The consumer movement of the last decade has witnessed important improvements in the position of ordinary policyholders; for example, steps have been taken to ensure the proper management and financial stability of insurance companies and there has been increased scrutiny of independent intermediaries. What is particularly noticeable, however, is that nothing has been done by law to mitigate the excessive rigour of certain of the substantive rules of insurance law widely accepted to be inappropriate in consumer transactions. Nevertheless, it will be remembered that in 1977 the insurance companies agreed to abide by two Codes of Practice governing consumer insurances (largely in return for exemption under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977), thereby opening a new era of self-regulation. A high-point in this process was reached in March, 1981, when a number of insurance companies set up the Insurance Ombudsman Bureau, staffed by a full-time Ombudsman (Mr James Haswell) with administrative support and overseen by the Insurance Council, consisting of insurance experts and representatives of the major consumer bodies. The Ombudsman has just issued his first Annual Report, covering the period March-December 1981.

In its initial nine months the Bureau received 1,517 inquiries from persons whose claims had been rejected or who were dissatisfied with the sums offered by way of settlement. In terms of the 1.2 million or so claims made annually this figure appears small, and it actually shrinks still further to 441 when only those inquiries relating to the 44 member companies over which the Ombudsman has jurisdiction (17 companies, if associated companies are disregarded) are taken into account. Of those 441, 144 related to matters outside the Bureau’s terms of reference (considered below), so that in fact only 297 cases were capable of full investigation. Nevertheless, the Report shows that the Ombudsman is willing to give advice in an informal way to all persons contacting the Bureau. The disappointing number of inquiries is almost certainly due to lack of public knowledge of the existence of the Bureau. While it is true that about seven million leaflets were distributed nationally (mainly through Citizens’ Advice Bureaux) in the period covered by the Report, it is the writer’s experience that many people are willing to accept an initial rejection or offer without seeking outside help. Indeed, 96 individuals who initially contacted the Bureau did not proceed further, and it is most unlikely that all of these subsequently received better offers. There is, nevertheless, every reason to suppose that the passage of time will see an increase in public awareness, and it would be wrong to regard the low inquiry rate as reason for