To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 556.
558) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (4).
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomi Creutzfeldt's and Chris Gill's research strongly suggests that not only was there a tendency for for ombudsman schemes suchas Os:property to be both procedurally and substantively biased in favour of the body being investigated but that they were also under pressure from those self-same bodies to act as the "gate-keeper" of their resources.
In short, the bodies being investigated had rigged the schemes to their own financial advantage.
The managers of capitalism have managed to capture the redress of their mismanaged capitalism.
We wrote to Gillian Fleming the OS:Property Ombudsman on 3rd September 2010:
"Dear Gillian Fleming,
I am writing in response to your letter dated 24th August 2010. Yet again you have chosen not to answer the questions I sought to raise about Monk and Partners. Furthermore, the contradictions in the written responses I have received also do not appear to warrant a reply from you either.
I should like to take issue with you when you state:
'I would reiterate that the question whether The Firm has acted in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct is a matter for the professional body concerned, which in this case would be the RICS.'
The questions I tried to raise were;
a) Was it reasonable for an Ombudsman to accept evidence gathered from a RICS member that involved unsolicited visits to a complainant's home when that member had made it abundantly clear they had no intention coming to the property when, 'rainwater was cascading down the interior walls?'
- Your response was that you hadn't been able to look at the photographs.
b) I asked you to explain what you meant when you said that they, 'weren't strictly relevant to the Building Survey.'
- You chose not to answer the question.
c) Why were The Firm making, 'goodwill gestures' in the first place if there was indeed nothing wrong with the original survey?
- You chose not to answer that question either.
According to your fair and independent judgement this is all perfectly reasonable otherwise why would you arrive at your conclusion?
This is what I mean by bias and collusion."
Q. Mr Clark, this Ombudsman does not look at the evidence or answer complainants' questions so where is the systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts or inquiries as to the character, activities and background of her fee-paying member?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 26 December 2016
Wednesday, 21 December 2016
The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating. (556)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 556.
556) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (3).
Dear Mr Clark,
Gillian Fleming's letter continued,
"You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note, saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered suspect. While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now. As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues. There was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript and its relevance.
You make other statements about, collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
(Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, letter 20th July 2010)
Where to begin?
This was supposed to be a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a complex and expensive property complaint. We sent Gillian Fleming our complaint and when we got nowhere we sent further evidence in the form of photographs and the transcript of a telephone conversation.
Regarding the photographs - the ombudsman, "did not seek them out."
Q. Why didn't the ombudsman seek them out? It was her duty as an ombudsman to do so after all.
As for the transcript - "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
Q. Why was there no opportunity for the ombudsman to consider our transcript or its relevance? She should have made one - it's her job.
How convenient all this was for Gillian Fleming's fee-paying Member and how inconvenient and expensive for her Member's client, us.
The Curious Conclusions To Investigations At The RICS Appointed Ombudsman Services:Property:
1) "You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered as suspect."
- "You now supply".... the ombudsman's tone could hardly be less welcoming, it's as if we've put her to a great inconvenience. The inconvenience of having to look at evidence.
- Strange to say but the Firm's little memos to their ombudsman (which we obtained through the Data Protection Act) seem to have been accepted unquestioningly.
- There was no, "you now supply memos" from the ombudsman to her fee-paying Member. That can't be right.
- Why didn't we get a copy of them too?
- The evidence contained in the transcript directly contradicted what was said in the Firm's file note.
- Had the ombudsman done her job as set out in the company's Terms of Reference and actually looked at the evidence she would have had to conclude that the Firm's evidence was indeed suspect and been forced to rule accordingly.
- Instead, and to get around the problem of actually looking at the evidence, she dreamt up the bizarre excuse that, "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
2) "While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now."
- Why? You're supposed to take a complainant's complaint seriously and not be surprised when they hand you evidence.
- There were no dates in the Firm's file notes as to when the Firm revisited our home. We asked the ombudsman to take that into consideration too.
- There was nothing put in writing in the Firm's file notes regarding what had been agreed with them regarding works to be carried out to our home - hence our complaint about being kept waiting 226 days for repairs that in the end were never carried out.
- We provided the ombudsman with evidence in the form of a transcript and she didn't look at it.
Q. Mr Clark, where is the ombudsman's systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts?
Q. Mr Clark, why didn't the ombudsman make inquiries as to the character, activities and background of her fee-paying Member?
3) "As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues."
- Our complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and being kept waiting 226 days for essential work to be carried out to our home. Work that was not confirmed in writing, not put into the Firm's File notes and never completed.
- Why? Because it would seem that the Firm never had any intention of carrying out the work, otherwise things would have been very different.
- A significant issue was the water cascading down the walls and the refusal of the Firm to come to our home. The ombudsman having, "considered" this last point made no comment.
4) "You make other statements about collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
- Apart from being homo sapiens we share very little in common with this ombudsman. Although some could be forgiven for thinking that ombudsmen have evolved into another life form altogether.
- When the majority of complainants have their cases mishandled in this way, then it's hard not to conclude that this company is failing the public on an industrial scale.
- DJS Research are no longer conducting Customer Satisfaction Reports for this RICS appointed company. Try finding any meaningful data on its performance in handling complex property disputes. They no longer bother to ask the complainant if they're satisfied or not with their consumer journey.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 556.
556) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (3).
Dear Mr Clark,
Gillian Fleming's letter continued,
"You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note, saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered suspect. While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now. As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues. There was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript and its relevance.
You make other statements about, collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
(Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, letter 20th July 2010)
Where to begin?
This was supposed to be a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a complex and expensive property complaint. We sent Gillian Fleming our complaint and when we got nowhere we sent further evidence in the form of photographs and the transcript of a telephone conversation.
Regarding the photographs - the ombudsman, "did not seek them out."
Q. Why didn't the ombudsman seek them out? It was her duty as an ombudsman to do so after all.
As for the transcript - "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
Q. Why was there no opportunity for the ombudsman to consider our transcript or its relevance? She should have made one - it's her job.
How convenient all this was for Gillian Fleming's fee-paying Member and how inconvenient and expensive for her Member's client, us.
The Curious Conclusions To Investigations At The RICS Appointed Ombudsman Services:Property:
1) "You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered as suspect."
- "You now supply".... the ombudsman's tone could hardly be less welcoming, it's as if we've put her to a great inconvenience. The inconvenience of having to look at evidence.
- Strange to say but the Firm's little memos to their ombudsman (which we obtained through the Data Protection Act) seem to have been accepted unquestioningly.
- There was no, "you now supply memos" from the ombudsman to her fee-paying Member. That can't be right.
- Why didn't we get a copy of them too?
- The evidence contained in the transcript directly contradicted what was said in the Firm's file note.
- Had the ombudsman done her job as set out in the company's Terms of Reference and actually looked at the evidence she would have had to conclude that the Firm's evidence was indeed suspect and been forced to rule accordingly.
- Instead, and to get around the problem of actually looking at the evidence, she dreamt up the bizarre excuse that, "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
2) "While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now."
- Why? You're supposed to take a complainant's complaint seriously and not be surprised when they hand you evidence.
- There were no dates in the Firm's file notes as to when the Firm revisited our home. We asked the ombudsman to take that into consideration too.
- There was nothing put in writing in the Firm's file notes regarding what had been agreed with them regarding works to be carried out to our home - hence our complaint about being kept waiting 226 days for repairs that in the end were never carried out.
- We provided the ombudsman with evidence in the form of a transcript and she didn't look at it.
Q. Mr Clark, where is the ombudsman's systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts?
Q. Mr Clark, why didn't the ombudsman make inquiries as to the character, activities and background of her fee-paying Member?
3) "As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues."
- Our complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and being kept waiting 226 days for essential work to be carried out to our home. Work that was not confirmed in writing, not put into the Firm's File notes and never completed.
- Why? Because it would seem that the Firm never had any intention of carrying out the work, otherwise things would have been very different.
- A significant issue was the water cascading down the walls and the refusal of the Firm to come to our home. The ombudsman having, "considered" this last point made no comment.
4) "You make other statements about collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
- Apart from being homo sapiens we share very little in common with this ombudsman. Although some could be forgiven for thinking that ombudsmen have evolved into another life form altogether.
- When the majority of complainants have their cases mishandled in this way, then it's hard not to conclude that this company is failing the public on an industrial scale.
- DJS Research are no longer conducting Customer Satisfaction Reports for this RICS appointed company. Try finding any meaningful data on its performance in handling complex property disputes. They no longer bother to ask the complainant if they're satisfied or not with their consumer journey.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 20 December 2016
The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating. (555)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 555.
555) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (2).
Dear Mr Clark,
To its great discredit the UK government permits ombudsman schemes to operate in a grey area without clear or fixed criteria and without the requirement to provide consumers with a clear definition of what they - ombudsmen - take to be an, "investigation."
Mr Clark, wouldn't you agree that It's hard to trust someone who doesn't see the need to define just what exactly it is they're doing.
We thought we'd help ombudsmen over the apparent hurdle they've created for themselves by defining what it is they're supposed to be doing.
