To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 425.
425) "Company Man" - Warren Haynes.
or woman.
Dear Mr Javid,
Warren Haynes' song goes;
"Sometimes in this world you gotta make a stand,
Never wanted to be no company man"
which are our sentiments entirely.
However, we invite you and anyone else who happens to read this email/blog to be the company Chairman of the Property Member Board for a short while. You will need to have unimpeachable integrity. All you have to do is:
1. Go to www.ombudsman-services.org
2. Click on the, "Information" box.
3. Then click on the, "Annual Reports" box.
4. Next click, "Annual Report 2009/10 Property."
5. Now just sit back and read the report .....
You will see that this report has 8 pages. It is full of information but the interpretation of that information leads in two totally different directions. One direction is that of DJS Research (a totally independent research group who carried out three Customer Satisfaction Reports for OS:Property) the other is the one taken by the Labour Peer, Dame Maggie Jones, Chair of its Property Member Board. This was DJS Research' s 2nd report. Their report can be read in full if you enter: DJS Research in the box on the top right of the home page - scroll down to 2009/10. It's provides a remarkable insight into what goes on behind the scenes at this private redress scheme.
Q. Why is the Chair's interpretation so different from that of DJS Research's?
Dame Maggie Jones fully endorses the claim made by Ombudsman Services:Property that it is, "building a reputation as a respected and versatile provider." (page 8)
DJS Research on the other hand state;
"Many were complaining about the poor information/advice which could potentially have led to a costly purchasing mistake far in excess of a few hundred pounds." (as was our case with Monk and Partners)
they continue,
"As for the last year overall satisfaction levels were low." (page 7)
Q. If overall satisfaction levels were so low how does that equate with Dame Maggie Jones' endorsement of the company as being one that was building a reputation as a respected provider?
Q. How can Ombudsman Services:Property be, "a respected provider" when complainants said that their overall satisfaction levels were low?
Q. Are the low satisfaction levels experienced by complainants the reason why, "other organisations in the property sector want to join?"
Q. Just who exactly is, "respecting" the company?
Q. And just what exactly is the company actually, "providing?"
As a temporary Chairman you will have seen that the key issues were ones of money and the logic of Ombudsman Services:Property's recommendations. On the one hand complainants were losing thousands and thousands of pounds whilst on the other the company was offering them a few hundred pounds of, "financial goodwill."
Q. As Chairman how do you understand that anomaly and what steps would you have taken to help Ombudsman Services:Property build a truly respectable reputation?
Regarding the so-called "financial goodwill." DJS Research say,
"This should be looked at and either expectations could be managed more tightly from the beginning of the claim or the scale of the financial goodwill be increased to be more in line with the financial losses incurred by the complainant as a result of the problem." (page 7)
On page 8 of the report Dame Maggie Jones made no mention of DJS Research's findings and recommendations.
Q. Why, as Chairman, did Dame Maggie Jones not respond to such critical findings?
Instead she said,
"It is a pleasure to be able to promote this service. I am not surprised that other organisations in the property sector want to join and want to promote the benefits of Ombudsman Services:Property to their members - professionalism and cost effectiveness - key concepts in these challenging times." (page 8)
Dame Maggie Jones, as Chairman of the Property Member Board seems to also be promoting a lack of logic and poor use of evidence. She, like you, will have read DJS' Customer Satisfaction Report where it states;
"Nearly a half were dissatisfied with the logic of its recommendations, use of evidence and extent to which they were reasonable."
Q. As Chairman what would your take on all of this have been in those challenging times?
Q. Why is a Labour Peer taking pleasure in promoting a service where half of its consumers were dissatisfied with the company's recommendations, its use of evidence and the reasonableness of those recommendations?
She finished with,
"This coming year will be interesting ... I am looking forward to working with Lewis Shand Smith and his team taking this challenging agenda forward."
Q. As Chairman how would you have worked with Lewis Shand Smith and his team in taking that challenging agenda forward?
Q. As a temporary Chairman with unimpeachable integrity would you make a stand or are you a company man or woman?
Thank you for taking the time to read the information and taking part.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- answers from Dame Janet Finch.
- answers from Lewis Shand Smith.
- answers from Dame Maggie Jones.
- answers from the Ombudsman Services Board.
- answers from the Property member Board.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
As Chairman for a short while we welcome your views on the challenges set.
Thanks.
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 30 December 2015
Tuesday, 29 December 2015
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors - Too Posh to Squash. (424)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 424.
424) The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors - Too Posh to Squash.
Dear Mr Javid,
Before they were axed, Consumer Focus made a prophetic statement about the failure of regulators to regulate. They attempted to warn government, the press, the media and anyone caring to listen, that;
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe that the problem has its origin in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms."
"An apparent inability to adequately regulate."
How very convenient for those who are inadequately regulated don't you think Mr Javid. But not so good for the victims of this regulatory failure.
Here we have an organisation with a Royal Charter apparently incapable of doing what it was set up to do - to regulate its Members and Regulated Firms - and yet no one did anything about it. And no one is doing anything about it. It was a right royal failure of regulation but it was the messenger who was mercilessly hung, drawn and quartered and not those who so ineptly fail the British public and who - thanks to a light-touch self-regulatory regime - continue to do so with total impunity, apparently.
It's as if everyone in the Establishment - en masse - migrated to the other side of the road so as look the other way and thus avoid the messy business of having to be Good Samaritans. Then, when they arrived at the unrockable boat they were all piped aboard, each and everyone of them careful not to rock it as they sailed serenely away from the problems that were all of their making.
Disembarking into a fleet of waiting taxis organised by one of their noble leaders - Baroness D'Souza - they were ferried to the Great Hall of Excess, red carpeted inside to gorge themselves silly at the golden trough all the time bickering about the quality of the champagne they quaffed and which had been gifted to them at the taxpayers' expense. Everything they so contemptuously grasped was provided at the taxpayers' expense. Only The Elite - those accustomed to such lavish lifestyles could so freely and so recklessly spend money that had been earned by the sweat others' labour.
As their consciences atrophied they were quickly replaced by a rapacious appetite for yet more and more and more of what wasn't theirs to have. "What was once the taxpayers' is now mine and what's my own is safely deposited in an off shore bank account," seemed to be their guiding philosophy.
Whilst stuffing themselves at others' expense and listening to Britten's, "Gloriana" - an opera depicting a flawed character motivated by vanity and desire - one of the great and good was overheard to say,
"You know we simply must ensure that the new Chair is one of us - we just can't have them handing out civil justice to those little people willy-nilly now can we!"
To which came the reply,
"Don't worry Minister it's all been taken care of. We just will not have business profitability and George's miraculous economic recovery threatened by these tiresome opportunists seeking redress of all things - it simply isn't going to happen."
The citizens of the UK are victims of Regulators who don't regulate and Ombudsmen who don't ombuds leaving inadequately regulated businesses free to develop yet more practices that do not work in the customer's interests.
And so it's the posh - and those eager to be seen to be doing their bidding - who continue to squash.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- answers from Dame Janet Finch.
- answers from the Board of Ombudsman Services.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
Please feel free to comment.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 424.
424) The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors - Too Posh to Squash.
Dear Mr Javid,
Before they were axed, Consumer Focus made a prophetic statement about the failure of regulators to regulate. They attempted to warn government, the press, the media and anyone caring to listen, that;
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe that the problem has its origin in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms."
"An apparent inability to adequately regulate."
How very convenient for those who are inadequately regulated don't you think Mr Javid. But not so good for the victims of this regulatory failure.
Here we have an organisation with a Royal Charter apparently incapable of doing what it was set up to do - to regulate its Members and Regulated Firms - and yet no one did anything about it. And no one is doing anything about it. It was a right royal failure of regulation but it was the messenger who was mercilessly hung, drawn and quartered and not those who so ineptly fail the British public and who - thanks to a light-touch self-regulatory regime - continue to do so with total impunity, apparently.
It's as if everyone in the Establishment - en masse - migrated to the other side of the road so as look the other way and thus avoid the messy business of having to be Good Samaritans. Then, when they arrived at the unrockable boat they were all piped aboard, each and everyone of them careful not to rock it as they sailed serenely away from the problems that were all of their making.
