To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 438.
438) Ombudsman Services: "Where have all the statistics gone, long time passing?"
Dear Mr Javid,
It stands to reason that if you want to know how well you're performing you need to ask questions, gather evidence, collate the evidence statistically and then understand it and act upon it ,if or where, necessary.
As Ombudsman Services are in the business of resolving consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently" you would think it only reasonable that they took the time to ask us what, "our experience of the customer journey was." Smooth? Bumpy? Or just one long car crash?
But they no longer take the trouble to do so even though they told the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that they would.
Previously, DJS Research had reported;
"10.41: When Members were asked about satisfaction levels with the SOS satisfaction levels were low with just over half dissatisfied with accepting complaints when appropriate, training/guidance on compiling a case file, efficiency of handling the case file and speed of case resolution."
We complained to the Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, about just that. We were kept waiting 226 days for Monk and Partners to carry out the works to our home, they didn't. Monk and Partners had not compiled a case file or handled it efficiently, their agreement with us wasn't put in writing and that sloppiness could only work t the benefit of Monk and Partners.
The Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, steadfastly maintained the fiction that we had waited almost a year before complaining when a letter we'd photocopied clearly indicated that this was not the case. She could not be budged and held onto the absurd notion that we'd sat around doing nothing for almost a year when the evidence placed in front of her clearly stated otherwise.
We asked Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of Ombudsman Services that when DJS Research's Member Survey had highlighted case files as being a key area where performance could be improved;
"Q 96: Would this (the requirement to maintain a proper case file) not help to improve performance? Or would RICS Members simply refuse to countenance such a proposal?"
The professor didn't reply.
Q. Mr Javid, if RICS surveyors like Mr Monk of Monk and Partners are incapable of doing something as basic as maintain a case file does this not also call into question their competency to carry out surveys to an acceptable and professional standard and should this failing not be the subject of a public inquiry?
Yors sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 29 January 2016
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
George Osborne's, "Major Success." (437)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 437.
437) George Osborne's "Major Success."
Success - the achieving of the results wanted or hoped for.
- something that achieves positive results.
Antonyms: failure, poverty.
Dear Mr Javid,
Clearly, this was the result Google had hoped for and proved to be a very positive result for them. Having a tax bill backdated to 2005 by HMRC which resulted in the company coughing up £130 million was indeed a major success - for them.
But a disastrous failure for the UK taxpayer - a poverty of political policy.
The press, for once, seemed to be in complete disagreement with Geowge:
"David Cameron distances himself from George Osborne's claim of major success over tax back payments." (Telegraph, 2 days ago)
"Google tax avoidance and George Osborne's Soviet-style 'victory.'" (International Business Times, 12 hours ago)
"Google tax deal - George Osborne fails to attend Commons...'Disrespectful' George Osborne blasted after failing to defend 'paltry' Google tax...George Osborne hailed the Google deal as a 'major success' but.." (www.express.co.uk 2 days ago)
"George Osborne faces Google tax quiz as furious MPs...George Osborne faces tax quiz as furious MPs demand answers." (www.mirror.co.uk)
It seems that one rich man's "major success" is countless millions' poverty.
When Google say, "Don't Be Evil," they appear to be talking the same language as the chancellor - nonsense. One article suggests that last year alone, Google should have paid £1 billion in tax and had they played fair it would have gone a long way in helping to pay for a 24hr 7 day a week NHS.
There would have been no need for the bedroom tax.
Q. Mr Javid, how many properties in London did Google executives purchase thanks to the chancellor's largesse and just where do all those unpaid taxes find a home?
Stefan Stern's article for IB Times seemed to sum up this "major success" succinctly when he wrote;
"This was a victory for the government, the chancellor declared. I hope we never get to see what a defeat looks like."
There was also an accompanying picture of the chancellor in his next job - feeding pizzas into a giant oven with Stefan Stern asking - did he help cook the Google tax receipts?
We won't know the answer to that one because the HMRC details remain "confidential" but it now seems that the loony left have officially been well and truly replaced by the rabid right.
Which in turn brings us full circle and back to the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services and their, "close and continuing relationship" with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The executives of this private redress scheme are able to maladminister so-called, "civil justice" safe in the knowledge that their governmental partners will refuse all Freedom of Information Act requests also on the grounds of "confidentiality." Those seeking the truth as to what really is happening to British "justice" face an uphill struggle.
Like those unable to afford the bedroom tax.
Property portfolios for the rich poverty for the poor.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that instead of democracy we now have a gang of criminals conspiring to defraud the people of billions of pounds of unpaid taxes, laundering that money through the unregulated London property market and off-shore tax havens whilst fobbing the rest of us off with privatised, non-transparent or accountable, "civil justice" - in short: government has created a shady place for shady people?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 437.
437) George Osborne's "Major Success."
Success - the achieving of the results wanted or hoped for.
- something that achieves positive results.
Antonyms: failure, poverty.
Dear Mr Javid,
Clearly, this was the result Google had hoped for and proved to be a very positive result for them. Having a tax bill backdated to 2005 by HMRC which resulted in the company coughing up £130 million was indeed a major success - for them.
But a disastrous failure for the UK taxpayer - a poverty of political policy.
The press, for once, seemed to be in complete disagreement with Geowge:
"David Cameron distances himself from George Osborne's claim of major success over tax back payments." (Telegraph, 2 days ago)
"Google tax avoidance and George Osborne's Soviet-style 'victory.'" (International Business Times, 12 hours ago)
"Google tax deal - George Osborne fails to attend Commons...'Disrespectful' George Osborne blasted after failing to defend 'paltry' Google tax...George Osborne hailed the Google deal as a 'major success' but.." (www.express.co.uk 2 days ago)
"George Osborne faces Google tax quiz as furious MPs...George Osborne faces tax quiz as furious MPs demand answers." (www.mirror.co.uk)
It seems that one rich man's "major success" is countless millions' poverty.
When Google say, "Don't Be Evil," they appear to be talking the same language as the chancellor - nonsense. One article suggests that last year alone, Google should have paid £1 billion in tax and had they played fair it would have gone a long way in helping to pay for a 24hr 7 day a week NHS.
There would have been no need for the bedroom tax.
