Ombudsman Services:Property - Question 92 to the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services. (411)

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign: Chapter 2 - For Clarity.

For Clarity - Attempt 411.

411) Question 92 to the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services.

According to the late Consumer Focus, The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (The RICS) has developed practices that do not work in the customer's interests and that this is largely due to a failure on their part to adequately regulate their Members or (Un)Regulated Firms.

If The RICS - Royal Charter and all - was doing the job it was set up to do and actually regulated the cowboys who trade under its name, we (and countless others) probably wouldn't be where we are today. Unfortunately, as a result of this inexcusable RICS regulatory failure their rogue traders have accumulated record numbers of dissatisfied customers.

So how did The RICS respond to this regulatory failure? Did they;
a) Belatedly begin to adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms.
or
b) Get their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms to send their dissatisfied clients to The RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property which is financed by RICS Members' and (Un)Regulated Firms' fees where there is an expectation that those maladministering the scheme on their behalf will spend their money wisely.

Yes, it was (b). We believe it's a scheme designed to save RICS surveyors lots of money.

The number of RICS clients being rounded up and herded off  to The RICS "appointed" ombudsman at The RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Service:Property increases every year. A cataclysmic failure of RICS regulation that has the effect of saving the surveying "sector" millions £££s annually. For RICS Members the savings on expensive insurance claims must be enormous. It's far more cost effective for them to hand their troublesome clients to their "appointed" company and leave them to maladminister the complaints.

It's the client who is on the receiving end of the maladministration - not the fee-paying Member.

This RICS regulatory failure has become a matter of routine - custom and practice - and has resulted in a regular cull of their clients by those criminally maladministrating the scheme. Apparently. Otherwise it would be different.

Dear Mr Javid, Business Secretary,
We asked the Chair of maladministration at Ombudsman Services;
Q. 92: Does the presence of the Director of Professional Regulation for The RICS, being a Board Member, in any way influence the ombudsman in these matters?

Matters such as: not understanding the nature or complexity of property complaints, arriving at decisions in an illogical manner, denying consumers their Human Right to a face to face meeting and maladministrating complaints just for starters.

The Chair didn't answer our question. The CEO and Chief Ombudsman didn't either and nor did the Lead Ombudsman.

Q. Mr Javid, Business Secretary, doesn't the fact that RICS Members' and (Un)Regulated Firms' fees pay for the scheme and that their Director of Professional Regulation sits on the Board, not create a conflict of interest?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.