The Financial Services Ombudsman has said his office received 7,150 complaints by the end of November this year, an increase of 34% on the same period last year.
Ombudsman Joe Meade has published some of the findings he has made in the past few months.
These included an award of €250,000, the maximum compensation he can award, to a husband and wife who retired from farming and sold land for €3m.
After an approach from their bank, they invested €2m in two bonds which they understood were capital guaranteed, but became concerned when the value of the bonds fell to €1.6m.
According to the ombudsman, the bank official dealing with them told them 'they had nothing to worry about because it was a guaranteed fund'.
The ombudsman said this was not true.
Eventually they cashed in the bonds for €1.46m.
The ombudsman said that the couple were at least confused, or at worst, completely misled by the bank.
He also told the bank to make a formal written apology to the couple after 'belittling' remarks by one senior official.
In another case, the Ombudsman told a bank to return €410,000 to 68-year-old woman who invested the money in a property fund bond after a meeting with the bank to discuss investment opportunities.
The ombudsman found that the bank failed in its duty of care to the woman and did not adequately inform her of the options available to her.
In another case, the ombudsman ordered a bank to refund a breakage fee of €3,000 to a husband and wife after they sought to switch to another provider.
They were quoted a zero breakage fee, but the bank later said they were liable for fees as they did not accept the zero offer within 20 days.
Mr Meade found that at no stage did the bank make the couple aware of the 20-day period.
The ombudsman also made two separate awards - a total of €125,000 - against a stockbroking firm due to the sale of high-risk property investment products to two people.
The investments, worth a total of €330,000, were 'a disaster' and lost all of their value.
Mr Meade said he found it 'disquieting' that such products were offered to both investors, who were classed as 'low risk' and 'medium risk' investors.
This case has been brought to the Financial Regulator's attention.