Investigate:
- carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts.
- make inquiries as to the character, activities or background of someone.
"Systematic," "formal," "facts," "inquiries," "character," "activities" or "background of someone." As none of this happened in our case, then - and if the above definition is correct - we quite obviously didn't get an investigation but something else. A cover-up perhaps? A stitch-up?
Certainly, a miscarriage of private justice.
For example:
COMPLAINT ABOUT M AND PARTNERS Our ref: 510458. 20th July 2010
"Dear Mr G.
COMPLAINT ABOUT M AND PARTNERS
I am writing in response to the email of 16 July.
You say that a failure to give my view on whether the Firm should have come to visit when you told them about water pouring down the walls and hallway is, in effect a refusal. You may hold to that opinion but I do not agree."
You may hold to that opinion but I do not agree....
Q. Mr Clark, this is supposed to be an investigation of a complaint by an ombudsman. We asked the ombudsman for her opinion on the Firm's integrity and customer care but all we got was a master-class in ducking and diving, "you may hold that opinion but I do not agree."
So much for making inquiries as to the character, activities or background of someone or discovering and examining facts.
Whether the ombudsman refused to give us an answer or not completely misses the point - at the end of the day when all's said or done, she didn't answer our question. Surely, her evasiveness when it comes to answering complainants' questions raises further questions about her independence and ability to objectively investigate complaints.
I didn't give you an answer because I don't like you.
I didn't give you an answer because I couldn't think of one.
I didn't give you an answer because to have done so would have meant making inquiries as to the character, activities and background of my fee-paying Member and carrying out a systematic inquiry into the facts.
If the ombudsman does not agree with our opinion that she's refused to give us an answer then her company's Terms of Reference state quite clearly that she is duty bound to provide us with an explanation as to why she hasn't given us an answer.
They state, "It shall be the duty of the ombudsman
8.6 (f) To give reasons for any decisions made or conclusion reached."
We didn't receive a reason from the ombudsman for her decision not to answer questions about her fee-paying Member.
Q. Mr Clark. either the ombudsman didn't know her duties as an ombudsman and therefore shouldn't have been an ombudsman or knew her duties as an ombudsman and deliberately misled a complainant in which case she shouldn't have been allowed to continue as an ombudsman. When are you going to investigate ombudsmen who freely operate outside the remit of their Terms of Reference?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 555.
555) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (2).
Dear Mr Clark,
To its great discredit the UK government permits ombudsman schemes to operate in a grey area without clear or fixed criteria and without the requirement to provide consumers with a clear definition of what they - ombudsmen - take to be an, "investigation."
Mr Clark, wouldn't you agree that It's hard to trust someone who doesn't see the need to define just what exactly it is they're doing.
We thought we'd help ombudsmen over the apparent hurdle they've created for themselves by defining what it is they're supposed to be doing.
Investigate:
- carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts.
- make inquiries as to the character, activities or background of someone.
"Systematic," "formal," "facts," "inquiries," "character," "activities" or "background of someone." As none of this happened in our case, then - and if the above definition is correct - we quite obviously didn't get an investigation but something else. A cover-up perhaps? A stitch-up?
Certainly, a miscarriage of private justice.
For example:
COMPLAINT ABOUT M AND PARTNERS Our ref: 510458. 20th July 2010
"Dear Mr G.
COMPLAINT ABOUT M AND PARTNERS
I am writing in response to the email of 16 July.
You say that a failure to give my view on whether the Firm should have come to visit when you told them about water pouring down the walls and hallway is, in effect a refusal. You may hold to that opinion but I do not agree."
You may hold to that opinion but I do not agree....
Q. Mr Clark, this is supposed to be an investigation of a complaint by an ombudsman. We asked the ombudsman for her opinion on the Firm's integrity and customer care but all we got was a master-class in ducking and diving, "you may hold that opinion but I do not agree."
So much for making inquiries as to the character, activities or background of someone or discovering and examining facts.
Whether the ombudsman refused to give us an answer or not completely misses the point - at the end of the day when all's said or done, she didn't answer our question. Surely, her evasiveness when it comes to answering complainants' questions raises further questions about her independence and ability to objectively investigate complaints.
I didn't give you an answer because I don't like you.
I didn't give you an answer because I couldn't think of one.
I didn't give you an answer because to have done so would have meant making inquiries as to the character, activities and background of my fee-paying Member and carrying out a systematic inquiry into the facts.
If the ombudsman does not agree with our opinion that she's refused to give us an answer then her company's Terms of Reference state quite clearly that she is duty bound to provide us with an explanation as to why she hasn't given us an answer.
They state, "It shall be the duty of the ombudsman
8.6 (f) To give reasons for any decisions made or conclusion reached."
We didn't receive a reason from the ombudsman for her decision not to answer questions about her fee-paying Member.
Q. Mr Clark. either the ombudsman didn't know her duties as an ombudsman and therefore shouldn't have been an ombudsman or knew her duties as an ombudsman and deliberately misled a complainant in which case she shouldn't have been allowed to continue as an ombudsman. When are you going to investigate ombudsmen who freely operate outside the remit of their Terms of Reference?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 15 December 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (554)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 554.
554: The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating.
Dear Mr Clark,
All too often, what passes for the, "investigation" of a consumer's complaint by ombudsmen often only succeeds in making a mockery of the British judicial system - we're kangaroos being lined up to go to their court. It's time we took back control.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tells us that,
"Generally, some participants felt the confidentiality of ombudsman schemes' processes was used as a smokescreen. It was harder for people to understand and access the fairness of ombudsman processes compared with those which are more visible, such as courts. This was exacerbated by the fact that ombudsman schemes were seen to operate in a grey area without clear and fixed criteria. There was no definition of an investigation nor did the term 'maladministration' and 'fair and reasonable' provide any clear criteria or standards against which actions could be judged."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/ oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists.)
In other words ombudsmen make it up as they go along.
At Ombudsman Services:Property there are two categories of evidence; Members' evidence, which is accepted unquestioningly by their ombudsman and complainants' evidence which is subjected to bizarre and bewildering distortions before being binned. It seems that the ombudsman will go to any length to discredit what complainants say.
In our case we sent in photographic evidence (as had our surveyor) only to be told that the ombudsman, "had not sought them - the photographs - out."
Mr Clark, wouldn't you agree with us that it's hard to conduct a serious investigation when you don't look at the evidence.
In light of this failure to seek out the evidence we asked the ombudsman for an independent resurvey only to be told that had she considered this necessary she would have asked for one at the time.
Perhaps the ombudsman's reasoning behind her decision was that to have done so - ie ordered a resurvey - could have resulted in an independent confirmation of what we had been saying all along and thus have forced her to find against her fee-paying Member.
The RICS would not have seen this as, "an effective resolution of a dispute" and so she didn't.
Q. Mr Clark, how can this be either, "fair" or "reasonable?"
Q. Mr Clark why doesn't this organisation publish data on the number of requests made by complainants for independent resurveys and the number of requests which are subsequently granted by the ombudsman?
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of it ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 554.
554: The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating.
Dear Mr Clark,
All too often, what passes for the, "investigation" of a consumer's complaint by ombudsmen often only succeeds in making a mockery of the British judicial system - we're kangaroos being lined up to go to their court. It's time we took back control.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tells us that,
"Generally, some participants felt the confidentiality of ombudsman schemes' processes was used as a smokescreen. It was harder for people to understand and access the fairness of ombudsman processes compared with those which are more visible, such as courts. This was exacerbated by the fact that ombudsman schemes were seen to operate in a grey area without clear and fixed criteria. There was no definition of an investigation nor did the term 'maladministration' and 'fair and reasonable' provide any clear criteria or standards against which actions could be judged."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/ oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists.)
In other words ombudsmen make it up as they go along.
At Ombudsman Services:Property there are two categories of evidence; Members' evidence, which is accepted unquestioningly by their ombudsman and complainants' evidence which is subjected to bizarre and bewildering distortions before being binned. It seems that the ombudsman will go to any length to discredit what complainants say.
In our case we sent in photographic evidence (as had our surveyor) only to be told that the ombudsman, "had not sought them - the photographs - out."
Mr Clark, wouldn't you agree with us that it's hard to conduct a serious investigation when you don't look at the evidence.
In light of this failure to seek out the evidence we asked the ombudsman for an independent resurvey only to be told that had she considered this necessary she would have asked for one at the time.
Perhaps the ombudsman's reasoning behind her decision was that to have done so - ie ordered a resurvey - could have resulted in an independent confirmation of what we had been saying all along and thus have forced her to find against her fee-paying Member.
The RICS would not have seen this as, "an effective resolution of a dispute" and so she didn't.
Q. Mr Clark, how can this be either, "fair" or "reasonable?"
Q. Mr Clark why doesn't this organisation publish data on the number of requests made by complainants for independent resurveys and the number of requests which are subsequently granted by the ombudsman?
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of it ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 27 November 2016
Why you won't get your day in court. (553)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 553.
553) "Why you won't get your day in court" Jed S Rakoff.
