The answer is that we may never know because, reflecting its roots in the Central Bank, the Regulator operates behind a veil of strict secrecy.

In this culture, the weapon of choice is moral persuasion rather than the megaphone, quietly applying pressure behind the scenes rather than bringing errant financial institutions to heel.

It is a culture that works well if your only concern is to ensure the health and solvency of the financial system.

When the Regulator is concerned that a particular institution is sailing too close to the wind, it calls in the top brass for a dressing down behind closed doors.

In these circumstances, the Regulator shouting about the issue from the rooftops would probably achieve nothing more than a run on the bank by panicked depositors.

But the cloak of secrecy does nothing to persuade consumers that the Regulator is also working in their interests.

For all we know, the Central Bank's towering headquarters on Dame Street in central Dublin may be a battleground where financial watchdogs square up to banks that give their customers a raw deal.

Because of the news blackout, though, there will always be the suspicion that messy consumer issues are sorted out in a gentlemanly fashion between old chums.

The shortcomings in the regulatory system were exposed last week when Joe Meade, the new ombudsman for financial services, delivered his first annual report.

Meade's blunt assessment of the obstacles that some financial institutions are throwing in his way was a breath of fresh air compared with the Regulator's habit of wriggling out of difficult questions.

Meade was in fighting form, pledging that he would not be intimidated by the legal challenges that Irish Nationwide Building Society and Ulster Bank have mounted to try to overturn his decision. Equally, the ombudsman hinted that he would not have his arm twisted by consumers who threaten to air their grievances through radio programmes such as Joe Duffy's Livelinewhen a decision does not go in their favour.

"Threats of judicial reviews, Supreme Court appeals or media exposures do not intimidate me, " he declared.

By naming and shaming financial institutions, and pinpointing the abuses he believes may be endemic in the banking system, Meade has done more to shore up consumers' confidence that somebody is looking after their interests than the Financial Regulator ever will.

Of course, the ombudsman's office has not entirely covered itself in glory during its brief existence to date.

Some home owners will be bitterly disappointed to learn that it is now too late for Meade to do anything about the scandal of endowment mortgages . . . by which borrowers may not even have the money to pay off the original loan (not to mention the lump sum they were led to believe they would be left with) after paying into an endowment fund for the lifetime of a mortgage).

But if he continues to live up to his promises, consumers can be certain that banks will be severely punished for similar sharp practice in the future.