Contact center
(from Russia)
ext 00020 (from abroad)
Monday - Friday from 8:00 to 20:00 (Moscow time), except public holidays, free call from regions of Russia
22 september 2023, 09:18
The limit of 500 thousand roubles of a consumer’s property claim against a financial institution when applying to the Financial Ombudsman should be increased or removed altogether in some cases, said Financial Ombudsman Denis Novak, speaking at the 7th All-Russian Legal Forum in Moscow on September 20.
“In principle, it is already becoming apparent that this limit does not meet the current economic realities, especially obvious when it comes to recovering the sum insured under life and health insurance contracts and when the applicant appeals, but it turns out that the sum insured will be more than 500,000 roubles. In such a case, the Financial Ombudsman has to stop considering the appeal. In that case, the consumer will have to go to court,” Denis Novak said.
A Financial Ombudsman considers appeals of consumers of financial services on property disputes with financial institutions, if the amount of the consumer’s claim on such appeals does not exceed 500 thousand roubles. But with regard to disputes on CMTPL insurance contracts there is no such limit.
“Therefore, the issue of increasing the limit or, in some cases, removing it altogether is now being discussed. For example, if you know that we do not have a limit on CMTPL contracts, it looks very odd to have such a limit on hull insurance contracts,” the Financial Ombudsman added.
In general, the action of out-of-court dispute resolution, as practice shows, improves the relationship between financial institutions and their clients, Denis Novak said. One of the most important features and distinctions of the institution of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is the uniformity of dispute resolution practice.
“The lion’s share of appeals to the Financial Ombudsman concerns CMTPL contracts. And for four years of functioning of the institution, their number has started to decrease. On the one hand, someone will explain this by the decline in economic activity. But I also assume that financial institutions, knowing about the uniform practice and the position of the Financial Ombudsman on certain issues and understanding that, for example, the decision will satisfy the consumer’s claim, do not insist on refusing to pay the relevant amounts to the client. In such a case, the company realizes that the consumer-unfriendly position will only entail additional costs for them,” the speaker explained.
He also pointed out that one of the features of the FOS institution, as distinct from the court, is specialization on a certain range of issues. ‘Employees who work in the FOS, only deal with these disputes. Naturally, there is no wide range of different kinds of claims, which need to be separately re-examined each time,” the Financial Ombudsman explained.
Financial Ombudsman Denis Novak mentioned that a consumer’s appeal to the Financial Ombudsman is free of charge. Even if the expert examination is necessary, all the costs are borne by the FOS itself. In addition, the law defines strict terms, within which the appeal must be considered and a decision made on it.