Q. Mr Javid, how many properties in London did Google executives purchase thanks to the chancellor's largesse and just where do all those unpaid taxes find a home?
Stefan Stern's article for IB Times seemed to sum up this "major success" succinctly when he wrote;
"This was a victory for the government, the chancellor declared. I hope we never get to see what a defeat looks like."
There was also an accompanying picture of the chancellor in his next job - feeding pizzas into a giant oven with Stefan Stern asking - did he help cook the Google tax receipts?
We won't know the answer to that one because the HMRC details remain "confidential" but it now seems that the loony left have officially been well and truly replaced by the rabid right.
Which in turn brings us full circle and back to the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services and their, "close and continuing relationship" with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The executives of this private redress scheme are able to maladminister so-called, "civil justice" safe in the knowledge that their governmental partners will refuse all Freedom of Information Act requests also on the grounds of "confidentiality." Those seeking the truth as to what really is happening to British "justice" face an uphill struggle.
Like those unable to afford the bedroom tax.
Property portfolios for the rich poverty for the poor.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that instead of democracy we now have a gang of criminals conspiring to defraud the people of billions of pounds of unpaid taxes, laundering that money through the unregulated London property market and off-shore tax havens whilst fobbing the rest of us off with privatised, non-transparent or accountable, "civil justice" - in short: government has created a shady place for shady people?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
"There are lies, damn lies and ...oops, who lost the statistics?" (436)
To The Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 436
436) "There are lies, damn lies and ... oops, who lost the statistics?"
Dear Mr Javid,
Under Dame Janet Finch's apparently unimpeachable chairmanship of Ombudsman Services, statistical evidence of the company's performance in handling consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently" has all but vanished from the face of the earth.
So no-one, apart from those maladministrating the scheme, has the remotest notion as to what's going on at this state of the art dumping ground for RICS' troublesome and costly dissatisfied clients.
We asked Prof. Finch,
"Why are no statistics provided in the Annual Report detailing how many RICS Member Firms have been reported to RICS Member Board for breaches of the Rules of Conduct?"
Unfortunately, we didn't get an answer to that one either.
Q. Mr Javid, don't you agree that if league tables for schools' performance is such a good idea, then league tables for RICS surveyors' performance is equally as good, if not better?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 436
436) "There are lies, damn lies and ... oops, who lost the statistics?"
Dear Mr Javid,
Under Dame Janet Finch's apparently unimpeachable chairmanship of Ombudsman Services, statistical evidence of the company's performance in handling consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently" has all but vanished from the face of the earth.
So no-one, apart from those maladministrating the scheme, has the remotest notion as to what's going on at this state of the art dumping ground for RICS' troublesome and costly dissatisfied clients.
We asked Prof. Finch,
"Why are no statistics provided in the Annual Report detailing how many RICS Member Firms have been reported to RICS Member Board for breaches of the Rules of Conduct?"
Unfortunately, we didn't get an answer to that one either.
Q. Mr Javid, don't you agree that if league tables for schools' performance is such a good idea, then league tables for RICS surveyors' performance is equally as good, if not better?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 14 January 2016
"Tories vote down law requiring landlords make their homes fit for human habitation." (435)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 435.
435) "Tories vote down law requiring landlords make their homes fit for human habitation." (www.independent.co.uk)
Dear Mr Javid,
We see that you were among the 73 MPs who chose to vote down Labour MP Karen Buck's sensible and humane amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill and yet are all in the privileged deriving an income of over £10.000 per annum from property.
The Prime Minister, David "don't make me look like a prat for not knowing how many houses I've got" Cameron, made a complete prat of himself by doing likewise.
What a squalid decision to condemn others far less fortunate than yourself to live in squalid homes not fit for human habitation on the incredibly squalid grounds that the new law would result in "unnecessary" regulation.
"Unnecessary" regulation?
It seems you chose not to heed the advice of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and its maladministrators at Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) who, when developing a code of best practice for landlords expected landlords such as yourself. "to perform better in the area of repairs" and who on doing so help those who aspire to live in a decent, vermin free and dry home, to do so.
It comes to something when the RICS, a regulator who can't or won't regulate its Members and Regulated Firms, and its "appointed" company OS:P whose executives maladminister consumers' complaints, input a code of practice with government so as to put pressure on landlords such as yourself to do the decent thing when it comes to the poor and vulnerable in our society, only for you to vote down a Labour Party amendment aimed at achieving just that on the pathetic grounds that it would incur "unnecessary" legislation.
Politicians inhumanity to others makes countless millions weep.
Clearly, as is the case with the RICS and its colossal regulatory failure, the present system does not work. Certainly not for those with a vested interest in not making it work. It doesn't work for the clients of RICS accredited surveyors and it doesn't work to the tenants of certain landlords.
So congratulations Mr Javid, you've just voted to take politics back to the Rachman era of the 1950's thus trumping Mr Corbyn by twenty if not thirty years.
Q. Mr Javid, is "unnecessary" regulation, regulation that if implemented would eat into the profits of inefficient badly run businesses - so isn't - and therefore eats into the health and incomes of the rest of us because, as we know, in a society in which we are all in it together, efficient, well run businesses wouldn't need regulating in the first place?
Q. Mr Javid, the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is full of good ideas - why not drag politics out of the 1950's and into the modern world and bar MPs with huge vested interests in property from voting on housing matters? I
It's sensible and democratic so you'll probably not like it.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 435.
435) "Tories vote down law requiring landlords make their homes fit for human habitation." (www.independent.co.uk)
Dear Mr Javid,
We see that you were among the 73 MPs who chose to vote down Labour MP Karen Buck's sensible and humane amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill and yet are all in the privileged deriving an income of over £10.000 per annum from property.
The Prime Minister, David "don't make me look like a prat for not knowing how many houses I've got" Cameron, made a complete prat of himself by doing likewise.
What a squalid decision to condemn others far less fortunate than yourself to live in squalid homes not fit for human habitation on the incredibly squalid grounds that the new law would result in "unnecessary" regulation.
"Unnecessary" regulation?