Disembarking into a fleet of waiting taxis organised by one of their noble leaders - Baroness D'Souza - they were ferried to the Great Hall of Excess, red carpeted inside to gorge themselves silly at the golden trough all the time bickering about the quality of the champagne they quaffed and which had been gifted to them at the taxpayers' expense. Everything they so contemptuously grasped was provided at the taxpayers' expense. Only The Elite - those accustomed to such lavish lifestyles could so freely and so recklessly spend money that had been earned by the sweat others' labour.
As their consciences atrophied they were quickly replaced by a rapacious appetite for yet more and more and more of what wasn't theirs to have. "What was once the taxpayers' is now mine and what's my own is safely deposited in an off shore bank account," seemed to be their guiding philosophy.
Whilst stuffing themselves at others' expense and listening to Britten's, "Gloriana" - an opera depicting a flawed character motivated by vanity and desire - one of the great and good was overheard to say,
"You know we simply must ensure that the new Chair is one of us - we just can't have them handing out civil justice to those little people willy-nilly now can we!"
To which came the reply,
"Don't worry Minister it's all been taken care of. We just will not have business profitability and George's miraculous economic recovery threatened by these tiresome opportunists seeking redress of all things - it simply isn't going to happen."
The citizens of the UK are victims of Regulators who don't regulate and Ombudsmen who don't ombuds leaving inadequately regulated businesses free to develop yet more practices that do not work in the customer's interests.
And so it's the posh - and those eager to be seen to be doing their bidding - who continue to squash.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- answers from Dame Janet Finch.
- answers from the Board of Ombudsman Services.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
Please feel free to comment.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Ombudsman Services:Property - "Influencing Skills." (423)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 423.
423) Influencing Skills.
Dear Mr Javid,
The appointments section of the Sunday Times when advertising the post of, "Chair of Ombudsman Services" insisted that the new ambassador would have, "interpersonal and influencing skills."
Influencing skills?
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) have developed extremely effective, "influencing skills" which when combined with their, "engagement work" persuaded your predecessor Vince Cable to, "fix" the lettings market and start driving the cowboy operators out of the sector.
Vince Cable also fixed the Royal Mail.
The RICS' "engagement work" - most of which was hush-hush and conducted, "behind the scenes" - thus very effectively influenced government legislation.
Influencing skills are of course just an up-market form of lobbying much in the same way as When The RICS say that they, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property to settle their Members' disputes what we believe they really mean is that they control the show at - what is to all intents and purposes - their company, from start to finish. Only they choose to operate behind the scenes and not out in the open. With a set up like this it's fanciful to think that an ombudsman, whose salary is paid for by her members, is in any meaningful way, "independent."
The market in surveying appears to be rigged in the first place - it has "developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests" - and when things invariably go wrong, is rigged in the second - the customer gets a dodgy decision from their ombudsman or if they're really lucky, about a hundred quid.
Q. Mr Javid, this raises one of the most fundamental questions of our campaign - if The RICS can influence the government to legislate to regulate the cowboys operating in the lettings sector why can't they - as regulators with a Royal Charter - act to influence the cowboys operating in the surveying sector - their very own Members and (Un)Regulated Firms - in a market they're supposedly control and for which they were given a Royal Charter?
Are The RICS simply too posh to squash?
It must come as little surprise then that the term, "influencing skills" should migrate from The RICS successful engagement work with politicians and civil servants to its "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property and from there to the Chair of the whole organisation.
It would take an extraordinarily principled and strong-minded Chairman to withstand that sort of pressure.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that the present Chair of Ombudsman Services lacked the required influencing skills to prevent the; maladministration, illogical Final Decisions and significantly reduced levels of financial "award" doled out to consumers by her ombudsman and that these disastrous failings of leadership should now be the subject of a public inquiry?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince'll Fix it Cable,
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company that formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
Comment is still free. If you are a victim and wish to tell your story please do.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 423.
423) Influencing Skills.
Dear Mr Javid,
The appointments section of the Sunday Times when advertising the post of, "Chair of Ombudsman Services" insisted that the new ambassador would have, "interpersonal and influencing skills."
Influencing skills?
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) have developed extremely effective, "influencing skills" which when combined with their, "engagement work" persuaded your predecessor Vince Cable to, "fix" the lettings market and start driving the cowboy operators out of the sector.
Vince Cable also fixed the Royal Mail.
The RICS' "engagement work" - most of which was hush-hush and conducted, "behind the scenes" - thus very effectively influenced government legislation.
Influencing skills are of course just an up-market form of lobbying much in the same way as When The RICS say that they, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property to settle their Members' disputes what we believe they really mean is that they control the show at - what is to all intents and purposes - their company, from start to finish. Only they choose to operate behind the scenes and not out in the open. With a set up like this it's fanciful to think that an ombudsman, whose salary is paid for by her members, is in any meaningful way, "independent."
The market in surveying appears to be rigged in the first place - it has "developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests" - and when things invariably go wrong, is rigged in the second - the customer gets a dodgy decision from their ombudsman or if they're really lucky, about a hundred quid.
Q. Mr Javid, this raises one of the most fundamental questions of our campaign - if The RICS can influence the government to legislate to regulate the cowboys operating in the lettings sector why can't they - as regulators with a Royal Charter - act to influence the cowboys operating in the surveying sector - their very own Members and (Un)Regulated Firms - in a market they're supposedly control and for which they were given a Royal Charter?
Are The RICS simply too posh to squash?
It must come as little surprise then that the term, "influencing skills" should migrate from The RICS successful engagement work with politicians and civil servants to its "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property and from there to the Chair of the whole organisation.
It would take an extraordinarily principled and strong-minded Chairman to withstand that sort of pressure.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that the present Chair of Ombudsman Services lacked the required influencing skills to prevent the; maladministration, illogical Final Decisions and significantly reduced levels of financial "award" doled out to consumers by her ombudsman and that these disastrous failings of leadership should now be the subject of a public inquiry?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince'll Fix it Cable,
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company that formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
Comment is still free. If you are a victim and wish to tell your story please do.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 28 December 2015
Ombudsman Services: Unimpeachable Integrity. (422)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 422.
422) Unimpeachable Integrity.
Dear Mr Javid,
We see from the appointments section of the Sunday Times that we've just missed out on the £45K 3 day per month job of Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services Ltd.
The ad. says,
"The entire system of civil justice and consumer redress is undergoing a once in a generation change, with new legislation set to alter forever the way consumers seek redress. Ombudsman Services is a the heart of this change and has doubled in size over the last two years. To lead us through our next period of change and growth, we are seeking a Chair and up to three non-executive directors to join our Board and provide effective support, scrutiny and oversight.
Q. Mr Javid, the entire system of "civil justice" and "consumer redress" at Ombudsman Services appears to be based on Dame Janet Finch's apparent inability to prevent maladministration, why haven't you ordered a public inquiry into her failure to provide effective support, scrutiny and oversight of consumers' complaints?
Q. Mr Javid, why have;
- Prof. Dame Janet Finch,
- The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith,
- Alex Bowers,
- Clive Deadman,
- Baroness Maggie Jones,
- Justin McCracken,
and,
- Jonathan Rees,
allowed consumers to have had their search for redress and civil justice at Ombudsman Services - maladministered?
The ad. continues,
"....a highly credible leader and ambassador you will have an instinctive appreciation of the challenges that go hand in hand with running and growing a substantial, complex service delivery organisation. First class communication, inter personal and influencing skills will be essential, along with commercial acumen, sound judgement and unimpeachable integrity."
Q. Mr Javid, are influencing skills those that require investigating officers to cut and paste the ombudsman's signature to reports and then send them out to unsuspecting consumers?
Q. Mr Javid, could you use your influencing skills to order a public inquiry into the maladministration of consumers' complaints by the Board and executives at Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr Javid, what sort of leader and ambassador permits the maladministration of consumers' complaints?
Q. Mr Javid, why hasn't this Board been impeached for its total lack of effective support, scrutiny and oversight of consumers' complaints?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensations for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
If you are a victim of Ombudsman Services and wish to share your story, why don't you?. Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 422.
