Energywatch and Postwatch praised, but costs questioned
A new report from the National Audit Office (NAO) has concluded that consumer ombudsmen Energywatch and Postwatch have delivered benefits for the public, but questioned their level of spending.
The report from Auditor General Sir John Bourn says that the two organisations have successfully established themselves, developed systems to handle complaints and have started to address major consumer problems.
However, the organisations are urged to reduce costs and demonstrate more clearly the benefits they offer.
Speaking today, Sir John Bourn, said: “I applaud the efforts of Energywatch and Postwatch to protect and speak up for consumers. It is important now that these bodies seek to evaluate their impact more fully to learn lessons for their future. I am encouraged that they have adopted a positive response to the recommendations and are taking action to improve their performance.”
The two organisations were established in 2000 with a remit to promote and protect consumers’ interests. They have a statutory duty to investigate complaints from consumers who are not satisfied with the industries’ handling of the complaint as well as to provide advice and information for the public.
However, the bodies have no regulatory power and have to rely on influence to affect decisions. Though both are praised for campaigns, Energywatch for action against mis-selling and Postwatch for reviewing post office closure, the NAO notes: “Neither has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of consumer needs, or the factors which influence consumer behaviour.”
It warns that: “As a result, there is a risk of failing to focus on all of the important areas for consumers and particular sub-groups such as the elderly or low income groups, or the needs of small businesses.”
In addition, though both handle a large number of complaints, neither body has processes for systematic evaluation of the consumer benefit from the role, such as the level of compensation received.
In terms of cost, Energywatch has spent £57 million, including £12 million on closing down its predecessor bodies. Postwatch has spent £27 million. Both are urged to reduce their annual running costs.