It seems you chose not to heed the advice of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and its maladministrators at Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) who, when developing a code of best practice for landlords expected landlords such as yourself. "to perform better in the area of repairs" and who on doing so help those who aspire to live in a decent, vermin free and dry home, to do so.
It comes to something when the RICS, a regulator who can't or won't regulate its Members and Regulated Firms, and its "appointed" company OS:P whose executives maladminister consumers' complaints, input a code of practice with government so as to put pressure on landlords such as yourself to do the decent thing when it comes to the poor and vulnerable in our society, only for you to vote down a Labour Party amendment aimed at achieving just that on the pathetic grounds that it would incur "unnecessary" legislation.
Politicians inhumanity to others makes countless millions weep.
Clearly, as is the case with the RICS and its colossal regulatory failure, the present system does not work. Certainly not for those with a vested interest in not making it work. It doesn't work for the clients of RICS accredited surveyors and it doesn't work to the tenants of certain landlords.
So congratulations Mr Javid, you've just voted to take politics back to the Rachman era of the 1950's thus trumping Mr Corbyn by twenty if not thirty years.
Q. Mr Javid, is "unnecessary" regulation, regulation that if implemented would eat into the profits of inefficient badly run businesses - so isn't - and therefore eats into the health and incomes of the rest of us because, as we know, in a society in which we are all in it together, efficient, well run businesses wouldn't need regulating in the first place?
Q. Mr Javid, the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is full of good ideas - why not drag politics out of the 1950's and into the modern world and bar MPs with huge vested interests in property from voting on housing matters? I
It's sensible and democratic so you'll probably not like it.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 13 January 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property - "Changes for the better." (434)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 434.
434) Ombudsman Services:Property - "Changes for the better."
Dear Mr Javid,
T
he 2014-15 slimmed down OS:Property Annual Report has a section where it talks about, "Changes for the better," and in which the consumer is told that;
"Ahead of the legislative change, we worked closely with leading property organisations to input into a best practice code for the private rental industry. The Code, developed at the request of DCLG and facilitated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) , was intended to put pressure on landlords to perform better in areas such as repair and maintenance, terminating tenancies and honesty when advertising properties."
Back in 2013, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) through its, "engagement work" and "political influencing" got your predecessor at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Vince Cable, to "fix" the letting market. Their;
"RICS Member Briefing - lobbying Vince Cable to fix the letting industry.... to urge him to accept a new clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill," painted a grim picture of a clear potential;
"for rogue lettings agents to cash in on the current rental boom due to a combination of consumers' low expectations and a total lack of effective regulation."
Like us, the RICS have a campaign. Theirs is to;
"raise standards across the rental sector."
Ours is for a public inquiry into the RICS and its very own total lack of effective regulation of its very own Members and (Un)Regulated Firms. We want to raise standards across the surveying sector.
Why are rogues who can't or won't regulate their own rogue traders but who manipulate legislation to regulate rogue traders elsewhere allowed to get away with it. If you're going to be hypocritical then be totally hypocritical and the RICS duly oblige. With truly nauseating, self indulgent indignation they tell the world and his dog how exasperated they are at having for so;
"long campaigned for reform of the letting agent sector - achieving better regulation of the sector and eliminating the, "cowboys."
But someone had to grit their teeth, roll up their sleeves and do it. How public spirited and noble of them
Don't reach for the sick bucket quite yet as there's more of the same to come;
"There are too many corrupt agents who are taking advantage of the current gap in regulation, putting consumers at risk."
Putting consumers at risk!
This is pretty remarkable stuff coming from an organisation once described by the now defunct Consumer Focus as;
"having developed practices which do not work in the customer's interests."
Practices which have their origin in the RICS,
"apparent inability to adequately regulate their Members or Regulated Firms."
Alan Bennett - unlike the RICS - gets it right first time when he says England is better than all the rest at hypocrisy.
Unable to facilitate the adequate regulation of their own members - we and Christopher Hamer seem to be the only people asking why this been allowed to happen - they were, however, able input a best practice code for the private rental sector at the behest of the DCLG (Department for Communities) which is why we copy these emails to The Rt. Hon Greg Clarke who Chairs the Committee.
We've long and patiently campaigned for reform of the private surveying sector and have even asked for Parliamentary accreditation so that we - like the RICS- can;
"undertake a great deal of influencing work - both publically and behind the scenes - to drive home the need for change to Government and policy makers."
"Drive home the need for change" and "change for the better," it seems that the RICS are writing the OS:Property script - and why not, it is their private redress company after all.
For some inexplicable reason our passes have yet to arrive.
Q. Mr Javid, could we please have our passes so that we might level the playing field and do some behind the scenes influencing work of our own to drive home the need to change Government policy and input a best practice code for the private surveying sector?
Here's a brief history of influencing and engagement work:
- In the time we've been campaigning for a public inquiry into the workings of OS:Property and the role of the RICS, the RICS have been criticised by one branch of Government, Consumer Focus, for its failure to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms.
- That section of Government was then promptly closed down.
- Another Government Department the OFT, who approved and monitored the RICS "appointed" scheme then informed us that even more questions would be asked by BMG Research than were asked by DJS Research so that the OFT could continue to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme they'd approved on behalf of the taxpayer.
- We then discovered that this hasn't happened since DJS left in 2011. and that
- We then learnt that the OFT was itself shut down on April 1st 2014 and that all the time we've been writing to your Department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to complain about the RICS and its "appointed" company the SOS (now rebranded as OS:Property) its maladministrators have been working behind the scenes with your Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government on inputting a best practice code for the letting sector and the interpretation and implementation of the EU Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution or (ADR).
Q. Mr Javid, why are the RICS so incredibly successful at influencing Government Ministers, politicians and civil servants and yet so inept at regulating their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and why are you Greg Clark working so closely with individuals who maladminister private redress but who are still at liberty to input codes of best practice in "civil liberty?"
We'd like to run this one up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it:
Corrupt government officials are working behind the scenes with maladministrators to criminally exploit taxpayers and that conspiracy theorists now have a new theory to work on.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 434.
434) Ombudsman Services:Property - "Changes for the better."