422) Unimpeachable Integrity.
Dear Mr Javid,
We see from the appointments section of the Sunday Times that we've just missed out on the £45K 3 day per month job of Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services Ltd.
The ad. says,
"The entire system of civil justice and consumer redress is undergoing a once in a generation change, with new legislation set to alter forever the way consumers seek redress. Ombudsman Services is a the heart of this change and has doubled in size over the last two years. To lead us through our next period of change and growth, we are seeking a Chair and up to three non-executive directors to join our Board and provide effective support, scrutiny and oversight.
Q. Mr Javid, the entire system of "civil justice" and "consumer redress" at Ombudsman Services appears to be based on Dame Janet Finch's apparent inability to prevent maladministration, why haven't you ordered a public inquiry into her failure to provide effective support, scrutiny and oversight of consumers' complaints?
Q. Mr Javid, why have;
- Prof. Dame Janet Finch,
- The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith,
- Alex Bowers,
- Clive Deadman,
- Baroness Maggie Jones,
- Justin McCracken,
and,
- Jonathan Rees,
allowed consumers to have had their search for redress and civil justice at Ombudsman Services - maladministered?
The ad. continues,
"....a highly credible leader and ambassador you will have an instinctive appreciation of the challenges that go hand in hand with running and growing a substantial, complex service delivery organisation. First class communication, inter personal and influencing skills will be essential, along with commercial acumen, sound judgement and unimpeachable integrity."
Q. Mr Javid, are influencing skills those that require investigating officers to cut and paste the ombudsman's signature to reports and then send them out to unsuspecting consumers?
Q. Mr Javid, could you use your influencing skills to order a public inquiry into the maladministration of consumers' complaints by the Board and executives at Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr Javid, what sort of leader and ambassador permits the maladministration of consumers' complaints?
Q. Mr Javid, why hasn't this Board been impeached for its total lack of effective support, scrutiny and oversight of consumers' complaints?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensations for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
If you are a victim of Ombudsman Services and wish to share your story, why don't you?. Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 26 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property. "The Great Pretender" - The Platters. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (421)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 421.
421) "The Great Pretender" - The Platters.
Dear Mr Javid,
The Ombudsman Services 2014-15 Annual Report has the three words, FOR THE GOOD emblazoned over its first page (just go to www.ombudsman-services.org then click on "Information" and then click "Annual reports")
For The Good?
Under the sub-heading, "Our Mission" the maladministrators pretend that they're there,
"to provide access
to justice for consumers
and improve business
practices in our participating
companies, through simple,
cost effective and
independent
dispute resolution."
The song goes,
"Oh-oh, I'm the great pretender
Pretending that I'm doing well"
but as we all know - people who maladminister complaints whilst pretending to provide access to justice - just aren't doing well at all.
Q. Mr Javid, for the good of democracy can you explain to the UK taxpayer how the Ombudsman Services executives provide access to justice for consumers when they maladminister those consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing re-branding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
Comment is free so please feel free to comment!
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 421.
421) "The Great Pretender" - The Platters.
Dear Mr Javid,
The Ombudsman Services 2014-15 Annual Report has the three words, FOR THE GOOD emblazoned over its first page (just go to www.ombudsman-services.org then click on "Information" and then click "Annual reports")
For The Good?
Under the sub-heading, "Our Mission" the maladministrators pretend that they're there,
"to provide access
to justice for consumers
and improve business
practices in our participating
companies, through simple,
cost effective and
independent
dispute resolution."
The song goes,
"Oh-oh, I'm the great pretender
Pretending that I'm doing well"
but as we all know - people who maladminister complaints whilst pretending to provide access to justice - just aren't doing well at all.
Q. Mr Javid, for the good of democracy can you explain to the UK taxpayer how the Ombudsman Services executives provide access to justice for consumers when they maladminister those consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing re-branding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
Comment is free so please feel free to comment!
Ombudsman Services:Property - No Man's Land For Seekers of Private Justice. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (420)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 420.
420) No Man's Land For Seekers of Private Justice.
Dear Mr Javid,
The maladministrators at Ombudsman Services realised that their ombudsman's - and investigating officers' - Provisional Conclusion Reports were a disaster. Complainants complained again which cost Ombudsman Services Members - money.
They were replaced with a system that was supposed to bring an early and "mutually acceptable" conclusion to a complaint. These are a disaster for complainants but no-one really knows what's going on because the maladministrators won't say. There are very few published statistics and no Customer Satisfaction Reports. What happens is kept well hidden.
In 2014-15 of 934 complaints "accepted" by the maladministrators at OS but only a derisory 4% were resolved by the new "mutually acceptable" system - or 37. Leaving 897 to be decided by Ombudsman Services.
So of 934 complex property disputes in 2014-15 the overwhelming majority were settled by maladministrators. The "mutually acceptable" system was comprehensively rejected by complainants.
Not one complainant was asked for their opinion as to how they felt about the way in which their complaint was handled. So much for transparent and accountable decision making in the delivery of civil justice.
It just isn't happening.
Q. Mr Javid, these statistics must shock even you, do you still assure consumers that when they take their complex property disputes to Ombudsman Services that they will be investigated "fairly" and "independently?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme.
If you are a victim and have a story to share - or have information please do so - thanks.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 420.
420) No Man's Land For Seekers of Private Justice.
Dear Mr Javid,
The maladministrators at Ombudsman Services realised that their ombudsman's - and investigating officers' - Provisional Conclusion Reports were a disaster. Complainants complained again which cost Ombudsman Services Members - money.
They were replaced with a system that was supposed to bring an early and "mutually acceptable" conclusion to a complaint. These are a disaster for complainants but no-one really knows what's going on because the maladministrators won't say. There are very few published statistics and no Customer Satisfaction Reports. What happens is kept well hidden.
In 2014-15 of 934 complaints "accepted" by the maladministrators at OS but only a derisory 4% were resolved by the new "mutually acceptable" system - or 37. Leaving 897 to be decided by Ombudsman Services.
So of 934 complex property disputes in 2014-15 the overwhelming majority were settled by maladministrators. The "mutually acceptable" system was comprehensively rejected by complainants.
Not one complainant was asked for their opinion as to how they felt about the way in which their complaint was handled. So much for transparent and accountable decision making in the delivery of civil justice.
It just isn't happening.
Q. Mr Javid, these statistics must shock even you, do you still assure consumers that when they take their complex property disputes to Ombudsman Services that they will be investigated "fairly" and "independently?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme.
If you are a victim and have a story to share - or have information please do so - thanks.
Friday, 25 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - No Man's Land 25th December 1914. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (419)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.Blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary at Business High Command:
For Clarity - Attempt 419.
419) No Man's Land 25th December 1914.
Dear Mr Javid,
We see that Frederick James Davies of Lampeter, Ceredigion wrote home to his family from the trenches of the First World War to tell them,
"We shook hands with them (the German soldiers). We gave them cigs, jam and corn beef. They also gave us cigars but they didn't have much food. I think they are hard up for it. They were fed up with the war." (BBC News - I day ago)
Under the heading, "The Troglodytes Come Out" we read of when,
"Then, very cautiously and with great courage unarmed German and Allied soldiers climbed out of their trenches and stand atop defences. Near Neuve Chapelle an Irish soldier brazenly walked across no-man's-land where he was greeted not with machine-gun fire, but with a cigar. His act of bravery inspired others in his troop to do the same. Similar scenes were repeated elsewhere as soldiers walked towards each others' trenches or simply meet half way.....
...Brigade HQ replied at 12.35 - Christmas day - saying: no communications of any sort to be held with the enemy nor is he allowed to approach our trenches under penalty of fire being opened." (www.gizmodo.com)
How could anyone not fail to be inspired by the courage, decency and heart-warming humanity of those extraordinary "ordinary" people.
What else might they have achieved if only High Command had not put a stop to the fraternisation between the two sides.
The Ombudsman Services Terms of Reference preclude any ombudsman having a background in the surveying sector. The ombudsman was subsequently appointed for her skills at, "mediation." DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports attempted to bring to the attention of the company's High Command the widespread dissatisfaction complainants had with the ombudsman's botched attempts at mediation.