(www.nybooks.com/articles/2016)
Dear Mr Clark,
This timely article about the ballooning role of private arbitrators in the USA mirrors what we've ben saying about The Golden Age of The Ombudsman here in the UK.
Jed S Rakoff, writing for the New York Review of Books, concludes, "Why you won't get your day in court" by stating,
"Arguably even worse, the situation I've described reinforces the belief of citizens that the courts are not an institution to which they can turn for justice, but are simply a remote and expensive luxury reserved for the rich and powerful."
How true. Just try asking Rebekah Brooks.
The advice our solicitor gave us was not to take legal action against our RICS poorly regulated surveyor as, "it could be financially ruinous." Heeding his advice we turned to the RICS appointed ombudsman. This turned out to be financially damaging but not ruinous.
The Ombudsman Services:Property sales pitch to the unwary consumer is that it is both, "fair" and "independent." We believe it is neither. When an expensive purchasing decision goes badly wrong, surveyors have devised a scheme that ensures they don't pick up the tab, they've rigged it so that their client does.
The proliferation of ombudsman schemes here apes the growing trend for arbitrators in the USA.
Jed S Rakoff tells us,
"A seventh factor is the increasing diversion of legal disputes to regulatory agencies."
That,
"A further result is that most legal disputes are rarely decided by judges and almost never by juries."
And still another result is,
"that the function of the judiciary as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches and as an independent forum for the resolution of legal disputes has substantially diminished - with the all too willing acquiescence of the judiciary itself."
Here, politicians, civil servants and Privy Councillors have acquiesced in the mushrooming of such schemes and then shuffled their papers and looked the other way when the schemes they so readily approved failed to deliver on their extravagant and wildly exaggerated promises.
Money seems to be the determining factor here.
We're further told that,
"The arbitrator is limited, however, in the relief she can afford employees or consumers even if she should find in their favour - the company imposed agreements that mandate arbitration typically also prohibit an award of punitive damages or the convening of a class action that would include others who have the same or similar complaints."
Ombudsman Services:Property do not define what they mean by a proportionate financial award even if they should find in favour of the complainant and hand one out.
The Concepcion Case and the late Justice Antonin Scalia also has a resonance with what is happening here. That case,
"Has attracted much criticism because of what some legal commentators view as its strained reasoning, which they typically ascribe to the pro-business stance of the court's majority when Scalia was part of it."
We've always said that strange reasoning abounds at OS:Property and one only has to read its Minutes and Annual Reviews to see its rampant pro-business bias.
Just as Congress delegated judicial powers and responsibilities to administrative agencies, so Parliament handed them to private ombudsman schemes.
"These agencies, which are branches of the executive, then create their own internal courts, with procedures that bear little resemblance to those found in the judiciary. Furthermore, these administrative courts are run by judges who are selected by, paid by and subject to review by the administrative agencies themselves. Yet Congress, often at the behest of the President, has given increasing powers to these courts, whose independent status is often doubtful."
Here in the UK we have maladministrating ombudsmen, some of whom arrive at decisions in an illogical manner, who tell us what civil justice is.
We believe it's rigged.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 553.
553) "Why you won't get your day in court" Jed S Rakoff.
(www.nybooks.com/articles/2016)
Dear Mr Clark,
This timely article about the ballooning role of private arbitrators in the USA mirrors what we've ben saying about The Golden Age of The Ombudsman here in the UK.
Jed S Rakoff, writing for the New York Review of Books, concludes, "Why you won't get your day in court" by stating,
"Arguably even worse, the situation I've described reinforces the belief of citizens that the courts are not an institution to which they can turn for justice, but are simply a remote and expensive luxury reserved for the rich and powerful."
How true. Just try asking Rebekah Brooks.
The advice our solicitor gave us was not to take legal action against our RICS poorly regulated surveyor as, "it could be financially ruinous." Heeding his advice we turned to the RICS appointed ombudsman. This turned out to be financially damaging but not ruinous.
The Ombudsman Services:Property sales pitch to the unwary consumer is that it is both, "fair" and "independent." We believe it is neither. When an expensive purchasing decision goes badly wrong, surveyors have devised a scheme that ensures they don't pick up the tab, they've rigged it so that their client does.
The proliferation of ombudsman schemes here apes the growing trend for arbitrators in the USA.
Jed S Rakoff tells us,
"A seventh factor is the increasing diversion of legal disputes to regulatory agencies."
That,
"A further result is that most legal disputes are rarely decided by judges and almost never by juries."
And still another result is,
"that the function of the judiciary as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches and as an independent forum for the resolution of legal disputes has substantially diminished - with the all too willing acquiescence of the judiciary itself."
Here, politicians, civil servants and Privy Councillors have acquiesced in the mushrooming of such schemes and then shuffled their papers and looked the other way when the schemes they so readily approved failed to deliver on their extravagant and wildly exaggerated promises.
Money seems to be the determining factor here.
We're further told that,
"The arbitrator is limited, however, in the relief she can afford employees or consumers even if she should find in their favour - the company imposed agreements that mandate arbitration typically also prohibit an award of punitive damages or the convening of a class action that would include others who have the same or similar complaints."
Ombudsman Services:Property do not define what they mean by a proportionate financial award even if they should find in favour of the complainant and hand one out.
The Concepcion Case and the late Justice Antonin Scalia also has a resonance with what is happening here. That case,
"Has attracted much criticism because of what some legal commentators view as its strained reasoning, which they typically ascribe to the pro-business stance of the court's majority when Scalia was part of it."
We've always said that strange reasoning abounds at OS:Property and one only has to read its Minutes and Annual Reviews to see its rampant pro-business bias.
Just as Congress delegated judicial powers and responsibilities to administrative agencies, so Parliament handed them to private ombudsman schemes.
"These agencies, which are branches of the executive, then create their own internal courts, with procedures that bear little resemblance to those found in the judiciary. Furthermore, these administrative courts are run by judges who are selected by, paid by and subject to review by the administrative agencies themselves. Yet Congress, often at the behest of the President, has given increasing powers to these courts, whose independent status is often doubtful."
Here in the UK we have maladministrating ombudsmen, some of whom arrive at decisions in an illogical manner, who tell us what civil justice is.
We believe it's rigged.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 25 November 2016
From Rigged Rdress To Rigged Elections - Executives Subvert Democracy. (552)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 552.
552) From Rigged Redress To Rigged Elections - How Executives Subvert Democracy.
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill go on to say,
"In addition to the perception that there was a tendency for ombudsman schemes to be both procedurally and substantively biased in favour of the body being investigated, some participants felt that ombudsman schemes were under pressure to 'gate keep' their resources."
For example, in the Ombudsman Services Annual Report - Statutory Report and Accounts 2010, we read,
"We ensure that the Members know we are spending their money wisely and they have a well run, efficient scheme which adds real quality to their own business practices."
So, what "redress" is really all about comes down to mangers showing just how eager they are to spend their Members' money wisely.
And we thought this was supposed to be a redress scheme where complainants had their grievances thoroughly and independently investigated. How wrong we were. Why isn't the complainant having real quality added to their processes?
In effect, complainants are being robbed of their money and of justice. No level playing field here.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill continue,
"This gives rise to the perception that staff were continually looking for ways to close cases down and that the process ended up being a series of hurdles for complainants to fight their way through."
In short, ombudsman schemes such as OS:Property are obstacle courses where there's only one winner - The Member.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property, and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 552.
552) From Rigged Redress To Rigged Elections - How Executives Subvert Democracy.
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill go on to say,
"In addition to the perception that there was a tendency for ombudsman schemes to be both procedurally and substantively biased in favour of the body being investigated, some participants felt that ombudsman schemes were under pressure to 'gate keep' their resources."
For example, in the Ombudsman Services Annual Report - Statutory Report and Accounts 2010, we read,
"We ensure that the Members know we are spending their money wisely and they have a well run, efficient scheme which adds real quality to their own business practices."
So, what "redress" is really all about comes down to mangers showing just how eager they are to spend their Members' money wisely.
And we thought this was supposed to be a redress scheme where complainants had their grievances thoroughly and independently investigated. How wrong we were. Why isn't the complainant having real quality added to their processes?
In effect, complainants are being robbed of their money and of justice. No level playing field here.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill continue,
"This gives rise to the perception that staff were continually looking for ways to close cases down and that the process ended up being a series of hurdles for complainants to fight their way through."
In short, ombudsman schemes such as OS:Property are obstacle courses where there's only one winner - The Member.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property, and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 20 November 2016
Democratic Window Dressing by Conmen and Phonies (551)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 551.
551) Democratic Window Dressing By Conmen And Phonies.
(with special thanks to Mitt Romney for the conmen and phonies descriptor)
Dear Mr Clark,
The Plan - the one that really gets the job done - is to lie early and to lie often, to lie and lie again.
Mr Farage, Mr Trump and ombudsmen all have one thing in common - a contemptuous disregard for the facts. Modern day snake oil salesmen.
In, "Procedural and practice issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us;
"The process was seen as one sided, with complainants not being made privy to discussions between ombudsman schemes and the bodies investigated. Some participants claimed that one ombudsman scheme shared reports with the body investigated prior to it being shared with the complainant Overall, one participant felt it was, 'democratic window dressing' rather than a serious attempt to investigate issues."
(Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill: Understanding and engaging online citizen activists)
That, in a nutshell, is what happened between the our RICS surveyor and his ombudsman. He exchanged memos and gentle reminders with what was, to all intents and purposes, his secretary. He wound her up pointed her in the right direction and off she dutifully marched. Job done.
We've said many times before that there is a logic behind the OS:Property ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner. The ombudsman is there to do the RICS' bidding - to deliver what they (the RICS) consider to be effective resolution of disputes.
Finding in favour of complainants is not seen as being, "effective." So it doesn't happen.
The so-called, "investigation" of disputes by the RICS, "appointed" ombudsman is simply, "democratic window dressing." We call it rigging the market in private redress in what is now the rigged market phase of capitalism.
A capitalism that rigs referendums and elections, so it would seem.
As for the lie? Its done its job. Time to move on to the next one.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step by, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and right the wrong of their ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and their executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 551.
551) Democratic Window Dressing By Conmen And Phonies.
(with special thanks to Mitt Romney for the conmen and phonies descriptor)
Dear Mr Clark,
The Plan - the one that really gets the job done - is to lie early and to lie often, to lie and lie again.
Mr Farage, Mr Trump and ombudsmen all have one thing in common - a contemptuous disregard for the facts. Modern day snake oil salesmen.
In, "Procedural and practice issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us;
"The process was seen as one sided, with complainants not being made privy to discussions between ombudsman schemes and the bodies investigated. Some participants claimed that one ombudsman scheme shared reports with the body investigated prior to it being shared with the complainant Overall, one participant felt it was, 'democratic window dressing' rather than a serious attempt to investigate issues."
(Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill: Understanding and engaging online citizen activists)
That, in a nutshell, is what happened between the our RICS surveyor and his ombudsman. He exchanged memos and gentle reminders with what was, to all intents and purposes, his secretary. He wound her up pointed her in the right direction and off she dutifully marched. Job done.
We've said many times before that there is a logic behind the OS:Property ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner. The ombudsman is there to do the RICS' bidding - to deliver what they (the RICS) consider to be effective resolution of disputes.
Finding in favour of complainants is not seen as being, "effective." So it doesn't happen.
The so-called, "investigation" of disputes by the RICS, "appointed" ombudsman is simply, "democratic window dressing." We call it rigging the market in private redress in what is now the rigged market phase of capitalism.
A capitalism that rigs referendums and elections, so it would seem.
As for the lie? Its done its job. Time to move on to the next one.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step by, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and right the wrong of their ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and their executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 13 November 2016
So Long Leonard Cohen And The Democracy We Thought We Once Knew. (550)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 550.
550) So Long Leonard Cohen And So Long To The Democracy We Thought We Once Knew.
Dear Mr Clark,
If you can't trust Mark Zuckerberg's trending Facebook, Lord Rothermere's Daily Mail, Fox News, The Brexit Campaign Bus or Nigel Farage's Campaign poster who can you trust if your an undecided voter trying to make their mind up?
Where is the truth hiding today? And why is it so hard to find?
In the past Donald Trump's scapegoats would have been the Jews and communists.
Today, The Big Lie was the one where voters were suckered into believing that by putting their trust in a billionaire property developer who believes it's smart and patriotic not to pay his taxes, smart and patriotic to denigrate Hispanic people and Muslims and smart and patriotic to vilify female television presenters (who are smarter and probably far more patriotic than he is in reality) - would somehow make America great again.
Ably aided and abetted by his ex-stockbroker, be-suited pillar of the English Establishment, Mr Farage, the lie took hold and completed its inevitable journey - enough voters were conned into believing the lie: that one part of The Establishment would take on and magically transform another part of The Establishment to the benefit of ordinary men, women and children.
A modern day fairy tale for grown-ups.
A bit like drug barons taking over and running pharmaceutical companies, criminals taking over and running the justice system or unelected and unaccountable ombudsmen being left free to tell us what civil justice is.
Donald and Vladimir do have one thing in common - apart from gazing lovingly at themselves in the mirror - no one seems to have a clue as to how much money they have or where they've stashed it. The FBI, FSB and CIA have all been caught napping apparently. There's a thing.
And neither Donald nor Vladimir seem overly keen to put their ill-gotten gains to the service of those struggling to make ends meet in their respective countries. No, "from each according to his abilities to each according to their needs," from these beneficiaries of their respective rigged systems.
No nobility, no generosity, no decency and no compassion there.
In, "Panama, the Hidden Trillions" Guardian reporter, Luke Harding, writes,
"The Economic system is, basically, that the rich and powerful exited long ago from the messy business of paying tax.... we see that the burden of paying tax has moved inexorably away from multinational companies and rich people to ordinary people....this began a race to the deregulatory bottom which was explained in Ronen Palan - 'The offshore World, Sovereign Markets, Virtual Places and Nomad Millionaires 2003'
A race to the deregulatory bottom.
A shadowy place where those who captured/rigged the system; lie, cheat and steal as never before and with, it would seem, complete impunity. The rest of us are told that do so is simply being, "smart" or "aspirational."
It took John Doe and not the CIA, FBI FSB, Mossad, MI5/5 etc. to expose this massive and seemingly unstoppable racket. In his, "Manifesto" John Doe writes,
"I have watched as one after another, whistleblowers and activists, in the USA and Europe have had their lives destroyed by the circumstances they find themselves in after shining a light on an obvious wrongdoing
... legitimate whistleblowers who expose unquestionable wrongdoing, whether insiders or outsiders deserve immunity from government retribution, full stop....
... Many news networks are cartoonish parodies of their former selves. Individual billionaires appear to have taken up newspaper ownership as a hobby, limiting the coverage of serious matters concerning the wealthy and serious investigative journalists lack funding...
.... the collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery."
Rigging systems and then simply not answering the peoples' questions is what lies at heart of what we call rigged market capitalism. Thomas Piketty calls it "captured" capitalism. Yet for some inexplicable reason this is still called democracy.
We leave the last words to Leonard Cohen, "I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you."
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 550.
550) So Long Leonard Cohen And So Long To The Democracy We Thought We Once Knew.
Dear Mr Clark,
If you can't trust Mark Zuckerberg's trending Facebook, Lord Rothermere's Daily Mail, Fox News, The Brexit Campaign Bus or Nigel Farage's Campaign poster who can you trust if your an undecided voter trying to make their mind up?
Where is the truth hiding today? And why is it so hard to find?
In the past Donald Trump's scapegoats would have been the Jews and communists.
Today, The Big Lie was the one where voters were suckered into believing that by putting their trust in a billionaire property developer who believes it's smart and patriotic not to pay his taxes, smart and patriotic to denigrate Hispanic people and Muslims and smart and patriotic to vilify female television presenters (who are smarter and probably far more patriotic than he is in reality) - would somehow make America great again.
Ably aided and abetted by his ex-stockbroker, be-suited pillar of the English Establishment, Mr Farage, the lie took hold and completed its inevitable journey - enough voters were conned into believing the lie: that one part of The Establishment would take on and magically transform another part of The Establishment to the benefit of ordinary men, women and children.
A modern day fairy tale for grown-ups.
A bit like drug barons taking over and running pharmaceutical companies, criminals taking over and running the justice system or unelected and unaccountable ombudsmen being left free to tell us what civil justice is.
Donald and Vladimir do have one thing in common - apart from gazing lovingly at themselves in the mirror - no one seems to have a clue as to how much money they have or where they've stashed it. The FBI, FSB and CIA have all been caught napping apparently. There's a thing.
And neither Donald nor Vladimir seem overly keen to put their ill-gotten gains to the service of those struggling to make ends meet in their respective countries. No, "from each according to his abilities to each according to their needs," from these beneficiaries of their respective rigged systems.
No nobility, no generosity, no decency and no compassion there.
In, "Panama, the Hidden Trillions" Guardian reporter, Luke Harding, writes,
"The Economic system is, basically, that the rich and powerful exited long ago from the messy business of paying tax.... we see that the burden of paying tax has moved inexorably away from multinational companies and rich people to ordinary people....this began a race to the deregulatory bottom which was explained in Ronen Palan - 'The offshore World, Sovereign Markets, Virtual Places and Nomad Millionaires 2003'
A race to the deregulatory bottom.
A shadowy place where those who captured/rigged the system; lie, cheat and steal as never before and with, it would seem, complete impunity. The rest of us are told that do so is simply being, "smart" or "aspirational."
It took John Doe and not the CIA, FBI FSB, Mossad, MI5/5 etc. to expose this massive and seemingly unstoppable racket. In his, "Manifesto" John Doe writes,
"I have watched as one after another, whistleblowers and activists, in the USA and Europe have had their lives destroyed by the circumstances they find themselves in after shining a light on an obvious wrongdoing
... legitimate whistleblowers who expose unquestionable wrongdoing, whether insiders or outsiders deserve immunity from government retribution, full stop....
... Many news networks are cartoonish parodies of their former selves. Individual billionaires appear to have taken up newspaper ownership as a hobby, limiting the coverage of serious matters concerning the wealthy and serious investigative journalists lack funding...
