THIS is apropos of the letter ‘Ombudsman and their utility’ (Dec 17). I endorse the views expressed by the writer. Ombudsmen are expanding under new labels, but of what utility? Are grievances of complainants being resolved on time?
Let me share a personal experience. I had lodged a complaint with the banking ombudsman on July 23 against a private bank. The complaint was not entertained initially on the plea that it did not meet the legal mandatory requirement.
After subsequent exchange of correspondence I received a letter on Dec 7 from the banking ombudsmen stating that the complaint has been recommended for formal hearing to be held at Rawalpindi.
However, the date of formal hearing would be fixed after the incumbent to the post of banking ombudsman is appointed by the federal government, since for the time being the post is lying vacant.
So presumably now I have to wait for an indefinite period before the complaint comes up for formal hearing, which could extend up to two years, as in the case of the federal ombudsmen, who has recently been appointed on a temporary basis to clear the backlog of 75,000 complaints of aggrieved people, as reported in the press.