Dear Mr Javid,
T
he 2014-15 slimmed down OS:Property Annual Report has a section where it talks about, "Changes for the better," and in which the consumer is told that;
"Ahead of the legislative change, we worked closely with leading property organisations to input into a best practice code for the private rental industry. The Code, developed at the request of DCLG and facilitated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) , was intended to put pressure on landlords to perform better in areas such as repair and maintenance, terminating tenancies and honesty when advertising properties."
Back in 2013, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) through its, "engagement work" and "political influencing" got your predecessor at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Vince Cable, to "fix" the letting market. Their;
"RICS Member Briefing - lobbying Vince Cable to fix the letting industry.... to urge him to accept a new clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill," painted a grim picture of a clear potential;
"for rogue lettings agents to cash in on the current rental boom due to a combination of consumers' low expectations and a total lack of effective regulation."
Like us, the RICS have a campaign. Theirs is to;
"raise standards across the rental sector."
Ours is for a public inquiry into the RICS and its very own total lack of effective regulation of its very own Members and (Un)Regulated Firms. We want to raise standards across the surveying sector.
Why are rogues who can't or won't regulate their own rogue traders but who manipulate legislation to regulate rogue traders elsewhere allowed to get away with it. If you're going to be hypocritical then be totally hypocritical and the RICS duly oblige. With truly nauseating, self indulgent indignation they tell the world and his dog how exasperated they are at having for so;
"long campaigned for reform of the letting agent sector - achieving better regulation of the sector and eliminating the, "cowboys."
But someone had to grit their teeth, roll up their sleeves and do it. How public spirited and noble of them
Don't reach for the sick bucket quite yet as there's more of the same to come;
"There are too many corrupt agents who are taking advantage of the current gap in regulation, putting consumers at risk."
Putting consumers at risk!
This is pretty remarkable stuff coming from an organisation once described by the now defunct Consumer Focus as;
"having developed practices which do not work in the customer's interests."
Practices which have their origin in the RICS,
"apparent inability to adequately regulate their Members or Regulated Firms."
Alan Bennett - unlike the RICS - gets it right first time when he says England is better than all the rest at hypocrisy.
Unable to facilitate the adequate regulation of their own members - we and Christopher Hamer seem to be the only people asking why this been allowed to happen - they were, however, able input a best practice code for the private rental sector at the behest of the DCLG (Department for Communities) which is why we copy these emails to The Rt. Hon Greg Clarke who Chairs the Committee.
We've long and patiently campaigned for reform of the private surveying sector and have even asked for Parliamentary accreditation so that we - like the RICS- can;
"undertake a great deal of influencing work - both publically and behind the scenes - to drive home the need for change to Government and policy makers."
"Drive home the need for change" and "change for the better," it seems that the RICS are writing the OS:Property script - and why not, it is their private redress company after all.
For some inexplicable reason our passes have yet to arrive.
Q. Mr Javid, could we please have our passes so that we might level the playing field and do some behind the scenes influencing work of our own to drive home the need to change Government policy and input a best practice code for the private surveying sector?
Here's a brief history of influencing and engagement work:
- In the time we've been campaigning for a public inquiry into the workings of OS:Property and the role of the RICS, the RICS have been criticised by one branch of Government, Consumer Focus, for its failure to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms.
- That section of Government was then promptly closed down.
- Another Government Department the OFT, who approved and monitored the RICS "appointed" scheme then informed us that even more questions would be asked by BMG Research than were asked by DJS Research so that the OFT could continue to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme they'd approved on behalf of the taxpayer.
- We then discovered that this hasn't happened since DJS left in 2011. and that
- We then learnt that the OFT was itself shut down on April 1st 2014 and that all the time we've been writing to your Department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to complain about the RICS and its "appointed" company the SOS (now rebranded as OS:Property) its maladministrators have been working behind the scenes with your Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government on inputting a best practice code for the letting sector and the interpretation and implementation of the EU Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution or (ADR).
Q. Mr Javid, why are the RICS so incredibly successful at influencing Government Ministers, politicians and civil servants and yet so inept at regulating their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and why are you Greg Clark working so closely with individuals who maladminister private redress but who are still at liberty to input codes of best practice in "civil liberty?"
We'd like to run this one up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it:
Corrupt government officials are working behind the scenes with maladministrators to criminally exploit taxpayers and that conspiracy theorists now have a new theory to work on.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 12 January 2016
"Changes" David Bowie. (433)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 433.
433) "Changes" David Bowie.
Ch - ch- ch - ch changes
Ne - ne - ne - ne needed
De - de - de - de desperately
Dear Mr Javid,
David Bowie asks,
"Where's your shame,
You've left us up to our necks in it."
Clearly, the executives of Ombudsman Services have no shame when they engage in the maladministration of consumers' complaints or when they replaced DJS Research with BMG Research and thereby attempted to draw a veil over their shameful performance in investigating property complaints fairly.
DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report is fascinating - but don't take our word for it, we're not ombudsmen we're campaigners, instead why not go to: www.ombudsman-services.org and type "DJS Research" into the box provided to see for yourself.
Anyone reading this email/blog is more than welcome to do the same - it might ch - change you.
You'll find that the contrast between the Complainant's experience and that of the Member, couldn't be starker:
Complainants:
"1.9: Only about a half satisfied with friendliness, helpfulness, knowledge, understanding, reliability and authority to deal with the problem. This is likely to reflect the high proportion
who felt the outcome of the case went against them."
Members:
"1.17: When members were asked about satisfaction with Ombudsman Services:Property satisfaction levels were high with no dissatisfaction with efficiency of handling a case and ease of contacting the ombudsman.
1.20: We asked members about their satisfaction about the Provisional Conclusion Report ... and all satisfied with the accuracy of content and readability."
Q. Mr Javid, are the differing customer journeys experienced by the Members and their dissatisfied clients explained by the simple fact that the guilty pay for the judge and jury's salary whilst the innocent don't and that that leaves the latter up to their necks in it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 433.
433) "Changes" David Bowie.
Ch - ch- ch - ch changes
Ne - ne - ne - ne needed
De - de - de - de desperately
Dear Mr Javid,
David Bowie asks,
"Where's your shame,
You've left us up to our necks in it."
Clearly, the executives of Ombudsman Services have no shame when they engage in the maladministration of consumers' complaints or when they replaced DJS Research with BMG Research and thereby attempted to draw a veil over their shameful performance in investigating property complaints fairly.
DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report is fascinating - but don't take our word for it, we're not ombudsmen we're campaigners, instead why not go to: www.ombudsman-services.org and type "DJS Research" into the box provided to see for yourself.
Anyone reading this email/blog is more than welcome to do the same - it might ch - change you.
You'll find that the contrast between the Complainant's experience and that of the Member, couldn't be starker:
Complainants:
"1.9: Only about a half satisfied with friendliness, helpfulness, knowledge, understanding, reliability and authority to deal with the problem. This is likely to reflect the high proportion
who felt the outcome of the case went against them."
Members:
"1.17: When members were asked about satisfaction with Ombudsman Services:Property satisfaction levels were high with no dissatisfaction with efficiency of handling a case and ease of contacting the ombudsman.
1.20: We asked members about their satisfaction about the Provisional Conclusion Report ... and all satisfied with the accuracy of content and readability."
Q. Mr Javid, are the differing customer journeys experienced by the Members and their dissatisfied clients explained by the simple fact that the guilty pay for the judge and jury's salary whilst the innocent don't and that that leaves the latter up to their necks in it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 11 January 2016
Forging Civil Justice: Ombudsman Services - Now Too Big To Fail? (432)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 432.
432) Forging Civil Justice: Ombudsman Services - Now Too Big To Fail?
Dear Mr Javid,
Ombudsman Services with its close and continuing relationship with government , has grown at an alarming rate. They state;
"Over the past three years we have grown at pace. In the last year we have opened a new office, migrated the majority of our cases onto a new case management system, set up new schemes and added to the strength of the executive team."
(Forward from the Chair: Ombudsman Services Annual Report 2014-15)
But the Chairman made no mention of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by her Ombudsman and Investigating Officers as they migrated the majority of property cases to the waste paper bin.
She made no mention of her company's failure to heed DJS Research's disturbing revelation that the majority of complainants though the reports they received were completely against them or that the financial "awards" that some of them eventually received were derisory.
The Chairman also gave no explanation as to why DJS Research were replaced by another company who no longer ask complainants if they are satisfied with the, "fairness" and "reasonableness" of the outcome of their cases. And certainly not if they though they were arrived at in a logical manner or if they were satisfied with the financial "award."
In this rapidly changing consumer landscape she doesn't say why data on complainants' views on the processing of their cases was no longer being collated and published.
The Professor of Sociology didn't offer an explanation for the trend identified by DJS Research which stated that across all areas of complainants' satisfaction levels they had measured how they'd worsened year after year after year - from 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Nor did she offer an explanation for why this alarming trend is no longer documented or reported on by the new researchers. Or what they actually do research into is not made available for the public to scrutinise. Or why BMG Research lump: Energy, Communications and property all into one brief and largely congratulatory report.
What the consumer is told is that the new telephone surveys are an amazing improvement on what went before and that this;
"enabled more robust and detailed feedback, permitting a more finely grained analysis of our customers' views."
A more finely grained analysis?
Why not judge the grain for yourselves and if you succeed in unearthing a grain of truth in anything they say please share it with us. It goes against the grain to say it but we believe that you'll find that a difficult thing to as there appears to be nothing there to actually analyse. With DJS Research you were actually able to see the questions they asked and what the responses from complainants to their customer journey - in the vast majority of cases they were highly critical.
Where are the questions BMG Research asked when telephoning customers? Surely there was a script? Where is the data? We couldn't find it perhaps you'll have more luck. With DJS Research there was a well documented paper trail. With BMG Research's telephone chats there isn't. Which is probably the point of them. The finger prints are being wiped from the scene of the crime.
"Mrs C from Gravesend was delighted when her roof fell off the day after she moved in and was moved to rears when awarded £100. She can't recommend Ombudsman Services:Property highly enough."
In their 2011-12 Ombudsman Services Annual report (p27) the executives state under: Customer Satisfaction Report that;
"The key characteristics of the customer satisfaction reports are interviewing by telephone... while the service experience is fresh in customers' minds....Quarterly interviewing will allow trends to be identified throughout the year and will provide evidence of whether service improvements are being recognised by customers."
The statement continues,
"And sampling to ensure that the views of different customer groups are captured, both in terms of sector (energy, communications, property) and service received."
It seems that there were 335 telephone interviews. We're then told that;
"The findings were split by sector. Both quantitative data and associated verbatim comments showed largely positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Services. Results were consistent by sector."
As there are three sectors - energy/communications/property - then you would expect there to be three consistent sets of statistics.
Only there aren't.
If you go to, "Positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction" you'll see under, "Early responses" - that there are statistics for communications: (76% and (85%) and energy: (74%) and (82%) respectively, but absolutely nothing for property. So you don't know if the results were consistent after all. Not an auspicious start for the new research company - or did they collect the data and it was too dreadful to publish?
They would appear to have lifted the grain.
The trend established by DJS Research - one of widespread customer dissatisfaction with the shambolic "investigation" of their complaints by an Ombudsman and Investigating Officers who struggled and failed to cope with the complexity of property disputes - has been successfully broken by the executives. The bad news would appear to be deliberately being removed from the record. This is what maladministrators do - they maladministrate. Otherwise it would have been different - like DJS Research with their thorough, professional and highly critical Customer Satisfaction Reports.
As Chairman and Professor of Sociology, Dame Janet Finch would surely have known this was going on. How does this new trend of vanishing data equate with her pledge that in providing a first class service of dispute resolution she would be;
"accessible, honest, effective and efficient?"
The maladministration of consumers' complaints might be effective and efficient but in what way is it honest and how does it give property complainants access to the new, "civil justice" being doled out by this private redress company? It doesn't. And it seems that the executives are determined the knowledge that it doesn't from complainants.
The challenge of handling consumers' complaints about the property sector, "fairly" and "transparently" is clearly beyond them and this failure to deliver civil justice to those seeking it must surely now be the subject of a public inquiry.