.... the collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery."
Rigging systems and then simply not answering the peoples' questions is what lies at heart of what we call rigged market capitalism. Thomas Piketty calls it "captured" capitalism. Yet for some inexplicable reason this is still called democracy.
We leave the last words to Leonard Cohen, "I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you."
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Now Every Day Is Thanksgiving Day For American Turkeys. (549)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 549.
549) Now Every Day Is Thanksgiving Day For American Turkeys.
So, the American Electoral System isn't rigged after all.
Turkeys have just elected Mr Trump as their president - a man who benefits enormously from its rigged tax system. We wonder how many ordinary folk, both here and in the USA, will also benefit from rigged markets, rigged tax schemes and rigged private redress schemes?
For someone who takes such pride in the USA why is Mr Trump - and so many corporations - so unpatriotic when it comes to paying his way in the world?
How many nurses, doctors, teachers and care workers could those unpaid taxes have funded?
Dear Mr Clark,
Those executives who according to Thomas Piketty, so profitably captured/rigged capitalism have, we believe, also rigged its private redress schemes. They now seek to capture democracy and the judiciary - just look at what the unelected Mr Desmond, the unelected Mr Murdoch, the unelected Barclay brothers and the unelected Lord Rothermere have been up to recently.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
For Clarity - Attempt 549.
549) Now Every Day Is Thanksgiving Day For American Turkeys.
So, the American Electoral System isn't rigged after all.
Turkeys have just elected Mr Trump as their president - a man who benefits enormously from its rigged tax system. We wonder how many ordinary folk, both here and in the USA, will also benefit from rigged markets, rigged tax schemes and rigged private redress schemes?
For someone who takes such pride in the USA why is Mr Trump - and so many corporations - so unpatriotic when it comes to paying his way in the world?
How many nurses, doctors, teachers and care workers could those unpaid taxes have funded?
Dear Mr Clark,
Those executives who according to Thomas Piketty, so profitably captured/rigged capitalism have, we believe, also rigged its private redress schemes. They now seek to capture democracy and the judiciary - just look at what the unelected Mr Desmond, the unelected Mr Murdoch, the unelected Barclay brothers and the unelected Lord Rothermere have been up to recently.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Saturday, 5 November 2016
Liz Truss and the Sn, The Daily Mail and the Telegraph - Enemies of Democracy. (547)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 547.
547) Liz Truss and The Sun, The Express, The Daily Mail and The Telegraph - Enemies of Democracy.
Dear Mr Clark,
The unelected Prime Minister, Mrs May, and her cabinet, have now been put on notice by unelected tax-avoiding press barons.:Do not step out of line.
As the rightwing press take a giant goosestep towards fascism it would appear that the Justice Minister has deserted her post and gone AWOL.
Some have suggested that she's hiding in Rupert Murdoch's pocket whilst others believe that she's waiting for further instructions from Lord Rothermere as to what to think and do next. Either way her vanishing act isn't good for our fragile democracy or for people seeking justice. They're going to have to work an awful lot harder to find it now that politically motivated press barons are accusing judges of being politically motivated.
Clearly, the press now need to be regulated as self-regulation has proven once again, to be a total disaster (very much like the RICS and its creature Ombudsman Services:Property) Certain editors are now obviously totally out of control and running amok.
They have nothing but contempt for our democracy.
Rigged/captured market capitalism, corporatism, less and less transparency and accountability, more an more rightwing demagogues has pushed the centre ground even further to the right and is undermining democracy and justice.
It's become; government of the rigged market capitalists, by the rigged market capitalists and for the rigged market capitalists. .
What could be more rigged than a press that insists upon regulating itself, whose owners avoid paying taxes and yet who can't prevent themselves from telling many of those unaccustomed to thinking for themselves, just what to think?
Q. Mr Clark, when is the Justice Minister going to step up and challenge the vested interests of tax avoiding press barons and right the wrong of those powerful and largely unaccountable individuals who threaten the judiciary and our democracy?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 547.
547) Liz Truss and The Sun, The Express, The Daily Mail and The Telegraph - Enemies of Democracy.
Dear Mr Clark,
The unelected Prime Minister, Mrs May, and her cabinet, have now been put on notice by unelected tax-avoiding press barons.:Do not step out of line.
As the rightwing press take a giant goosestep towards fascism it would appear that the Justice Minister has deserted her post and gone AWOL.
Some have suggested that she's hiding in Rupert Murdoch's pocket whilst others believe that she's waiting for further instructions from Lord Rothermere as to what to think and do next. Either way her vanishing act isn't good for our fragile democracy or for people seeking justice. They're going to have to work an awful lot harder to find it now that politically motivated press barons are accusing judges of being politically motivated.
Clearly, the press now need to be regulated as self-regulation has proven once again, to be a total disaster (very much like the RICS and its creature Ombudsman Services:Property) Certain editors are now obviously totally out of control and running amok.
They have nothing but contempt for our democracy.
Rigged/captured market capitalism, corporatism, less and less transparency and accountability, more an more rightwing demagogues has pushed the centre ground even further to the right and is undermining democracy and justice.
It's become; government of the rigged market capitalists, by the rigged market capitalists and for the rigged market capitalists. .
What could be more rigged than a press that insists upon regulating itself, whose owners avoid paying taxes and yet who can't prevent themselves from telling many of those unaccustomed to thinking for themselves, just what to think?
Q. Mr Clark, when is the Justice Minister going to step up and challenge the vested interests of tax avoiding press barons and right the wrong of those powerful and largely unaccountable individuals who threaten the judiciary and our democracy?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 4 November 2016
"Amber Rudd was right to leave Orgreve in the past." Simon Jenkins. (546)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 546.
546) "Amber Rudd was right to leave Orgreave in the past." Simon Jenkins.
(Guardian 02/11/2016)
Dear Mr Clark,
Amber Rudd was wrong to leave Orgreave in the past but from his unpleasant little article we now know that Simon Jenkins is an Orgreave Denier and now takes his place alongside the likes of Mrs Rudd, the Chingford Skinhead and Lord Tarzan which is exalted company indeed.
Wielding his history airbrush like a South Yorkshire copper's truncheon, he set about Mr Burnham for having the courage and temerity to seek to take on The Establishment in what is now post-Brexit Britain. Isn't this what 17 million voted for? To take back control and show their growing anger and dissatisfaction with a remote, indifferent and self-serving Establishment? An Establishment that works assiduously to cover-up its crimes and misdemeanours?
Simon Jenkins' assault on Mr Burnham began with a snide put-down that;
"Those who can't rule today try to rule yesterday."
Calling for a public inquiry into the events surrounding the Battle of Orgreave is not trying to rule yesterday. It's simply calling for a light to be shone on not just the South Yorkshire police but also on the politicians at Westminster who were orchestrating those appalling events.
An ombudsman handing a complainant an illogical final decision is an appalling event.
A healthcare worker handing a patient an unexplained decision is also an appalling event.
Who will shine a light on these latest on-going scandals? Not Simon Jenkins that's for sure.
His support for the Home Secretar's cover-up continued with;
"This week's demand by Labour's Andy Burnham for a show trial of police tactics at the battle of Orgreave 32 years ago was a piece of pure politics."
Asking for a public inquiry in Simon Jenkins' less than objective apology for the illegalities of 1984, becomes a demand for a show trial. Wrong again Mr Jenkins. Public inquiries are not show trials. Don't confuse the two. However, by clumsily seeking to establish this fictitious link, he has sought to undermine the key role of public inquiries in attempting to hold the unaccountable to account. A thought that clearly terrifies him.
But if there is any purity in politics, asking for a public inquiry into events surrounding Orgreave 32 years ago, is - we believe - approaching it.
We're asking for a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property, not demanding it. We suspect that Orgreave Deniers like Simon Jenkins are by some extraordinary coincidence also Illogical Final Decision Deniers too.
His next swipe was to say;
"We know what happened at Orgreave."
Wrong again. We don't know what happened behind the scenes at Orgreave and if Orgreave Deniers like Mr Jenkins continue to have their way, we never will. Which serves to illustrate just how urgent such an inquiry is and how right Andy Burnham was in calling for one.
Thanks to DJS Research we have some knowledge of what happened - and is happening - at Ombudsman Services:Property but (as Simon Jenkins brought the matter up) isn't it strange that no junior minister at the BIS (or senior one for that matter) has sought to speak out about it. It's an Orgreave in the making. There would appear to be an awful lot of Illogical Final Decision Deniers out there busily working to undermine our fragile democracy whilst at the same time further entrenching rigged market capitalism and the interests of those tax avoiders who benefit from it.
Why don't you write about that Simon Jenkins?
Next;
"The police reaction to the miners' union picketing was excessive. But this fact has been examined, fought over and iconised for decades."
Yes, the police reaction was excessive and so were their rigged statements and perjury. Those facts haven't been examined by Orgreave Deniers like Mr Jenkins with his misrepresentations and thinly disguised contempt for the campaigners but they serve to show how concerned the Establishment is to keep it unexamined.
Buried in the lowest level of the deepest closed mine.
