Opinion: The financial services ombudsman, Joe Meade, is starting to earn his spurs. His first accountability report for the nine months to December 31st, 2006, attests to that. As was amply reported in this paper, he looked into 2,600 complaints against financial services providers, finding in favour of the complainants in 50 per cent of the complaints that were investigated.

With the incorporation of the voluntary ombudsman for the credit institutions, and the insurance ombudsman of Ireland schemes into the now statutory scheme, his role is crucial. But does his organisation fully deal with the natural distrust of consumers against financial institutions? Hardly.

First, it would make sense to briefly summarise all the cases investigated and not just a selected few. Such a list would underline consumers' rights and financial institutions' obligations. The selected list gives a good insight and demonstrates the ombudsman's fair and equitable approach.

Second, and more importantly, the report does not publish the names of wayward institutions. That is a retrograde step.

One case investigated against a stockbroker, in a "leading" firm of stockbrokers, sticks out like a sore thumb. It involved an elderly customer, in her late 70s. The stockbroker managed her €1.5 million portfolio and she complained that the firm had mismanaged her portfolio as it had failed to advise her properly how a particular bond would operate and that it had recommended a number of technology shares when she had made it clear that she did not want any high-risk shares.

The ombudsman found in respect of the bond that she had been led to believe that she would receive a tax-free income for the 10 years of the investment, whereas the income was in fact a repayment of her own money, thereby eroding the capital invested. That is quite an indictment. And to compound that, the ombudsman found that the stockbroker was guilty of negligence and breach of duty to the complainant in the advice that it gave.

So what were the remedies? The compensation comprised a refund of fees amounting to €17,000, a direction that no further fees be paid and a sum of €1,500 to be paid to the investor.

The stockbroking firm was also directed to amend its procedures "so as to more accurately describe any deductions for income/ charges/commission on the periodic performance statement/valuations of the complainant's investment".

There is no doubt that the ombudsman dealt thoroughly with this case. But by not naming the firm and the stockbroker, was he not indirectly casting suspicion on the other "leading" firms of stockbrokers?

Ironically, if there was no statutory ombudsman, and if the investor had taken court against against the firm and the broker, it would also be in the public arena. Unless, of course, it was settled on the court steps to avoid public odium.

In the my-word-is-my-bond era, the guilty broker would have been dismissed or suspended. Also, the firm would have received a public rebuke.

There are, of course, precedents for naming individuals. Just look at the website of the ombudsman who examines complaints about the administrative actions of Government departments, the Health Service Executive, local authorities and An Post.

In selected cases, the ombudsman protects the name of the complainant but pinpoints and names the various departments of Government involved in the complaints.

The remit of the financial services ombudsman is as important, if not more so. It incorporates banks, building societies, insurance companies, mortgage/insurance and other credit intermediaries, stockbrokers, pawnbrokers, moneylenders, bureaux de change, hire purchase companies and health insurance companies.

And in the not-too-distant future, what is also likely to be a contentious area, the credit unions and their bizarre approach to suspect borrowings, which will lead to some going belly-up.

Looking at the different approach by the two ombudsmen, a major question is raised. Is there not a different blame approach to the protected public services, and the private sector whose employees are swayed by the competitive winds? If so, why? Obviously that should not be tolerated. And if there is a legal difficulty, that should be catered for by legislation.

So what does the Irish Stock Exchange (ISE) have to say about the specific case mentioned above? A spokesman said he could make no comment. Its website lists a number of safeguards for investor protection. Apart from having to meet "rigorous regulatory standards", it says that individuals within member firms who advise and execute orders for clients "must meet fitness and probity standards and must be suitably qualified and approved by the exchange". The ISE is regulated by the financial regulator.

The ombudsman's role is essential to rule on purported malpractices by financial services groups. The service is free to complainants and it has a friendly website. Importantly, he has extensive powers, including the power to require employees to provide information under oath and to enter premises and demand the production of documents.

The highest compensation awarded, according to the report, was €56,000, against a credit institution, and €32,000 against an insurance sector provider (both unnamed).

Those bland statements are meaningless. The uninformed public can continue, in ignorance, to trade with these culpable institutions. Surely that is not in the public interest.

In this welcomed era of transparency, the office of the financial services ombudsman will not mature until the major culprits are named and shamed.