Ombudsman Foreword Highlights Telephone Service New Disputes Dispute Resolution Process Closed Cases Types of Disputes Systemic Issues Case Studies Complete Annual Report
BFSO Home |
 | | | The file was referred to a case manager for investigation. The central question for the case manager's consideration was:
|
| Against this backdrop, a series of recommendations were made which the reviewer described in the following way:
|
| Was any loss caused by the financial institution's delay in registering the title?
|
| In the course of the investigation Mr and Mrs M provided material from a town planner which showed that they may have succeeded in altering the development had they had the opportunity to object. They also provided information from the City Council that supported this view. Mr and Mrs M provided the redrawn plans to show that changes had been required. Valuations were provided by both the financial institution and Mr and Mrs M. The valuations showed that the value of the land may have been adversely affected by the development on the adjoining block and the loss of the view.
The case manager accepted that the disputants would only be notified directly of the development application if the title was registered in their names. She considered that a notice put up on the adjoining block for a two week period did not exonerate the financial institution because the disputants did not visit the block during the period of notification.
|
| Resolution
| The case was referred to a Case Conference conducted by the Ombudsman to discuss the issues in dispute and the amount of compensation that was payable by the financial institution. The financial institution agreed to pay Mr and Mrs M an amount of $62,500 in full and final settlement of the dispute. Mr and Mrs M accepted this offer and the matter was resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