Under appalling and unimaginable conditions of wartime horror, soldiers from opposing sides were able to organise a truce, shake hands, share gifts and play games of football - yet in peacetime an ombudsman cannot mediate between surveyors and their dissatisfied clients.
Lions misled by donkeys.
Q. Mr Javid, when a private redress scheme fails so dismally hasn't the UK taxpayer a right to expect its politicians to show some courage, backbone and leadership at such times and to act decisively or have you all capitulated to the narrow vested interests of The RICS and its inadequately marshalled surveyors?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nich Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from The RICS' malign influence.
Comment is still free! If you have a story or information you'd like to share please do.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary at Business High Command:
For Clarity - Attempt 419.
419) No Man's Land 25th December 1914.
Dear Mr Javid,
We see that Frederick James Davies of Lampeter, Ceredigion wrote home to his family from the trenches of the First World War to tell them,
"We shook hands with them (the German soldiers). We gave them cigs, jam and corn beef. They also gave us cigars but they didn't have much food. I think they are hard up for it. They were fed up with the war." (BBC News - I day ago)
Under the heading, "The Troglodytes Come Out" we read of when,
"Then, very cautiously and with great courage unarmed German and Allied soldiers climbed out of their trenches and stand atop defences. Near Neuve Chapelle an Irish soldier brazenly walked across no-man's-land where he was greeted not with machine-gun fire, but with a cigar. His act of bravery inspired others in his troop to do the same. Similar scenes were repeated elsewhere as soldiers walked towards each others' trenches or simply meet half way.....
...Brigade HQ replied at 12.35 - Christmas day - saying: no communications of any sort to be held with the enemy nor is he allowed to approach our trenches under penalty of fire being opened." (www.gizmodo.com)
How could anyone not fail to be inspired by the courage, decency and heart-warming humanity of those extraordinary "ordinary" people.
What else might they have achieved if only High Command had not put a stop to the fraternisation between the two sides.
The Ombudsman Services Terms of Reference preclude any ombudsman having a background in the surveying sector. The ombudsman was subsequently appointed for her skills at, "mediation." DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports attempted to bring to the attention of the company's High Command the widespread dissatisfaction complainants had with the ombudsman's botched attempts at mediation.
Under appalling and unimaginable conditions of wartime horror, soldiers from opposing sides were able to organise a truce, shake hands, share gifts and play games of football - yet in peacetime an ombudsman cannot mediate between surveyors and their dissatisfied clients.
Lions misled by donkeys.
Q. Mr Javid, when a private redress scheme fails so dismally hasn't the UK taxpayer a right to expect its politicians to show some courage, backbone and leadership at such times and to act decisively or have you all capitulated to the narrow vested interests of The RICS and its inadequately marshalled surveyors?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nich Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from The RICS' malign influence.
Comment is still free! If you have a story or information you'd like to share please do.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 24 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - "Fairtytale of New York" - The Pogues. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (418)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - Blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 418.
418) "Fairytale of New York" - The Pogues.
or "Fairytale of Warrington" - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign, perhaps.
Dear Mr Javid,
The RICS Firm of surveyors we employed wrote to us to say that there was little point in their coming to our home anymore, there was nothing further they could do for us - but it didn't prevent them coming anyway and unannounced and without our consent, photograph it - it was the time for them to implement their "no risk strategy" and as a result we were duly dispatched to their ombudsman, Gillian Fleming.
We knew our case was watertight - or at least we thought so - unlike the roof of our house.
And an OMBUDSMAN no less. What could possibly go wrong?
We each thought,
"I can see a better time,
when all our dreams come true."
And they did - for all of one sentence:
"Case ref: 510458 - After considering the evidence my view is Monk and Partners should take certain actions to resolve your complaint."
We were in complete agreement.
By the end of the report this had changed to Monk and Partners need,
"Take no further action."
We each thought,
"You took my dreams from me
when I first found you."
This in short, is, "The No Risk Strategy" for inadequately regulated RICS surveyors whose insurance policy would now appear to include lifetime cover for their incompetence. They simply use their platinum get-out-of-jail-free card: referral to their Ombudsman.
"You scumbag, you maggot
you cheap lousy faggot"
just doesn't begin to do it justice.
Q. Mr Javid, shouldn't you take certain actions to resolve the situation where a private redress scheme maladministers consumers' complaints or are you part of a culture that is totally lacking in integrity and choses to show no leadership in such matters?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Comment is free - please share your story or information. Cheers!
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 418.
418) "Fairytale of New York" - The Pogues.
or "Fairytale of Warrington" - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign, perhaps.
Dear Mr Javid,
The RICS Firm of surveyors we employed wrote to us to say that there was little point in their coming to our home anymore, there was nothing further they could do for us - but it didn't prevent them coming anyway and unannounced and without our consent, photograph it - it was the time for them to implement their "no risk strategy" and as a result we were duly dispatched to their ombudsman, Gillian Fleming.
We knew our case was watertight - or at least we thought so - unlike the roof of our house.
And an OMBUDSMAN no less. What could possibly go wrong?
We each thought,
"I can see a better time,
when all our dreams come true."
And they did - for all of one sentence:
"Case ref: 510458 - After considering the evidence my view is Monk and Partners should take certain actions to resolve your complaint."
We were in complete agreement.
By the end of the report this had changed to Monk and Partners need,
"Take no further action."
We each thought,
"You took my dreams from me
when I first found you."
This in short, is, "The No Risk Strategy" for inadequately regulated RICS surveyors whose insurance policy would now appear to include lifetime cover for their incompetence. They simply use their platinum get-out-of-jail-free card: referral to their Ombudsman.
"You scumbag, you maggot
you cheap lousy faggot"
just doesn't begin to do it justice.
Q. Mr Javid, shouldn't you take certain actions to resolve the situation where a private redress scheme maladministers consumers' complaints or are you part of a culture that is totally lacking in integrity and choses to show no leadership in such matters?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Comment is free - please share your story or information. Cheers!
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - Integrity - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (417)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 417
417) Integrity.
Dear Mr Javid,
Nadhim Zahawi, when talking about Tory regulation emphasized that,
"However competent regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail, that's why leadership and culture are so important."
(According to Wikipedia, Nadhim Fahawi's expenses claim for 2012-13 was £170.234p)
It seems that The RICS regulators are hopelessly flawed and fail all the time and yet, for some inexplicable reason, are still left unsupervised to determine what an effective resolution of a complaint is at Ombudsman Services:Property, their "appointed" company.
Their light-touch regulatory framework has proven to be a disaster - a shocking failure of leadership.
Integrity:
- "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles." (www.oxforddictionaries.com)
The culture of "light-touch" regulation - or inadequate regulation to the rest of us, has spawned a culture of "light-touch" leadership - or inadequate leadership to the rest of us.
The CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith stated in the Ombudsman Services Annual Report,
"She wanted to clarify the board's accountability and the power and responsibilities of its members ... The directors - myself included - have responsibilities for running the organisation under the Companies Act guaranteeing the independence of the ombudsman and the integrity of the service. We reviewed the Terms of Reference to ensure we had the power to do this and make our role clear."
The Rev Lewis Shand Smith - CEO / Chief Ombudsman / Leader - talks about the integrity of the service.
Q. Mr Javid, this service maladministers consumers' complaints - where is the integrity in that, where is the honesty and whatever happened to the strong moral principles needed to deliver, "civil justice?"
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman' illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Comment is free! please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 417
417) Integrity.
Dear Mr Javid,
Nadhim Zahawi, when talking about Tory regulation emphasized that,
"However competent regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail, that's why leadership and culture are so important."
(According to Wikipedia, Nadhim Fahawi's expenses claim for 2012-13 was £170.234p)
It seems that The RICS regulators are hopelessly flawed and fail all the time and yet, for some inexplicable reason, are still left unsupervised to determine what an effective resolution of a complaint is at Ombudsman Services:Property, their "appointed" company.
Their light-touch regulatory framework has proven to be a disaster - a shocking failure of leadership.
