Although the recent reforms are highly beneficial for consumers, the ombudsman service has received little attention. The formal process of adjudication has been explored in much detail, but there are still gaps remain in understanding of models of informal justice systems in Europe. This is particularly relevant to the ombudsman services. The sparse existing literature on ombudsman deals mainly with the global spread of the ombudsman concept since the 1960’, but it does not deal in detail with the effectiveness of this institution and the comparative perspective in this area. Overall, the vast number of criticisms aimed at the UK ombudsman stems from the fact that this system is not as effective as the court system. The remedy for this situation would be to incorporate certain solutions from Ireland and Scandinavia, especially from Finland, such as group actions and the facilitation of the system to use in normal courts. Such changes that have developed in other jurisdictions, especially Finland, are worth observing but should not be replicated without a thorough, well-thought-through reform, including the procedure, budgets and legal aid for such actions. Incremental changes might be very effective. However, due the strong lobby of the insurers, the change might occur in relation to a crisis such it had happened in Ireland.

中文翻译：

---

改革金融服务监察员的角色

尽管最近的改革对消费者非常有利，但监察员服务却很少受到关注。正式的裁决过程已经得到了非常详细的探讨，但对欧洲非正式司法系统模型的理解仍然存在差距。这与监察员服务特别相关。现有的关于监察员的稀少文献主要涉及自 1960 年代以来监察员概念在全球的传播，但并未详细讨论该机构的有效性和该领域的比较视角。总体而言，针对英国监察员的大量批评源于这样一个事实，即该系统不如法院系统有效。这种情况的补救措施是结合爱尔兰和斯堪的纳维亚，尤其是芬兰的某些解决方案，例如集体诉讼和促进该系统在普通法院中的使用。在其他司法管辖区，尤其是芬兰，发生的此类变化值得观察，但如果没有彻底、深思熟虑的改革，包括此类行动的程序、预算和法律援助，则不应复制。增量更改可能非常有效。然而，由于保险公司的强大游说，这种变化可能与爱尔兰发生的危机有关。