Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
As published
143 Reporting possible misconduct to approved regulators
(1) This section applies where—
(a) an ombudsman is dealing, or has dealt, with a complaint under the ombudsman scheme, and
(b) the ombudsman is of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent or any other person in relation to any matter connected with the complaint is such that a relevant authorising body in relation to that person should consider whether to take action against that person.
(2) The ombudsman must give the relevant authorising body a report which—
(a) states that the ombudsman is of that opinion, and
(b) gives details of that conduct.
(3) The ombudsman must give the complainant a notice stating that a report under subsection (2) has been given to the relevant authorising body.
(4) A report under subsection (2) may require the relevant authorising body to report to the ombudsman the action which has been or is to be taken by it in response to the report and the reasons for that action being taken.
(5) The duty imposed by subsection (2) is not affected by the withdrawal or abandonment of the complaint.
(6) If an ombudsman, having regard to any report produced by the relevant authorising body in compliance with a requirement imposed under subsection (4), or any failure to comply with such a requirement, considers—
(a) that there has been a serious failure by the relevant authorising body to discharge its regulatory functions, or
(b) if such a requirement has been imposed on the body on more than one occasion, that the relevant authorising body has persistently failed adequately to discharge its regulatory functions,
the ombudsman may make a report to that effect to the Board.
Your change, as a redline
143 Reporting possible misconduct to approved regulators
(1) This section applies where—
(a) an ombudsman is dealing, or has dealt, with a complaint under the ombudsman scheme, and
(b) the ombudsman is of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent or any other person in relation to any matter connected with the complaint is such that a relevant authorising body in relation to that person should consider whether to take action against that person.
(2) The ombudsman must give the relevant authorising body a report which—
(a) states that the ombudsman is of that opinion, and
(b) gives details of that conduct.
(3) The ombudsman must give the complainant a notice stating that a report under subsection (2) has been given to the relevant authorising body.
(4) A report under subsection (2) may require the relevant authorising body to report to the ombudsman the action which has been or is to be taken by it in response to the report and the reasons for that action being taken.
(5) The duty imposed by subsection (2) is not affected by the withdrawal or abandonment of the complaint.
(6) If an ombudsman, having regard to any report produced by the relevant authorising body in compliance with a requirement imposed under subsection (4), or any failure to comply with such a requirement, considers—
(a) that there has been a serious failure by the relevant authorising body to discharge its regulatory functions, or
(b) if such a requirement has been imposed on the body on more than one occasion, that the relevant authorising body has persistently failed adequately to discharge its regulatory functions,
the ombudsman may make a report to that effect to the Board.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.