint to the FSPO and submitted evidence of having first complained to the bank, which had not responded.
The FSPO wrote to the bank requesting that it review the complaint and issue its final response letter. The bank completed its review, acknowledging its lack of engagement. The bank re-engaged with its customer’s proposals and agreed a resolution that was acceptable to Conan and addressed his concerns. Conan was satisfied with this outcome, and his complaint at the FSPO was closed
Bank refund after fraud
Ian was expecting a refund from an online retailer that he had recently used. Ian received a call from someone who said they worked for the online retailer and they asked for Ian’s bank details. Ian assumed the agent was legitimate and provided the agent with the required details. He later became suspicious when he noticed €300 had been deducted from his account. Ian called his bank to inform it of the issue.
The bank’s agent confirmed that Ian would need to complete a chargeback form to get a refund. Ian’s card was cancelled by the bank as a precaution. Ian stated that he completed and submitted forms to the bank to seek the €300 refund but did not receive any response or a refund. Ian subsequently submitted a complaint to his bank but did not receive a response, so he referred his complaint to the FSPO.
When the FSPO received evidence of Ian’s complaint to his bank, it wrote to the bank, asking that it review Ian’s complaint and issue its final response letter. The bank issued a final response letter stating that it was not responsible for Ian’s loss as he had given his bank details to an unknown party. However, in this instance, it noted that the bank’s agent, who dealt with the initial call from Ian, did not follow procedure as they incorrectly categorised the transaction as a chargeback issue rather than a fraudulent transaction. The bank agreed to refund Ian as a gesture of goodwill in acknowledgment of the incorrect information provided. Ian accepted this and closed his complaint.