Once again, this time in the 2011-12 Annual Report the ombudsman is forced to admit that;
"The complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge and something Ombudsman Services:Property has addressed by developing expertise across the business and introducing a new approach to reports. We have worked with the enquiry team to improve their knowledge so that they can understand the complexity of property complaints. The new style reports are successful because if companies or complainants challenge the report it is not necessarily because they can't or don't understand it."
This is a remarkable statement.
It isn't only the enquiry team who need to have their knowledge improved and this was pointed out for three consecutive years by DJS Research when they said that a majority of complainants were very dissatisfied with the, "fairness" and "reasonableness" of reports and that the conclusions contained within them have not been arrived at in a logical manner.
To claim that reports are now a success because complainants can actually read how illogical they are we think begins to show the extent of the problem consumers have with this company.
We ask you - would you fly in an airplane piloted by an individual whose only training was that they'd successfully assembled an Airfix kit of Fokker E11?
How many dissatisfied customers challenge the new style readable reports? We don't know because the company won't say.
The departure of DJS Research heralded a new era in the customer journey. First class carriages were replaced and customers shivered as they were cattle-trucked through the ever changing consumer landscape to their inevitable destination, a head on collision with the buffers that signalled their journey's end. But the trends that DJS had identified, continued. Most notably in the areas of the illogicality of the Ombudsman's decisions and what the company euphemistically describe as financial "awards."
The statistical evidence detailing this trend in the Ombudsman significantly lowering financial awards to complainants quickly disappeared after DJS Research were replaced by BMG Research.
See for yourselves.
If you go to page 59 of the Ombudsman Service 201-12 Annual Report you will see the very last financial breakdown of how the property Ombudsman distributed these so-called awards. By the way, they once told complainants that there was a £25K maximum pay-out. They don't anymore.
There were 525 complaints in 2011-12 which potentially could have meant the company's members having to foot a bill of £13.125.000. However, only 299 were deemed to have deserved a financial award lowering the maximum possible pay out to about £6.475.000. From the figures they provided and taking an average for each band we calculate that the company - on behalf of their fee-paying members - spent their money very wisely indeed. They handed out about £260.000. Over a decade that would equate to a bill of £131M being reduced to £2.6M.
Good for business. Bad for consumers.
The trend continued and by the following year there were 589 complaints handled by the team. The new MAS system (Mutually Agreed Settlements) was a total flop with only 6% of complainants agreeing at an early stage a settlement with the surveyor they were complaining about, leaving 94% to be determined by the members' Ombudsman. Yet although the overwhelming evidence was to the contrary the Ombudsman, as we saw above, maintained that this was a "success." 94% of complainants would disagree.
For the first time there was no breakdown of these financial "awards."
We tried to complain to Jonathan May, Executive Director of the OFT about this and received the following response;
Head of ERCC OFT our ref EPIC/ENQ/138617
Date 8th Feb 2013:
"You have queried OSP's (Ombudsman Services:Property's) decision to commission a new company to conduct future customer satisfaction surveys on its behalf. The fact that the surveys are being conducted by a different company would not necessarily be a matter of concern for the OFT, provided the data continues to be sourced independently and provide the information we require in order to monitor the effectiveness of the company. I have investigated this matter and understand OSP has confirmed that the new company will ask the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OSP website. Should we have any concerns about the surveys conducted by the new company, we will raise these directly with OSP."
Q. Mr Javid, there are no surveys. If you go to: www.ombudsman-services.org and type/key, "BMG Research" into the box provided you will get one document - "12 May 2012" click on it and it takes you straight back to Ombudsman Services Annual Report. Why is there no survey?
Q. Mr Javid, there were no surveys for 2012/2013/2014 and 2015. Was this to hide the escalating trend of complainant dissatisfaction with the decisions reached in their cases and the ever decreasing financial "awards" that some of them received as a result of their problem?
Q. Mr Javid, the OFT clearly didn't have the information they required in order to monitor the effectiveness of the company. What - on behalf of the UK taxpayer - were they actually monitoring?
Q. Mr Javid, at the same time as the government was not monitoring the effectiveness of OSP (Ombudsman Services:Property) your department was working closely with Prof. Dame Janet Finch and her team on the EU Directive on ADR. Why were you working closely with a company that didn't have the information required by the OFT to monitor its effectiveness?
Q. Mr Javid, why was government allowing complainants - taxpayers - to take complex and costly property disputes to a company which was apparently the widespread complainant dissatisfaction with the way their complaints were being mishandled by an Ombudsman and Investigating officers who didn't have the necessary skills to handle complex property disputes?
Mr Javid, is this not criminal and corrupt?
It seems that once again that consumers are becoming victims to;
"A government hostage to the City of London, private property and public loss, fat cats and rogue traders, howls of outrage and demands for retribution and regulation combining mercantile, industrial and financial capitalism a vast appetite for Empire ...the East India Company was far too big to be allowed to fail."
A read of the Ombudsman Services executives' various statements over the years reveals that the maladministrators at the company developed an insatiable appetite for empire and monopoly, with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills working behind the scenes with them to facilitate it.
In the 2014 OS Annual Report under, "The Changing Consumer Landscape" Prof. Dame Janet Finch tells us,
"We have been cooperating with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on the interpretation, development and implementation of the directive which must be transposed into law."
Q. Mr Javid, just how big a problem is maladministration at Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr Javid, is the maladministration a recent development or has it been going on since the beginning?
Q. Mr Javid, where in the EU Directive does it say that the maladministration of consumers' complaints is lawful?
Q.Mr Javid, is maladministration of consumers' complaints Conservative Government policy and is to be transposed into the law and civil justice of the land?
What we are witnessing is the development of a monopoly in private "civil justice" at a time when regulators can't or won't regulate but who, with government approval, are left free to appoint company executives to determine what is and isn't "civil justice" and what is "proportionate" compensation. Executives who appear to regard 21st century of transparency and accountability as an avoidable option and who resort to the simple expedient of no longer collecting data on their performance in maladministering consumers' complaints.
Statistics can't lie when there aren't any.
The advocates and practitioners of the new "civil justice" seem well versed in the age old traditions their rights to what once was simply known as "justice."
John Premble writes,
"There was corporate laxity and iniquity."
Q. Mr Javid, what could be more lax or iniquitous than a company engaged in bogus private redress maladministering complaints and calling the process, "civil justice."