In his piece there's no mention of his icon, Mrs Thatcher, or how she brought harmony to the nation at that troubled time.
The bludgeoning continues and Andy Burnham becomes reduced to, "Burnham." It's now time for Mr Jenkins to shoot the messenger;
"Why does Burnham suddenly want an inquiry into Orgreave ...."
Probably, Simon Jenkins, because he, like us, believes that transparency and accountability are an essential part of our democracy. You quite clearly don't.
And so it went on and on in a similar vein.
Perhaps an ex-miner could kindly donate his miner's lamp to Mr Jenkins - it might help bring some light to the pit he inhabits.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature, Ombudsman Services:Property and shed some light on their illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 546.
546) "Amber Rudd was right to leave Orgreave in the past." Simon Jenkins.
(Guardian 02/11/2016)
Dear Mr Clark,
Amber Rudd was wrong to leave Orgreave in the past but from his unpleasant little article we now know that Simon Jenkins is an Orgreave Denier and now takes his place alongside the likes of Mrs Rudd, the Chingford Skinhead and Lord Tarzan which is exalted company indeed.
Wielding his history airbrush like a South Yorkshire copper's truncheon, he set about Mr Burnham for having the courage and temerity to seek to take on The Establishment in what is now post-Brexit Britain. Isn't this what 17 million voted for? To take back control and show their growing anger and dissatisfaction with a remote, indifferent and self-serving Establishment? An Establishment that works assiduously to cover-up its crimes and misdemeanours?
Simon Jenkins' assault on Mr Burnham began with a snide put-down that;
"Those who can't rule today try to rule yesterday."
Calling for a public inquiry into the events surrounding the Battle of Orgreave is not trying to rule yesterday. It's simply calling for a light to be shone on not just the South Yorkshire police but also on the politicians at Westminster who were orchestrating those appalling events.
An ombudsman handing a complainant an illogical final decision is an appalling event.
A healthcare worker handing a patient an unexplained decision is also an appalling event.
Who will shine a light on these latest on-going scandals? Not Simon Jenkins that's for sure.
His support for the Home Secretar's cover-up continued with;
"This week's demand by Labour's Andy Burnham for a show trial of police tactics at the battle of Orgreave 32 years ago was a piece of pure politics."
Asking for a public inquiry in Simon Jenkins' less than objective apology for the illegalities of 1984, becomes a demand for a show trial. Wrong again Mr Jenkins. Public inquiries are not show trials. Don't confuse the two. However, by clumsily seeking to establish this fictitious link, he has sought to undermine the key role of public inquiries in attempting to hold the unaccountable to account. A thought that clearly terrifies him.
But if there is any purity in politics, asking for a public inquiry into events surrounding Orgreave 32 years ago, is - we believe - approaching it.
We're asking for a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property, not demanding it. We suspect that Orgreave Deniers like Simon Jenkins are by some extraordinary coincidence also Illogical Final Decision Deniers too.
His next swipe was to say;
"We know what happened at Orgreave."
Wrong again. We don't know what happened behind the scenes at Orgreave and if Orgreave Deniers like Mr Jenkins continue to have their way, we never will. Which serves to illustrate just how urgent such an inquiry is and how right Andy Burnham was in calling for one.
Thanks to DJS Research we have some knowledge of what happened - and is happening - at Ombudsman Services:Property but (as Simon Jenkins brought the matter up) isn't it strange that no junior minister at the BIS (or senior one for that matter) has sought to speak out about it. It's an Orgreave in the making. There would appear to be an awful lot of Illogical Final Decision Deniers out there busily working to undermine our fragile democracy whilst at the same time further entrenching rigged market capitalism and the interests of those tax avoiders who benefit from it.
Why don't you write about that Simon Jenkins?
Next;
"The police reaction to the miners' union picketing was excessive. But this fact has been examined, fought over and iconised for decades."
Yes, the police reaction was excessive and so were their rigged statements and perjury. Those facts haven't been examined by Orgreave Deniers like Mr Jenkins with his misrepresentations and thinly disguised contempt for the campaigners but they serve to show how concerned the Establishment is to keep it unexamined.
Buried in the lowest level of the deepest closed mine.
In his piece there's no mention of his icon, Mrs Thatcher, or how she brought harmony to the nation at that troubled time.
The bludgeoning continues and Andy Burnham becomes reduced to, "Burnham." It's now time for Mr Jenkins to shoot the messenger;
"Why does Burnham suddenly want an inquiry into Orgreave ...."
Probably, Simon Jenkins, because he, like us, believes that transparency and accountability are an essential part of our democracy. You quite clearly don't.
And so it went on and on in a similar vein.
Perhaps an ex-miner could kindly donate his miner's lamp to Mr Jenkins - it might help bring some light to the pit he inhabits.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature, Ombudsman Services:Property and shed some light on their illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 1 November 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property - And The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (545)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 545.
545) "The Tory cover-up of The Battle of Orgreave will last for a thousand years..." Amber "Red Mist" Rudd.
(Statement to the Commons: Halloween 2016)
Dear Mr Clark,
It takes a truly appalling person to make truly appalling decisions and Amber "Red Mist" Rudd is just such a person. That she apparently, loses no sleep over them - or the miners who once struggled to save their jobs and communities - simply adds insult to injury
With unanswered questions hanging over her own past business arrangements, she was still The Unelected Prime Minister's choice as Home Secretary. However, her statement in the Commons yesterday effectively torpedoed The Unelected One's claim to be leading a government that is, "stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests."
They both fell ignominiously at the first hurdle. But if the truth be known neither should have been entered for the race in the first place. Two police horses masquerading as thoroughbreds.
Each time The Unelected One teeters into number 10 she will be coolly, calmly and clinically stilettoing the backs of those miners so brutally attacked by Margaret Thatcher's Private Army. That the Chingford Skinhead could actually believe that the police, "behaved reasonably well" shows what a morass these appalling people inhabit.
Norman, the evidence strongly suggest that it wasn't the miners who were dressed in full riot gear, wielding batons and on charging horses who were attacking a throng of milling police wearing short sleeved tee-shirts. It was the other way around. But then why let the truth get in the way of a strongly held prejudice?
History has a new category of villain - The Orgreave Denier.
So, no truth, no reconciliation, no transparency, no accountability and no justice there.
It was the hour The Establishment took back control and told the rest of us to get on our bikes or climb into an Uber taxi.
What does The battle of Orgreave and Ombudsman Services:Property both have n common?
Decisions that are made behind the scenes, political influencing and engagement work of an unacceptable nature between politicians, civil servants and senior management - or collusion as it's better known, outcomes that are a disgrace in a country that still calls itself a democracy - or corruption as it's better known and all neatly tied up with a blue bow promising anonymity to the guilty.
To The Orgreave Denier we should now add - The Illogical Final Decision Denier.
Brexit means Brexit? Doesn't it really mean The Establishment is back firmly in control and once again it's open for cash, collusion, corruption and cover-ups - that it's dirty business as usual?
Capitalism and its so-called justice system have just been rigged a little more tightly by The Unchosen One and her Home secretary..
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature - Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of the company's illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 545.
545) "The Tory cover-up of The Battle of Orgreave will last for a thousand years..." Amber "Red Mist" Rudd.
(Statement to the Commons: Halloween 2016)
Dear Mr Clark,
It takes a truly appalling person to make truly appalling decisions and Amber "Red Mist" Rudd is just such a person. That she apparently, loses no sleep over them - or the miners who once struggled to save their jobs and communities - simply adds insult to injury
With unanswered questions hanging over her own past business arrangements, she was still The Unelected Prime Minister's choice as Home Secretary. However, her statement in the Commons yesterday effectively torpedoed The Unelected One's claim to be leading a government that is, "stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests."
They both fell ignominiously at the first hurdle. But if the truth be known neither should have been entered for the race in the first place. Two police horses masquerading as thoroughbreds.
Each time The Unelected One teeters into number 10 she will be coolly, calmly and clinically stilettoing the backs of those miners so brutally attacked by Margaret Thatcher's Private Army. That the Chingford Skinhead could actually believe that the police, "behaved reasonably well" shows what a morass these appalling people inhabit.
Norman, the evidence strongly suggest that it wasn't the miners who were dressed in full riot gear, wielding batons and on charging horses who were attacking a throng of milling police wearing short sleeved tee-shirts. It was the other way around. But then why let the truth get in the way of a strongly held prejudice?
History has a new category of villain - The Orgreave Denier.
So, no truth, no reconciliation, no transparency, no accountability and no justice there.
It was the hour The Establishment took back control and told the rest of us to get on our bikes or climb into an Uber taxi.
What does The battle of Orgreave and Ombudsman Services:Property both have n common?
Decisions that are made behind the scenes, political influencing and engagement work of an unacceptable nature between politicians, civil servants and senior management - or collusion as it's better known, outcomes that are a disgrace in a country that still calls itself a democracy - or corruption as it's better known and all neatly tied up with a blue bow promising anonymity to the guilty.
To The Orgreave Denier we should now add - The Illogical Final Decision Denier.