Integrity:
- "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles." (www.oxforddictionaries.com)
The culture of "light-touch" regulation - or inadequate regulation to the rest of us, has spawned a culture of "light-touch" leadership - or inadequate leadership to the rest of us.
The CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith stated in the Ombudsman Services Annual Report,
"She wanted to clarify the board's accountability and the power and responsibilities of its members ... The directors - myself included - have responsibilities for running the organisation under the Companies Act guaranteeing the independence of the ombudsman and the integrity of the service. We reviewed the Terms of Reference to ensure we had the power to do this and make our role clear."
The Rev Lewis Shand Smith - CEO / Chief Ombudsman / Leader - talks about the integrity of the service.
Q. Mr Javid, this service maladministers consumers' complaints - where is the integrity in that, where is the honesty and whatever happened to the strong moral principles needed to deliver, "civil justice?"
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman' illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Comment is free! please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 21 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - Nadhim Zahawi And Tory Regulation.The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (416)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 416.
416) Nadhim Zahawi And Tory Regulation.
Dear Mr Javid,
Did you stumble across Nadhim Zahawi's article in the Guardian -"Labour Bungled City Regulation. Here's How The Tories Are Putting It Right?" (www.guardian.commentisfree)
It's a year on and the article is revealing for the taken-for-granted assumptions it rests upon, what it carefully omitted to say and its failure to live up to what it advocated. It promised much but delivered very little - which is very much in keeping with Ombudsman Services' approach to what they call, "civil justice."
It seems inevitable that people like Nadhim Zahawi will make a career out of promising much but delivering very little which is also very much in keeping with the executives at Ombudsman Services.
He began with,
"we needed a system that protects savers and the taxpayer without undermining the free markets on which Britain's prosperity depends."
But what are "free" markets? What are they free to do? Did Santa bring them or as is the case with Scientology, apparently, did they come from outer space?
There are similarities - both are belief systems. Both take some explaining. Both are highly exploitative.
What we do know is that those "free" markets will only tolerate so much light-touch regulation before they start holding the country to ransom with their threats of picking up the level playing field and transporting it to a place where no one gives a second thought to regulation. It is the ultimate threat to a nation's prosperity and Trident will be no deterrent. Those who have captured the markets decide upon the rules - politicians like Nadhim Zahawi are there to do their bidding.
Nadhim Zahawi doesn't define his categories. Is that because to do so is too difficult or that to do so would undermine his own case? One which seems to be based solely on prejudice and the need to score political points. He states,
"Brown and Balls failed because they didn't understand free markets."
It's "Brown and Balls" is it - so we'll call "Zahawi" Zahawi from now on then. Whether they failed because, "they didn't understand the markets" is a moot point but Zahawi still hasn't told anyone what a free market is.
It does, however seem to be to be a deeply held conviction - like the existence of the tooth fairy, little green men or our personal favourite: leprechauns. We once spotted eighteen driving from Limerick to Monks in Ballyvaughan. (for Mary, Michael and Bertie - weren't those happier days - steve)
Zahawi, a true believer believes,
"We on the other hand must never tire of making the case that it is supporters of capitalism that are best placed to make it work."
We suppose much in the same way as drug barons are best placed to make their expanding sector of free market capitalism work - with its light-touch regulatory framework. These are also very aspirational people indeed, no doubt with property portfolios to include central London. Westminster perhaps - with property adjacent to the Houses of Parliament. But we don't really know because the market isn't adequately regulated.
In Zahawi's scheme of things you are either a "supporter of capitalism" and thus, "best placed to make it work" or you are not. There is no place for a critical analysis of the true faith and the possible revelation that those best placed to make it work make it work for themselves to the detriment of the rest of us.
It was the reckless loans to people who couldn't afford them that caused the crash. History appears to be repeating itself and what is your government doing Zahawi? It's handing out bailouts to entice buyers into the property market.
But there were no bailouts for the steel workers.
As Dame Janet at Ombudsman Services has correctly pointed out - asserting your commitment to quality doesn't necessarily mean you've delivered that quality and this is how Zahawi would seem to make his case - by a series of unsubstantiated assertions.
Hugh Gravelle and Ray Rees offer a more realistic account of what a market is,
"A market is an institution in which individuals or firms exchange not just commodities (or services) but the rights to use them in particular ways for particular amounts of time. Markets are institutions which organise the exchange of control over commodities (and services) where the nature of the control is defined by property rights attached to the commodities (or services)." (From - Microeconomics)
What is important to the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is the market in surveying and private redress.
Joseph Stiglitz points out that,
"agents in the market can gain market power, allowing them to block other mutually beneficial firms from trade from occurring. This can lead to imperfect competition - ie monopolies."
and,
"An issue for analysis is whether a situation of market power is likely to persist if unaddressed by policy."
(Joseph Stiglitz)
What we are campaigning for is a public inquiry into how its become in any way acceptable for government policy - Zahawi's supporters of capitalism, those best placed to make capitalism work - to have deliberately developed a monopoly in private "civil justice" and where the maladministration of that "civil justice" is being, in any meaningful way, "civil justice."
Zahawi's messianic vision is that,
"This is about moving from the failed approach of complex prescriptive rules to one based on judgement."
So, complex prescriptive rules have, in Zahawi's judgement failed and are to be replaced by, "judgement." Judgement that somehow miraculously avoids any relationship to rules of logic or organised thinking.
Surely, if the rules are too complex for the geniuses running capitalism make them simpler. Or get more intelligent capitalists to run the show.
All of which is a bit like how the ombudsman at Ombudsman Services arrived her decisions - in an illogical manner. There were, apparently, no rules or regulations to guide her.
He goes on,
"Unlike an ever growing rule book this builds discretion into the system giving the regulators the flexibility they need to respond to ever changing economic circumstances."
So, alongside, "judgement" we are to have, "discretion." According to Zahawi, regulators will obviously need to be supporters of free market capitalism but they are also the ones best placed to make it work because they have judgement and discretion.
We don't quite know how to break it to him but it just doesn't work and we know it doesn't work thanks to Consumer Focus and what they said about the market in surveying. According to Consumer Focus, those best placed to make it work have ballsed it up and covered themselves in the brown stuff. They valiantly attempted to warn anyone who might be listening that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its members or regulated firms."
Zahawi, what do you say to that?
The supporters of free market capitalism, those best placed to make it work are the REGULATORS of this market, they monopolise it and are creating another one in private redress which they also REGULATE and their judgement has discretely led them to hide any evidence of their performance in the market they have rigged so successfully. They have been able to achieve this monopolistic dominance thanks to their ability to politically influence those with a blind faith in free market capitalism - politicians such as yourself.
You say,
"It is under a conservative government that the most unethical firms will be driven out of business."
The evidence - a commodity that's becoming scarcer by the day - does not support that statement and in the rigged market in surveying this is simply not true. Here, inadequately regulated surveyors are gleefully lining up ever increasing numbers of dissatisfied clients and packing them off to their ombudsman whose questionable judgement discretely finishes them off - job done.
Those controlling the market in surveying and private redress have perfected the methods of exploiting it. It isn't a criminal conspiracy simply because those operating it have (not surprisingly) chosen not to pass any laws making it so. This is Zahawian "judgement" and "discretion" in action.
People are being driven by those politicians, civil servants and executives of the free market capitalist persuasion into attempting the impossible - the purchase and keeping of an unaffordable home - because there are no longer any viable alternatives. Buy or pay Rachman rents for the rest of your days.
Not to seek to purchase a home you cannot afford is seen as being, "unaspirational."
The crisis in the totally rigged property market is down to politicians "who know how free market capitalism works" controlling the number of homes being built. This could go on forever with the blame for the crisis being attributed to those who lack the aspiration to own what they could never afford.
We know that,
"Much of the increase in wealth stemmed from an increase in the value of real estate....the rise in value can represent competition among the rich for potential goods... a house on the beach." (Joseph Stiglitz)
The rich - whose acquisition of wealth is never questioned - simply buy more and more property thus making it less and less affordable to those whose income is always under scrutiny. The property market has become a shady place for shady people.