Ian Klaus' book describes a consumer landscape of;
"low, confidence tricksters, ever more ingenious and plausible simulated trustworthiness."
Ombudsmen are fast becoming the snake-oil salesmen of early 21st century rigged market capitalism. They increasingly appear to play a vital role in helping inefficient and poorly regulated businesses pass on the cost that inefficiency to the consumer.
Ombudsmen, according to Prof. Dame Janet Finch, promote justice and along the way they decide without the need to debate the issues on the floor of the House of Commons, what price inadequately regulated businesses should pay consumers in, "redress." Justice has been sub-contracted out to private companies who because they are private have no legal requirement to comply with the Freedom of Information Act requests. The unit cost of redress for a member firm won't be very much. Why? Because ideologically Ombudsman Services believe its their economic function to, "add real value to our members' business practices," and that won't be achieved by awarding consumers "punitive" damages.
Parliament granted RICS its Royal Charter way back in 1881. In return it was expected to;
"Promote the usefulness of the profession for the public advantage."
Instead, it has become what Ian Klaus would describe as a bogus institution packed with confidence tricksters ever more ingenuous and plausible who simulate trustworthiness with their claims to set a benchmark, worldwide, gold standard in regulation and regulatory compliance and whose role is "to offer consumer protection" but who - when push comes to shove;
"cannot award compensation or force (our) members and Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules or Regulations."
With one hand they offer consumers protection and with the other they snatch it away.
Unable or unwilling to offer consumers protection themselves, The RICS, in turn have sub-contracted that responsibility out to their "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property - whilst maintaining the fiction that their "appointed" company's Ombudsman is "entirely independent." The RICS members sitting on the Board, the Memorandum of Understanding that exists between the parent company and its offspring and the requirement of the Ombudsman liaise regularly with head office over the issue of the "effective resolution of complaints" suggests otherwise.
We thought we'd run this up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it:
The RICS have developed practices that do not work in the customer's interests and by inadequately regulating their members have created a revenue source from OS:P's effective resolution of the resulting complaints.
It's an up-market version of the short-con pea under the shell routine, combined with some smoke and mirrors and a few well chosen words of magic and hey presto they've convinced you that civil justice is hiding under the new MAS, the new finely grained analysis or the new telephone interviews but no matter how hard you look you just aren't going to find it.
Why has RICS gone to all this trouble?
Perhaps Christopher Hamer has the answer when he asks the very simple question;
"Why not stop things going wrong in the first place?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 432.
432) Forging Civil Justice: Ombudsman Services - Now Too Big To Fail?
Dear Mr Javid,
Ombudsman Services with its close and continuing relationship with government , has grown at an alarming rate. They state;
"Over the past three years we have grown at pace. In the last year we have opened a new office, migrated the majority of our cases onto a new case management system, set up new schemes and added to the strength of the executive team."
(Forward from the Chair: Ombudsman Services Annual Report 2014-15)
But the Chairman made no mention of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by her Ombudsman and Investigating Officers as they migrated the majority of property cases to the waste paper bin.
She made no mention of her company's failure to heed DJS Research's disturbing revelation that the majority of complainants though the reports they received were completely against them or that the financial "awards" that some of them eventually received were derisory.
The Chairman also gave no explanation as to why DJS Research were replaced by another company who no longer ask complainants if they are satisfied with the, "fairness" and "reasonableness" of the outcome of their cases. And certainly not if they though they were arrived at in a logical manner or if they were satisfied with the financial "award."
In this rapidly changing consumer landscape she doesn't say why data on complainants' views on the processing of their cases was no longer being collated and published.
The Professor of Sociology didn't offer an explanation for the trend identified by DJS Research which stated that across all areas of complainants' satisfaction levels they had measured how they'd worsened year after year after year - from 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Nor did she offer an explanation for why this alarming trend is no longer documented or reported on by the new researchers. Or what they actually do research into is not made available for the public to scrutinise. Or why BMG Research lump: Energy, Communications and property all into one brief and largely congratulatory report.
What the consumer is told is that the new telephone surveys are an amazing improvement on what went before and that this;
"enabled more robust and detailed feedback, permitting a more finely grained analysis of our customers' views."
A more finely grained analysis?
Why not judge the grain for yourselves and if you succeed in unearthing a grain of truth in anything they say please share it with us. It goes against the grain to say it but we believe that you'll find that a difficult thing to as there appears to be nothing there to actually analyse. With DJS Research you were actually able to see the questions they asked and what the responses from complainants to their customer journey - in the vast majority of cases they were highly critical.
Where are the questions BMG Research asked when telephoning customers? Surely there was a script? Where is the data? We couldn't find it perhaps you'll have more luck. With DJS Research there was a well documented paper trail. With BMG Research's telephone chats there isn't. Which is probably the point of them. The finger prints are being wiped from the scene of the crime.
"Mrs C from Gravesend was delighted when her roof fell off the day after she moved in and was moved to rears when awarded £100. She can't recommend Ombudsman Services:Property highly enough."
In their 2011-12 Ombudsman Services Annual report (p27) the executives state under: Customer Satisfaction Report that;
"The key characteristics of the customer satisfaction reports are interviewing by telephone... while the service experience is fresh in customers' minds....Quarterly interviewing will allow trends to be identified throughout the year and will provide evidence of whether service improvements are being recognised by customers."
The statement continues,
"And sampling to ensure that the views of different customer groups are captured, both in terms of sector (energy, communications, property) and service received."
It seems that there were 335 telephone interviews. We're then told that;
"The findings were split by sector. Both quantitative data and associated verbatim comments showed largely positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Services. Results were consistent by sector."
As there are three sectors - energy/communications/property - then you would expect there to be three consistent sets of statistics.
Only there aren't.
If you go to, "Positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction" you'll see under, "Early responses" - that there are statistics for communications: (76% and (85%) and energy: (74%) and (82%) respectively, but absolutely nothing for property. So you don't know if the results were consistent after all. Not an auspicious start for the new research company - or did they collect the data and it was too dreadful to publish?
They would appear to have lifted the grain.