Brexit means Brexit? Doesn't it really mean The Establishment is back firmly in control and once again it's open for cash, collusion, corruption and cover-ups - that it's dirty business as usual?
Capitalism and its so-called justice system have just been rigged a little more tightly by The Unchosen One and her Home secretary..
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature - Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of the company's illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 29 October 2016
The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner (2). (543)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 543.
543) The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner (2)
Dear Mr Clark,
DJS Research alerted; RICS the regulator, the Ombudsman Services executives and the OFT monitors to the fact that the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."
(DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports 2009-2011)
For example, in our case (510458) the ombudsman completely ignored Monk and Partners' offer - which we had accepted - to carry out repairs to our home and the issue of why they did so in the first place. Surely, wasn't offering to repair our home not a tacit acknowledgement on their part that the original survey was sub-standard? Why offer to fix something if you didn't think it needed fixing?
Instead, the ombudsman chose to ignore this fact - that her fee-paying RICS surveyor had offered to fix something thereby acknowledging the survey was a dud - and focussed her attention on, "what could have been seen during a survey."
Yet on one of his re-inspections Mr Monk saw what should have been seen during the original survey, offered to carry out repairs and then didn't only for his ombudsman to come to the bewildering conclusion that she couldn't be sure, "what could have been seen during a survey."
But it's already been seen by her fee-paying Member!
In order to attempt to clarify this apparent confusion we asked for an independent re-survey only for this request to be refused by the ombudsman.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the logic behind this simple and straightforward - the ombudsman was under pressure from RICS the regulator to resolve complaints effectively and in order to comply with this directive the ombudsman worked to save her fee-paying Member from having to pay for expensive repairs?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 543.
543) The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner (2)
Dear Mr Clark,
DJS Research alerted; RICS the regulator, the Ombudsman Services executives and the OFT monitors to the fact that the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."
(DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports 2009-2011)
For example, in our case (510458) the ombudsman completely ignored Monk and Partners' offer - which we had accepted - to carry out repairs to our home and the issue of why they did so in the first place. Surely, wasn't offering to repair our home not a tacit acknowledgement on their part that the original survey was sub-standard? Why offer to fix something if you didn't think it needed fixing?
Instead, the ombudsman chose to ignore this fact - that her fee-paying RICS surveyor had offered to fix something thereby acknowledging the survey was a dud - and focussed her attention on, "what could have been seen during a survey."
Yet on one of his re-inspections Mr Monk saw what should have been seen during the original survey, offered to carry out repairs and then didn't only for his ombudsman to come to the bewildering conclusion that she couldn't be sure, "what could have been seen during a survey."
But it's already been seen by her fee-paying Member!
In order to attempt to clarify this apparent confusion we asked for an independent re-survey only for this request to be refused by the ombudsman.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the logic behind this simple and straightforward - the ombudsman was under pressure from RICS the regulator to resolve complaints effectively and in order to comply with this directive the ombudsman worked to save her fee-paying Member from having to pay for expensive repairs?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 23 October 2016
The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner (1). (542)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 542.
542) The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner. (1)
Dear Mr Clark,
The robust methodology employed by DJS Research in their Customer Satisfaction Reports for their client, Ombudsman Services, led to the startling revelation that the OS:Property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."
(DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report 2010)
On page 7 of the 2010 Annual Property Report: "Final Results" DJS state;
"Many (around 6 in 10) felt the report was completely or on balance against them, as in line with previous years. This did not change even after further representations were made. This is unlike other ombudsman services like Otelo or the Energy ombudsman where typically most feel the report finds in their favour."
Why is there this remarkable discrepancy between the Property ombudsman's decisions and those of the Otelo ombudsman's and the Energy ombudsman's?
Why are the latters' decisions logical and the former's illogical and why are the latter two able to find in favour of complainants but the former not?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believe its due to;
(a) Money and
(b) the regulator - the RICS' - Memorandum of Understanding and what RICS say the effective resolution of disputes must be - ie cheap for their Members.
DJS Research go on to say;
"The financial implications are often much larger (than for Otelo or Energy) as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. This should be looked at and either expectations couls be managed more tightly from the beginning of the claim or the scale of 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 Annual Property Report 2010)
In effect, the financial implications of sub-standard surveys and the expensive purchasing decisions clients make based on them, are being passed - thanks to the ombudsman's amazing ability to arrive at decisions in an illogical manner - from the surveyor to the surveyor's client - the complainant.
That, for us, is the logic behind the illogicality of the Property ombudsman's decisions, otherwise logic dictates that they would be in line with those of her colleagues, but they aren't.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't this form of rigged redress corrupt and when are you going to step up and implement the Prime Minister's Plan to challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature - Ombudsman Services:Property?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 542.
542) The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner. (1)
Dear Mr Clark,
The robust methodology employed by DJS Research in their Customer Satisfaction Reports for their client, Ombudsman Services, led to the startling revelation that the OS:Property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."
(DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report 2010)
On page 7 of the 2010 Annual Property Report: "Final Results" DJS state;
"Many (around 6 in 10) felt the report was completely or on balance against them, as in line with previous years. This did not change even after further representations were made. This is unlike other ombudsman services like Otelo or the Energy ombudsman where typically most feel the report finds in their favour."
Why is there this remarkable discrepancy between the Property ombudsman's decisions and those of the Otelo ombudsman's and the Energy ombudsman's?
Why are the latters' decisions logical and the former's illogical and why are the latter two able to find in favour of complainants but the former not?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believe its due to;
(a) Money and
(b) the regulator - the RICS' - Memorandum of Understanding and what RICS say the effective resolution of disputes must be - ie cheap for their Members.
DJS Research go on to say;
"The financial implications are often much larger (than for Otelo or Energy) as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. This should be looked at and either expectations couls be managed more tightly from the beginning of the claim or the scale of 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 Annual Property Report 2010)
In effect, the financial implications of sub-standard surveys and the expensive purchasing decisions clients make based on them, are being passed - thanks to the ombudsman's amazing ability to arrive at decisions in an illogical manner - from the surveyor to the surveyor's client - the complainant.
That, for us, is the logic behind the illogicality of the Property ombudsman's decisions, otherwise logic dictates that they would be in line with those of her colleagues, but they aren't.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't this form of rigged redress corrupt and when are you going to step up and implement the Prime Minister's Plan to challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature - Ombudsman Services:Property?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 20 October 2016
The Ombudsman Services:Property Approach To Information. (540)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 540.
540) The Ombudsman Services:Property Approach to Information.
(would seem to be to hide it, twist it, distort it, ignore it, refute it and generally abuse it.)
Dear Mr Clark,
In, "Procedural and Practice Issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us that,
"information provided by the bodies being investigated was often accepted at face value."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citien-activists.)
This was most certainly true when it came to the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, her fee-paying Member and our complaint about him. However, not all the information was made available to us, the interesting bits were obtained through a Data Protection Act request.
This fee-paying Member's messages are already part of some of our earlier blogs but we've referred to them once again along with three questions we attempted to ask Prof Dame Janet Finch, the Chair of Ombudsman Services as they serve to illustrate what the two researchers are saying above: that when it comes to information, the relationship between the ombudsman/investigating officer and their Member and the one between ombudsman/investigating officer and the complainant are qualitatively very different.
So much for the Level Playing Field. It's a modern-day myth.
The day robber baron Phillip Green sells his yacht for a £1, just like he did BHS, is the day we'll begin to have a level playing field and it'll make shopping in Poundland even more exciting than it already is. Who knows, OS:Property might actually begin to investigate consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently" and take the time to carefully consider the information placed in front of them instead of arriving at a predetermined outcome as they do now.
We tried asking the chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch the following three questions;
"Q 87: Is it not the case that the very people who finance the system set it up this way?
It is a matter for concern that the ombudsman did not think to disclose Monk and Partners' statements to me.
I ask you, was it not the duty of the ombudsman, as set out in the Terms of Reference 8.6 -
that, 'In handling complaints, carrying out investigations and reaching any Final decision; (as provided here under)
(a) to proceed fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice.
(b) to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances having regard for principles of law, good practice, equitable conduct and good administration.
(e) to have regard for any applicable rule of law, the terms of a relevant contract, any relevant judicial authority or regulatory provision, any relevant codes of conduct or practice, any guidance of a general nature given by the Council and what is in the ombudsman's opinion best practice in handling complaints, and,
(f) to give reasons for any decisions made or conclusion reached?
Q. 88: I asked the ombudsman: was agreeing to carry out essential repairs to our home not a tacit acceptance that the original survey was not of a satisfactory standard?
I didn't get an answer from the ombudsman.
Q. 89: I asked the Independent Assessor to comment on the professional integrity of Monk and Partners give the ombudsman's statement that:
"I did not look at the photographs." And, "Your view seems to be that external photographs taken without express permission are somehow inadmissible because they amount to evidence gathered in a suspect way."
(But Mr Monk had previously stated he would not come to our home again!)
I pointed out to the Independent Assessor that I knew what I thought, but then I'm not the ombudsman. I knew that a teacher standing outside a pupil's home photographing it would be in serious trouble but that the same standards did not seem to apply to certain surveyors.