Joseph Stiglitz said,
"Markets, of course, do not exist in a vacuum. There have to be rules to the game and these are established through political processes." (www8.jsb.columbia.edu/chazzan)
The UK taxpayer, in funding Zahawi's political career in politics, is paying to perpetuate a crisis in housing brought about by a coalition of vested interest who, as supporters of rigged market capitalism and who know how it works, have seized control of the property market and exploit it for all it is worth.
We are told by Zahawi,
"However competent the regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail. That's why leadership and culture are so important."
Zahawi, there is no leadership. The culture is a one rule culture: do whatever you want, don't get caught but if you do Ombudsman Services will bail you out.
Q. Mr Javid, when RICS the regulator regulates complaints brought against its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and then determines what are satisfactory resolutions to those complaints, isn't that an example of a market operating in a vacuum where there are no rules to the game because political processes have rigged it that way?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinsom.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service until undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Comment is free. Please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 416.
416) Nadhim Zahawi And Tory Regulation.
Dear Mr Javid,
Did you stumble across Nadhim Zahawi's article in the Guardian -"Labour Bungled City Regulation. Here's How The Tories Are Putting It Right?" (www.guardian.commentisfree)
It's a year on and the article is revealing for the taken-for-granted assumptions it rests upon, what it carefully omitted to say and its failure to live up to what it advocated. It promised much but delivered very little - which is very much in keeping with Ombudsman Services' approach to what they call, "civil justice."
It seems inevitable that people like Nadhim Zahawi will make a career out of promising much but delivering very little which is also very much in keeping with the executives at Ombudsman Services.
He began with,
"we needed a system that protects savers and the taxpayer without undermining the free markets on which Britain's prosperity depends."
But what are "free" markets? What are they free to do? Did Santa bring them or as is the case with Scientology, apparently, did they come from outer space?
There are similarities - both are belief systems. Both take some explaining. Both are highly exploitative.
What we do know is that those "free" markets will only tolerate so much light-touch regulation before they start holding the country to ransom with their threats of picking up the level playing field and transporting it to a place where no one gives a second thought to regulation. It is the ultimate threat to a nation's prosperity and Trident will be no deterrent. Those who have captured the markets decide upon the rules - politicians like Nadhim Zahawi are there to do their bidding.
Nadhim Zahawi doesn't define his categories. Is that because to do so is too difficult or that to do so would undermine his own case? One which seems to be based solely on prejudice and the need to score political points. He states,
"Brown and Balls failed because they didn't understand free markets."
It's "Brown and Balls" is it - so we'll call "Zahawi" Zahawi from now on then. Whether they failed because, "they didn't understand the markets" is a moot point but Zahawi still hasn't told anyone what a free market is.
It does, however seem to be to be a deeply held conviction - like the existence of the tooth fairy, little green men or our personal favourite: leprechauns. We once spotted eighteen driving from Limerick to Monks in Ballyvaughan. (for Mary, Michael and Bertie - weren't those happier days - steve)
Zahawi, a true believer believes,
"We on the other hand must never tire of making the case that it is supporters of capitalism that are best placed to make it work."
We suppose much in the same way as drug barons are best placed to make their expanding sector of free market capitalism work - with its light-touch regulatory framework. These are also very aspirational people indeed, no doubt with property portfolios to include central London. Westminster perhaps - with property adjacent to the Houses of Parliament. But we don't really know because the market isn't adequately regulated.
In Zahawi's scheme of things you are either a "supporter of capitalism" and thus, "best placed to make it work" or you are not. There is no place for a critical analysis of the true faith and the possible revelation that those best placed to make it work make it work for themselves to the detriment of the rest of us.
It was the reckless loans to people who couldn't afford them that caused the crash. History appears to be repeating itself and what is your government doing Zahawi? It's handing out bailouts to entice buyers into the property market.
But there were no bailouts for the steel workers.
As Dame Janet at Ombudsman Services has correctly pointed out - asserting your commitment to quality doesn't necessarily mean you've delivered that quality and this is how Zahawi would seem to make his case - by a series of unsubstantiated assertions.
Hugh Gravelle and Ray Rees offer a more realistic account of what a market is,
"A market is an institution in which individuals or firms exchange not just commodities (or services) but the rights to use them in particular ways for particular amounts of time. Markets are institutions which organise the exchange of control over commodities (and services) where the nature of the control is defined by property rights attached to the commodities (or services)." (From - Microeconomics)
What is important to the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is the market in surveying and private redress.
Joseph Stiglitz points out that,
"agents in the market can gain market power, allowing them to block other mutually beneficial firms from trade from occurring. This can lead to imperfect competition - ie monopolies."
and,
"An issue for analysis is whether a situation of market power is likely to persist if unaddressed by policy."
(Joseph Stiglitz)
What we are campaigning for is a public inquiry into how its become in any way acceptable for government policy - Zahawi's supporters of capitalism, those best placed to make capitalism work - to have deliberately developed a monopoly in private "civil justice" and where the maladministration of that "civil justice" is being, in any meaningful way, "civil justice."
Zahawi's messianic vision is that,
"This is about moving from the failed approach of complex prescriptive rules to one based on judgement."
So, complex prescriptive rules have, in Zahawi's judgement failed and are to be replaced by, "judgement." Judgement that somehow miraculously avoids any relationship to rules of logic or organised thinking.
Surely, if the rules are too complex for the geniuses running capitalism make them simpler. Or get more intelligent capitalists to run the show.
All of which is a bit like how the ombudsman at Ombudsman Services arrived her decisions - in an illogical manner. There were, apparently, no rules or regulations to guide her.
He goes on,
"Unlike an ever growing rule book this builds discretion into the system giving the regulators the flexibility they need to respond to ever changing economic circumstances."
So, alongside, "judgement" we are to have, "discretion." According to Zahawi, regulators will obviously need to be supporters of free market capitalism but they are also the ones best placed to make it work because they have judgement and discretion.
We don't quite know how to break it to him but it just doesn't work and we know it doesn't work thanks to Consumer Focus and what they said about the market in surveying. According to Consumer Focus, those best placed to make it work have ballsed it up and covered themselves in the brown stuff. They valiantly attempted to warn anyone who might be listening that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its members or regulated firms."
Zahawi, what do you say to that?
The supporters of free market capitalism, those best placed to make it work are the REGULATORS of this market, they monopolise it and are creating another one in private redress which they also REGULATE and their judgement has discretely led them to hide any evidence of their performance in the market they have rigged so successfully. They have been able to achieve this monopolistic dominance thanks to their ability to politically influence those with a blind faith in free market capitalism - politicians such as yourself.
You say,
"It is under a conservative government that the most unethical firms will be driven out of business."
The evidence - a commodity that's becoming scarcer by the day - does not support that statement and in the rigged market in surveying this is simply not true. Here, inadequately regulated surveyors are gleefully lining up ever increasing numbers of dissatisfied clients and packing them off to their ombudsman whose questionable judgement discretely finishes them off - job done.
Those controlling the market in surveying and private redress have perfected the methods of exploiting it. It isn't a criminal conspiracy simply because those operating it have (not surprisingly) chosen not to pass any laws making it so. This is Zahawian "judgement" and "discretion" in action.
People are being driven by those politicians, civil servants and executives of the free market capitalist persuasion into attempting the impossible - the purchase and keeping of an unaffordable home - because there are no longer any viable alternatives. Buy or pay Rachman rents for the rest of your days.
Not to seek to purchase a home you cannot afford is seen as being, "unaspirational."
The crisis in the totally rigged property market is down to politicians "who know how free market capitalism works" controlling the number of homes being built. This could go on forever with the blame for the crisis being attributed to those who lack the aspiration to own what they could never afford.
We know that,
"Much of the increase in wealth stemmed from an increase in the value of real estate....the rise in value can represent competition among the rich for potential goods... a house on the beach." (Joseph Stiglitz)
The rich - whose acquisition of wealth is never questioned - simply buy more and more property thus making it less and less affordable to those whose income is always under scrutiny. The property market has become a shady place for shady people.
Joseph Stiglitz said,
"Markets, of course, do not exist in a vacuum. There have to be rules to the game and these are established through political processes." (www8.jsb.columbia.edu/chazzan)
The UK taxpayer, in funding Zahawi's political career in politics, is paying to perpetuate a crisis in housing brought about by a coalition of vested interest who, as supporters of rigged market capitalism and who know how it works, have seized control of the property market and exploit it for all it is worth.
