Skip to content

How to Interpret the Tables

Below is a fictional example of three rows from a Comparative Table for the product group Motor Vehicle Insurance. It shows three financial services providers (FSPs), H, K and M. Below the table are notes on what we can learn about H, K and M.

 

Comparative Tables - Example



What we can learn about H

  • If you purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy from H, there was a relatively high chance, compared with the other FSPs in this product table, that you would bring a dispute about H to FOS. H has a “Chance of a Dispute Coming to FOS” of 83.6, which is well above the median of 14.1 for FSPs in this table.
     
  • When consumers did bring disputes about H to FOS, their disputes were resolved very early in FOS’s resolution process. H has an “Average Length in the Resolution Process” of 1.0, which is below the median for all FSPs in this table of 1.3. The “Average Length in the Resolution Process” is not about the time taken to resolve disputes but about what stage in FOS’s resolution process an FSP’s disputes were resolved at. The stages of FOS’s process do not last for set periods of time, and some are fast-tracked through our resolution process.
     
  • The disputes that were brought to FOS about H were all resolved through an agreement between the consumer and H (100% of the “Outcomes of the Resolution Process”). FOS was not required to step in and make a decision on any of the disputes involving H.


What we can learn about K

  • If you purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy from K, there was a relatively low chance, compared with the other FSPs in this product table, that you would bring a dispute about K to FOS. K has a “Chance of a Dispute Coming to FOS” of 2.7, which is well below the median of 14.1 for FSPs in this table.
     
  • When consumers did bring disputes about K to FOS, the disputes were usually not resolved until the later stages of FOS’s resolution process. K has an “Average Length in the Resolution Process” of 5.3, which is well above the median for all FSPs in this table of 1.3. However, this figure can only be understood in conjunction with the “Outcomes of the Resolution Process” figures for K – 100% of K’s disputes were resolved by a FOS decision in favour of the FSP. This indicates that K has continued its disputes until the later stages of the FOS process for good reason.
     

What we can learn about M

  • If you purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy from M, there was a relatively high chance, compared with the other FSPs in this product table, that you would bring a dispute about M to FOS. M has a “Chance of a Dispute Coming to FOS” of 25.9, which is above the median of 14.1 for FSPs in this table.
  • The “Average Length in the Resolution Process” and all the “Outcomes of the Resolution Process” categories are blank for M. This means that none of the disputes that FOS received for M in this product group between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2010 were resolved by 30 June 2010. In other words, all the disputes were still being handled by FOS at the end of the period in question, so we could not say at what stage of the resolution process they were resolved and what the outcomes were. These disputes will be included in the data we use to calculate the “Average Length in the Resolution Process” and “Outcomes of the Resolution Process” figures for FSPs in the Comparative Tables for 2010–2011.