The ombudsman had the evidence but seems to have seen nothing wrong with this.
The Independent Assessor's response was;
"The Terms of Reference of the service, which can be downloaded from the website, provide that the procedure for the conduct of an investigation will be such as the ombudsman considers appropriate subject, in brief, to the duty to proceed fairly, to make reasoned decisions, not to disclose details of a complaint except in certain circumstances, and to have regard for any rule of law, contract, code of conduct."
That is not what the Terms of Reference say.
7.3 is quite specific on the matter - it states;
'7.3: Information passed to the ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure."
(We never got reasons justifying the non-disclosure of Mr Monk's messages to the investigating officer from anyone at the company - so, in effect, the complainant will never know what's being said behind their back unless they resort to a Data Protection Act request which in itself makes a mockery of TOR 7.3 and TOR 8.6 and the company's ludicrous claim to be both, "fair" and "independent." They simply do the bidding of their fee-paying Members. It's rigged redress.)
Professor Dame Janet Finch did not answer our questions.
No-one at the company answered our questions.
Those managers who've captured capitalism have erected a Trump-like wall across the half-way line of The Level Playing Field. It effectively restricts access to justice and leaves complainants banging their head against a brick wall.
Q. Mr Clark, we are told by the Prime Minister that she has a plan that will mean Government stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests. When are you going to step up, challenge the RICS/Ombudsman Services:Property's vested interests and right the wrongs of the its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 540.
540) The Ombudsman Services:Property Approach to Information.
(would seem to be to hide it, twist it, distort it, ignore it, refute it and generally abuse it.)
Dear Mr Clark,
In, "Procedural and Practice Issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us that,
"information provided by the bodies being investigated was often accepted at face value."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citien-activists.)
This was most certainly true when it came to the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, her fee-paying Member and our complaint about him. However, not all the information was made available to us, the interesting bits were obtained through a Data Protection Act request.
This fee-paying Member's messages are already part of some of our earlier blogs but we've referred to them once again along with three questions we attempted to ask Prof Dame Janet Finch, the Chair of Ombudsman Services as they serve to illustrate what the two researchers are saying above: that when it comes to information, the relationship between the ombudsman/investigating officer and their Member and the one between ombudsman/investigating officer and the complainant are qualitatively very different.
So much for the Level Playing Field. It's a modern-day myth.
The day robber baron Phillip Green sells his yacht for a £1, just like he did BHS, is the day we'll begin to have a level playing field and it'll make shopping in Poundland even more exciting than it already is. Who knows, OS:Property might actually begin to investigate consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently" and take the time to carefully consider the information placed in front of them instead of arriving at a predetermined outcome as they do now.
We tried asking the chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch the following three questions;
"Q 87: Is it not the case that the very people who finance the system set it up this way?
It is a matter for concern that the ombudsman did not think to disclose Monk and Partners' statements to me.
I ask you, was it not the duty of the ombudsman, as set out in the Terms of Reference 8.6 -
that, 'In handling complaints, carrying out investigations and reaching any Final decision; (as provided here under)
(a) to proceed fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice.
(b) to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances having regard for principles of law, good practice, equitable conduct and good administration.
(e) to have regard for any applicable rule of law, the terms of a relevant contract, any relevant judicial authority or regulatory provision, any relevant codes of conduct or practice, any guidance of a general nature given by the Council and what is in the ombudsman's opinion best practice in handling complaints, and,
(f) to give reasons for any decisions made or conclusion reached?
Q. 88: I asked the ombudsman: was agreeing to carry out essential repairs to our home not a tacit acceptance that the original survey was not of a satisfactory standard?
I didn't get an answer from the ombudsman.
Q. 89: I asked the Independent Assessor to comment on the professional integrity of Monk and Partners give the ombudsman's statement that:
"I did not look at the photographs." And, "Your view seems to be that external photographs taken without express permission are somehow inadmissible because they amount to evidence gathered in a suspect way."
(But Mr Monk had previously stated he would not come to our home again!)
I pointed out to the Independent Assessor that I knew what I thought, but then I'm not the ombudsman. I knew that a teacher standing outside a pupil's home photographing it would be in serious trouble but that the same standards did not seem to apply to certain surveyors.
The ombudsman had the evidence but seems to have seen nothing wrong with this.
The Independent Assessor's response was;
"The Terms of Reference of the service, which can be downloaded from the website, provide that the procedure for the conduct of an investigation will be such as the ombudsman considers appropriate subject, in brief, to the duty to proceed fairly, to make reasoned decisions, not to disclose details of a complaint except in certain circumstances, and to have regard for any rule of law, contract, code of conduct."
That is not what the Terms of Reference say.
7.3 is quite specific on the matter - it states;
'7.3: Information passed to the ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure."
(We never got reasons justifying the non-disclosure of Mr Monk's messages to the investigating officer from anyone at the company - so, in effect, the complainant will never know what's being said behind their back unless they resort to a Data Protection Act request which in itself makes a mockery of TOR 7.3 and TOR 8.6 and the company's ludicrous claim to be both, "fair" and "independent." They simply do the bidding of their fee-paying Members. It's rigged redress.)
Professor Dame Janet Finch did not answer our questions.
No-one at the company answered our questions.
Those managers who've captured capitalism have erected a Trump-like wall across the half-way line of The Level Playing Field. It effectively restricts access to justice and leaves complainants banging their head against a brick wall.
Q. Mr Clark, we are told by the Prime Minister that she has a plan that will mean Government stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests. When are you going to step up, challenge the RICS/Ombudsman Services:Property's vested interests and right the wrongs of the its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 19 October 2016
When Is An Investigation Not An Investigation? (539)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 539.
539) When Is An Investigation Not An Investigation?
When it's an Ombudsman Services:Property investigation that's when.
Dear Mr Clark,
In, "Procedural and Practice Issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill have this to say about ombudsman investigations;
"some participants queried the robustness of ombudsman schemes' investigation process, noting that they were desk-based, 'paper exercises' and insufficiently inquisitorial. They compared unfavourably to other administrative investigations such as those involving fraud, which had robust methodologies. Information provided by the bodies being challenged, even where it was asserted that the complainant had been able to provide irrefutable contradictory evidence."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
We provided Gillian Fleming the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman with our own irrefutable contradictory evidence - photographs taken by us and our roofer - and she promptly refuted it coming to the extraordinary conclusion that she couldn't be sure that they were actually photographs of our home!
I often pay roofers to put roofs on my neighbours' homes, it's a failing I have.
To say that the ombudsman bent over backwards to accommodate her fee-paying Member is understating it somewhat - she was positively double jointed when it came to helping him slither off the hook.
We did try, unsuccessfully, to challenge this ludicrous decision by asking for an independent re-survey which would have verified what we had said (as was our right) only to be told that if she, The Ombudsman, had considered this necessary she would have asked for one at the time.
Every piece of evidence we presented her with was summarily dismissed.
It seems that in England these days The Ombudsman has become both judge and jury, which in the scheme of things makes them far more powerful than judges.
This is what we mean when we say that rigged markets have now successfully developed rigged, "social justice" to bat off consumers' complaints. This RICS appointed scheme is not social and it most certainly isn't just.
Q. Mr Clark, we were told by the Prime Minister that she has a plan that will mean Government stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests. When are you going to step up, challenge the RICS/Ombudsman Services:Property vested interests and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 539.
539) When Is An Investigation Not An Investigation?
When it's an Ombudsman Services:Property investigation that's when.
Dear Mr Clark,
In, "Procedural and Practice Issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill have this to say about ombudsman investigations;
"some participants queried the robustness of ombudsman schemes' investigation process, noting that they were desk-based, 'paper exercises' and insufficiently inquisitorial. They compared unfavourably to other administrative investigations such as those involving fraud, which had robust methodologies. Information provided by the bodies being challenged, even where it was asserted that the complainant had been able to provide irrefutable contradictory evidence."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
We provided Gillian Fleming the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman with our own irrefutable contradictory evidence - photographs taken by us and our roofer - and she promptly refuted it coming to the extraordinary conclusion that she couldn't be sure that they were actually photographs of our home!
I often pay roofers to put roofs on my neighbours' homes, it's a failing I have.
To say that the ombudsman bent over backwards to accommodate her fee-paying Member is understating it somewhat - she was positively double jointed when it came to helping him slither off the hook.
We did try, unsuccessfully, to challenge this ludicrous decision by asking for an independent re-survey which would have verified what we had said (as was our right) only to be told that if she, The Ombudsman, had considered this necessary she would have asked for one at the time.
Every piece of evidence we presented her with was summarily dismissed.
It seems that in England these days The Ombudsman has become both judge and jury, which in the scheme of things makes them far more powerful than judges.
This is what we mean when we say that rigged markets have now successfully developed rigged, "social justice" to bat off consumers' complaints. This RICS appointed scheme is not social and it most certainly isn't just.
Q. Mr Clark, we were told by the Prime Minister that she has a plan that will mean Government stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests. When are you going to step up, challenge the RICS/Ombudsman Services:Property vested interests and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)