We are told by Zahawi,
"However competent the regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail. That's why leadership and culture are so important."
Zahawi, there is no leadership. The culture is a one rule culture: do whatever you want, don't get caught but if you do Ombudsman Services will bail you out.
Q. Mr Javid, when RICS the regulator regulates complaints brought against its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and then determines what are satisfactory resolutions to those complaints, isn't that an example of a market operating in a vacuum where there are no rules to the game because political processes have rigged it that way?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinsom.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service until undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Comment is free. Please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 20 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - From, "No Such Thing As Society" To "No Such Thing As Transparency Or Accountability." The O61% Campaign (415)
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com
For Clarity - Attempt 415.
415) From, "No Such Thing As Society" To "No Such Thing As Transparency Or Accountability."
To the Business Secretary,
Dear Mr Javid,
David Cameron said of Tony Blair, "You were once the future."
It was a statement of intent and implied that the New Labour Brand had run its predictable course and that he, David Cameron, was about to sweep the stable clean and deliver a new golden age of property owning prosperity underpinned by transparent and accountable government.
Francis Maude, the Cabinet Secretary waxed lyrical on the subject of "transparency."
Most notably at Lancaster House, London on the 15th June 2013 when he announced to the world,
"We are at the beginning of a global movement towards transparency."
Global world transparency!
But sadly for the consumer, not at Ombudsman Services, where the world transparency movement by-passed them at Warrington - and China come to think of it, Russia isn't too hot on transparency either, it is non-existent at the CHC Hub in Plymouth and as for North Korea...
And if that wasn't impressive enough for Francis Maude, he continued with,
"Transparency is at the heart of the UK's reforming agenda."
Really? When we tried putting his fine words to the test by writing to him to complain about The RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property absolutely nothing happened. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he failed to deliver on his promise of a Tory governmental reforming agenda on transparency - he simply didn't reply. So no transparency there. Ombudsman Services executives just went on with their maladministration of consumers' complaints as if nothing had happened and that was because nothing had happened to stop them.
There was no heart - just a swinging brick.
His Lancaster House speech seems to have been the beginning, middle and end of Tory transparency and now apparently because of troublesome journalists all making Freedom of Information Act requests in forlorn attempts to uncover what on earth is going on at Ombudsman Services, FoA requests are to become a thing of the past having once been such an important part of Tony Blair's future.
On the one hand Prince Charles has access to highly sensitive cabinet documents okayed by the Cabinet Secretary on the other our Freedom of Information Act request concerning Ombudsman Services, was refused.
There really is one law for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us.
The lamps are going out all over Whitehall we shall not see them lit again in the lifetime of David Cameron's government. The RICS' "political influencing" and "engagement work" - or lobbying to the rest of us - is set to become a blueprint for those opaque vested interests wishing to operate "behind the scenes" and away from any scrutiny, transparency and accountability whatsoever.
We agree with the Cabinet Secretary that the world's democratic future really should be about global transparency and internationally agreed standards of corporate governance and business integrity. Otherwise markets will continue to be rigged at will and the easy profits spirited away to be hidden in off-shore bank accounts only to be re-invested in the world's hottest property markets such as London.
It makes finding a home and keeping it that much harder for the rest of us.
David Cameron, the man who bottled out of the live televised debates in the lead-up to the last election (after his Cabinet Secretary had trumpeted to the world the incredible transparency of the UK government) and who then went on to sneeringly accuse those who disagreed with his contradiction riddled case for bombing Syria - as terrorist sympathisers - has certainly redefined the meaning of "integrity." (yet another new word for the dictionary Ricky Tomlinson sent him for Christmas)
Hilary "Bomber" Benn, these people hold our democracy in contempt - new speech please.
Q. Mr Javid, for clarity, should we now redirect our complaint about Ombudsman Services' maladministration of consumers' complaints and contempt for civil justice to HRH Prince Charles?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable,
- answers from Nick Clegg,
- answers from Francis Maude,
- Answers from Mark Prisk,
- answers from Jo Swinson,
- answers from Sajid Javid,
- a public inquiry into the working of Ombudsman Services (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services) and the role of The RICS,
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment or share your stories or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 415.
415) From, "No Such Thing As Society" To "No Such Thing As Transparency Or Accountability."
To the Business Secretary,
Dear Mr Javid,
David Cameron said of Tony Blair, "You were once the future."
It was a statement of intent and implied that the New Labour Brand had run its predictable course and that he, David Cameron, was about to sweep the stable clean and deliver a new golden age of property owning prosperity underpinned by transparent and accountable government.
Francis Maude, the Cabinet Secretary waxed lyrical on the subject of "transparency."
Most notably at Lancaster House, London on the 15th June 2013 when he announced to the world,
"We are at the beginning of a global movement towards transparency."
Global world transparency!
But sadly for the consumer, not at Ombudsman Services, where the world transparency movement by-passed them at Warrington - and China come to think of it, Russia isn't too hot on transparency either, it is non-existent at the CHC Hub in Plymouth and as for North Korea...
And if that wasn't impressive enough for Francis Maude, he continued with,
"Transparency is at the heart of the UK's reforming agenda."
Really? When we tried putting his fine words to the test by writing to him to complain about The RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property absolutely nothing happened. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he failed to deliver on his promise of a Tory governmental reforming agenda on transparency - he simply didn't reply. So no transparency there. Ombudsman Services executives just went on with their maladministration of consumers' complaints as if nothing had happened and that was because nothing had happened to stop them.
There was no heart - just a swinging brick.
His Lancaster House speech seems to have been the beginning, middle and end of Tory transparency and now apparently because of troublesome journalists all making Freedom of Information Act requests in forlorn attempts to uncover what on earth is going on at Ombudsman Services, FoA requests are to become a thing of the past having once been such an important part of Tony Blair's future.
On the one hand Prince Charles has access to highly sensitive cabinet documents okayed by the Cabinet Secretary on the other our Freedom of Information Act request concerning Ombudsman Services, was refused.
There really is one law for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us.
The lamps are going out all over Whitehall we shall not see them lit again in the lifetime of David Cameron's government. The RICS' "political influencing" and "engagement work" - or lobbying to the rest of us - is set to become a blueprint for those opaque vested interests wishing to operate "behind the scenes" and away from any scrutiny, transparency and accountability whatsoever.
We agree with the Cabinet Secretary that the world's democratic future really should be about global transparency and internationally agreed standards of corporate governance and business integrity. Otherwise markets will continue to be rigged at will and the easy profits spirited away to be hidden in off-shore bank accounts only to be re-invested in the world's hottest property markets such as London.
It makes finding a home and keeping it that much harder for the rest of us.
David Cameron, the man who bottled out of the live televised debates in the lead-up to the last election (after his Cabinet Secretary had trumpeted to the world the incredible transparency of the UK government) and who then went on to sneeringly accuse those who disagreed with his contradiction riddled case for bombing Syria - as terrorist sympathisers - has certainly redefined the meaning of "integrity." (yet another new word for the dictionary Ricky Tomlinson sent him for Christmas)
Hilary "Bomber" Benn, these people hold our democracy in contempt - new speech please.
Q. Mr Javid, for clarity, should we now redirect our complaint about Ombudsman Services' maladministration of consumers' complaints and contempt for civil justice to HRH Prince Charles?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable,
- answers from Nick Clegg,
- answers from Francis Maude,
- Answers from Mark Prisk,
- answers from Jo Swinson,
- answers from Sajid Javid,
- a public inquiry into the working of Ombudsman Services (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services) and the role of The RICS,
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment or share your stories or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 18 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - Ch. 2: For Clarity - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (414)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogspot.com
To The Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 414.
414. For Clarity.
Dear Mr Javid,
In the same correspondence (11/09/2010) the ombudsman, in responding to the issue of professional and business integrity, (The RICS "gold standard" of "excellence" and "integrity") informed us that;
"For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or any of my colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means that we have refused to answer that question."
Whichever way you cut it, an ombudsman's failure to answer a complainant's question remains just that - a failure to answer a question.
