Home / Ombudsman and complaint schemes
Ombudsman and complaint schemes
Run one published scheme rulebook across every case, at the turnaround your regulator expects, with a record each side can check.
How it helps
The same rules applied the same way, however many cases arrive
Your published scheme rules are loaded once and every case runs under them, so two decision makers reach the same answer on the same facts.
The system reads the file and drafts the determination, and your ombudsman or adjudicator reviews it, changes what they want, and signs.
What the system proposed and what the person decided are both kept, and each side gets a copy it can check and export in full.
A complaint that arrives here has usually failed somewhere else first. The same system runs the earlier stage inside the firm, so a case that escalates carries one record the whole way and nothing is rebuilt between stages.
It runs the scheme, and your ombudsman decides
Confidentiality
No model trains on your cases
We set out where your cases are hosted, and the terms that govern it, before any agreement.
You hold the ledger, and you export or delete it on your terms.
encrypted in transit / the record is hash-chained, never edited in place
Straight answers
Questions we get asked
We publish our scheme rules. How is this different from a case management system?
A case management system stores the file. Settle& runs the scheme rules themselves: your published rulebook is loaded once and every case is taken under it, so the deadlines, the stages and the tests are the ones you published rather than a workflow someone configured to resemble them.
How do you keep two adjudicators consistent on the same facts?
By making the rule the case is decided under explicit and recorded at each step. Settle& drafts from the scheme rules and the file, and the adjudicator reviews and signs, so two decision makers start from the same reading of the same rulebook. The person still decides, which is the point.
What do we give a complainant who says the outcome was unfair?
The record. It shows what was sent, what they filed, what the decision maker considered, the rule each step was taken under, and what the system proposed against what the person decided. Each side can export its own copy in full.
Can it handle our volumes?
Volume is the case Settle& is built for at this stage of a dispute, because a scheme's problem is usually turnaround rather than complexity. What that means for your caseload is a question for a working session with your own numbers.
Does the AI decide complaints?
No. Settle& drafts the determination and your ombudsman or adjudicator reviews it, changes what they want, and signs. Nothing is decided by the software, and nothing reaches a party unless you send it.
We report to a regulator. Can we get what we need out?
Cases export in full, in open formats, at any time, so the data sits with you rather than only with us. What a particular return needs is worth walking through on your own reporting template.
See it run on your own scheme rules
The same system runs complaint handling inside a firm and formal arbitration.