It makes a mockery of the company's claims to investigate a consumer's complaint, fairly, independently and in a transparent manner. You cannot in any meaningful way "investigate" a complaint without asking and answering questions - unless, that is, you:
- maladminister them,
- misrepresent the nature of the complainant's complaint,
- fail to mediate,
- do not understand the complexity of property complaints,
- withhold information from complainants,
- arrive at decisions in an illogical manner,
- deny complainants their Human Right to a face to face meeting,
and,
- have a pre-set agenda to effectively rubbish complainants' complaints thereby saving your members money.
All of which appear to occur on a regular basis at Ombudsman Services:Property according to DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports.
The RICS Director of Professional Regulation, who sits on the company's Board, must see all of the above as meeting The RICS criterion for the, "effective resolution of complaints" otherwise he would have intervened to put a stop to it, only he didn't.
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch,
Q. 93: If this is a working definition of clarity is it any wonder that the majority of complainants are so dissatisfied with the outcome of their case"
The Chair of Maladministration didn't reply. She didn't give an answer to our question either. Not answering questions has been allowed to become standard practice at this private redress scheme.
Q. Mr Javid, a private redress scheme that fails to answer complainants' questions is a failure and not fir for purpose. It came off any "gold standard" the minute it maladministered complaints and thereby eviscerated its "integrity" and authority to dispense "civil justice." Do you as Business Secretary still assure consumers that when they take their complaints to Ombudsman Services they will be investigated, "fairly" and "independently?"
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable,
- answers from Nick Clegg,
- answers from Mark Prisk,
- answers from Jo Swinson,
- answers from Sajid Javid,
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (accompany which formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment or share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To The Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 414.
414. For Clarity.
Dear Mr Javid,
In the same correspondence (11/09/2010) the ombudsman, in responding to the issue of professional and business integrity, (The RICS "gold standard" of "excellence" and "integrity") informed us that;
"For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or any of my colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means that we have refused to answer that question."
Whichever way you cut it, an ombudsman's failure to answer a complainant's question remains just that - a failure to answer a question.
It makes a mockery of the company's claims to investigate a consumer's complaint, fairly, independently and in a transparent manner. You cannot in any meaningful way "investigate" a complaint without asking and answering questions - unless, that is, you:
- maladminister them,
- misrepresent the nature of the complainant's complaint,
- fail to mediate,
- do not understand the complexity of property complaints,
- withhold information from complainants,
- arrive at decisions in an illogical manner,
- deny complainants their Human Right to a face to face meeting,
and,
- have a pre-set agenda to effectively rubbish complainants' complaints thereby saving your members money.
All of which appear to occur on a regular basis at Ombudsman Services:Property according to DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports.
The RICS Director of Professional Regulation, who sits on the company's Board, must see all of the above as meeting The RICS criterion for the, "effective resolution of complaints" otherwise he would have intervened to put a stop to it, only he didn't.
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch,
Q. 93: If this is a working definition of clarity is it any wonder that the majority of complainants are so dissatisfied with the outcome of their case"
The Chair of Maladministration didn't reply. She didn't give an answer to our question either. Not answering questions has been allowed to become standard practice at this private redress scheme.
Q. Mr Javid, a private redress scheme that fails to answer complainants' questions is a failure and not fir for purpose. It came off any "gold standard" the minute it maladministered complaints and thereby eviscerated its "integrity" and authority to dispense "civil justice." Do you as Business Secretary still assure consumers that when they take their complaints to Ombudsman Services they will be investigated, "fairly" and "independently?"
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable,
- answers from Nick Clegg,
- answers from Mark Prisk,
- answers from Jo Swinson,
- answers from Sajid Javid,
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (accompany which formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment or share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 17 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - The RICS And Its "Effective Resolution of Complaints." The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (413)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign:
For Clarity - Attempt 413.
413. The Effective Resolution of Disputes.
To the Business Secretary, Mr Javid:
Having appointed those maladministrators at Ombudsman Serviices:Property to "investigate" consumer complaints brought against its inadequately regulated surveyors, The RICS also have a Memorandum of Understanding with the company - effectively their company - so that everyone there can be in no doubt as to what an effective resolution of a complaint looks like.
For a RICS surveyor, the effective resolution of a complaint will look totally different to the one expected by their dissatisfied client - the aggrieved party. For The RICS surveyor there is absolutely no incentive to settle disputes before they are escalated tot he ombudsman stage because in return for their fees and subscriptions surveyors expect that those at the company will; spend their money wisely and add real value to their business practices. (quotes taken from the company's minutes)
Their dissatisfied clients on the other hand were once led to believe that financial compensation of up to £25K was achievable after their complaint had been "fairly" and "independently" investigated.
The statistical data gathered on the effective resolution of complaints by Ombudsman Services:Property and the accompanying explanation for those statistics, is pathetic. One would have expected more form Dame Janet Finch - Professor of Sociology.
In 2014-15 there were 5265 contacts. This dwindled to 934 "resolved" cases once the maladministrators had set about them. 95% of those "resolved" cases were "resolved" by the ombudsman. Only 4% were resolved by mutual agreement.
5265 x £25K comes to a potential £131.5M.
934 x £25K comes to a potential £13.3M.
However, (and after probably having had their complaint maladministered) roughly 50% of complainants were awarded a derisory £100 or 467 x £100. That's just £46.700.
From £131M down to a potential £13M down to an actual £46.700 - that really is driving "costs" down and is what we assume The RICS means by the, "effective resolution of complaints."
Q. Mr Javid, Business Secretary, when the Director of Professional Regulation sits on the Board of Ombudsman Services and each year his Members and (Un)Regulated Firms send more and more of their dissatisfied clients to The RICS ombudsman, doesn't this just serve to confirm what the late Consumer Focus had said all along - that RICS inability to adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms has led to practices that do not work in the customer's interests - practices like handing their dissatisfied clients £100 for a wrecked dream?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company that formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment. Please share your story or information - just write to the blog. Thanks.
For Clarity - Attempt 413.
413. The Effective Resolution of Disputes.
To the Business Secretary, Mr Javid:
Having appointed those maladministrators at Ombudsman Serviices:Property to "investigate" consumer complaints brought against its inadequately regulated surveyors, The RICS also have a Memorandum of Understanding with the company - effectively their company - so that everyone there can be in no doubt as to what an effective resolution of a complaint looks like.
For a RICS surveyor, the effective resolution of a complaint will look totally different to the one expected by their dissatisfied client - the aggrieved party. For The RICS surveyor there is absolutely no incentive to settle disputes before they are escalated tot he ombudsman stage because in return for their fees and subscriptions surveyors expect that those at the company will; spend their money wisely and add real value to their business practices. (quotes taken from the company's minutes)
Their dissatisfied clients on the other hand were once led to believe that financial compensation of up to £25K was achievable after their complaint had been "fairly" and "independently" investigated.
The statistical data gathered on the effective resolution of complaints by Ombudsman Services:Property and the accompanying explanation for those statistics, is pathetic. One would have expected more form Dame Janet Finch - Professor of Sociology.
In 2014-15 there were 5265 contacts. This dwindled to 934 "resolved" cases once the maladministrators had set about them. 95% of those "resolved" cases were "resolved" by the ombudsman. Only 4% were resolved by mutual agreement.
5265 x £25K comes to a potential £131.5M.
934 x £25K comes to a potential £13.3M.
However, (and after probably having had their complaint maladministered) roughly 50% of complainants were awarded a derisory £100 or 467 x £100. That's just £46.700.
From £131M down to a potential £13M down to an actual £46.700 - that really is driving "costs" down and is what we assume The RICS means by the, "effective resolution of complaints."
Q. Mr Javid, Business Secretary, when the Director of Professional Regulation sits on the Board of Ombudsman Services and each year his Members and (Un)Regulated Firms send more and more of their dissatisfied clients to The RICS ombudsman, doesn't this just serve to confirm what the late Consumer Focus had said all along - that RICS inability to adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms has led to practices that do not work in the customer's interests - practices like handing their dissatisfied clients £100 for a wrecked dream?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company that formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment. Please share your story or information - just write to the blog. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)