The trend established by DJS Research - one of widespread customer dissatisfaction with the shambolic "investigation" of their complaints by an Ombudsman and Investigating Officers who struggled and failed to cope with the complexity of property disputes - has been successfully broken by the executives. The bad news would appear to be deliberately being removed from the record. This is what maladministrators do - they maladministrate. Otherwise it would have been different - like DJS Research with their thorough, professional and highly critical Customer Satisfaction Reports.
As Chairman and Professor of Sociology, Dame Janet Finch would surely have known this was going on. How does this new trend of vanishing data equate with her pledge that in providing a first class service of dispute resolution she would be;
"accessible, honest, effective and efficient?"
The maladministration of consumers' complaints might be effective and efficient but in what way is it honest and how does it give property complainants access to the new, "civil justice" being doled out by this private redress company? It doesn't. And it seems that the executives are determined the knowledge that it doesn't from complainants.
The challenge of handling consumers' complaints about the property sector, "fairly" and "transparently" is clearly beyond them and this failure to deliver civil justice to those seeking it must surely now be the subject of a public inquiry.
Once again, this time in the 2011-12 Annual Report the ombudsman is forced to admit that;
"The complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge and something Ombudsman Services:Property has addressed by developing expertise across the business and introducing a new approach to reports. We have worked with the enquiry team to improve their knowledge so that they can understand the complexity of property complaints. The new style reports are successful because if companies or complainants challenge the report it is not necessarily because they can't or don't understand it."
This is a remarkable statement.
It isn't only the enquiry team who need to have their knowledge improved and this was pointed out for three consecutive years by DJS Research when they said that a majority of complainants were very dissatisfied with the, "fairness" and "reasonableness" of reports and that the conclusions contained within them have not been arrived at in a logical manner.
To claim that reports are now a success because complainants can actually read how illogical they are we think begins to show the extent of the problem consumers have with this company.
We ask you - would you fly in an airplane piloted by an individual whose only training was that they'd successfully assembled an Airfix kit of Fokker E11?
How many dissatisfied customers challenge the new style readable reports? We don't know because the company won't say.
The departure of DJS Research heralded a new era in the customer journey. First class carriages were replaced and customers shivered as they were cattle-trucked through the ever changing consumer landscape to their inevitable destination, a head on collision with the buffers that signalled their journey's end. But the trends that DJS had identified, continued. Most notably in the areas of the illogicality of the Ombudsman's decisions and what the company euphemistically describe as financial "awards."
The statistical evidence detailing this trend in the Ombudsman significantly lowering financial awards to complainants quickly disappeared after DJS Research were replaced by BMG Research.
See for yourselves.
If you go to page 59 of the Ombudsman Service 201-12 Annual Report you will see the very last financial breakdown of how the property Ombudsman distributed these so-called awards. By the way, they once told complainants that there was a £25K maximum pay-out. They don't anymore.
There were 525 complaints in 2011-12 which potentially could have meant the company's members having to foot a bill of £13.125.000. However, only 299 were deemed to have deserved a financial award lowering the maximum possible pay out to about £6.475.000. From the figures they provided and taking an average for each band we calculate that the company - on behalf of their fee-paying members - spent their money very wisely indeed. They handed out about £260.000. Over a decade that would equate to a bill of £131M being reduced to £2.6M.
Good for business. Bad for consumers.
The trend continued and by the following year there were 589 complaints handled by the team. The new MAS system (Mutually Agreed Settlements) was a total flop with only 6% of complainants agreeing at an early stage a settlement with the surveyor they were complaining about, leaving 94% to be determined by the members' Ombudsman. Yet although the overwhelming evidence was to the contrary the Ombudsman, as we saw above, maintained that this was a "success." 94% of complainants would disagree.
For the first time there was no breakdown of these financial "awards."
We tried to complain to Jonathan May, Executive Director of the OFT about this and received the following response;
Head of ERCC OFT our ref EPIC/ENQ/138617
Date 8th Feb 2013:
"You have queried OSP's (Ombudsman Services:Property's) decision to commission a new company to conduct future customer satisfaction surveys on its behalf. The fact that the surveys are being conducted by a different company would not necessarily be a matter of concern for the OFT, provided the data continues to be sourced independently and provide the information we require in order to monitor the effectiveness of the company. I have investigated this matter and understand OSP has confirmed that the new company will ask the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OSP website. Should we have any concerns about the surveys conducted by the new company, we will raise these directly with OSP."
Q. Mr Javid, there are no surveys. If you go to: www.ombudsman-services.org and type/key, "BMG Research" into the box provided you will get one document - "12 May 2012" click on it and it takes you straight back to Ombudsman Services Annual Report. Why is there no survey?
Q. Mr Javid, there were no surveys for 2012/2013/2014 and 2015. Was this to hide the escalating trend of complainant dissatisfaction with the decisions reached in their cases and the ever decreasing financial "awards" that some of them received as a result of their problem?
Q. Mr Javid, the OFT clearly didn't have the information they required in order to monitor the effectiveness of the company. What - on behalf of the UK taxpayer - were they actually monitoring?
Q. Mr Javid, at the same time as the government was not monitoring the effectiveness of OSP (Ombudsman Services:Property) your department was working closely with Prof. Dame Janet Finch and her team on the EU Directive on ADR. Why were you working closely with a company that didn't have the information required by the OFT to monitor its effectiveness?
Q. Mr Javid, why was government allowing complainants - taxpayers - to take complex and costly property disputes to a company which was apparently the widespread complainant dissatisfaction with the way their complaints were being mishandled by an Ombudsman and Investigating officers who didn't have the necessary skills to handle complex property disputes?
Mr Javid, is this not criminal and corrupt?
It seems that once again that consumers are becoming victims to;
"A government hostage to the City of London, private property and public loss, fat cats and rogue traders, howls of outrage and demands for retribution and regulation combining mercantile, industrial and financial capitalism a vast appetite for Empire ...the East India Company was far too big to be allowed to fail."
A read of the Ombudsman Services executives' various statements over the years reveals that the maladministrators at the company developed an insatiable appetite for empire and monopoly, with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills working behind the scenes with them to facilitate it.
In the 2014 OS Annual Report under, "The Changing Consumer Landscape" Prof. Dame Janet Finch tells us,
"We have been cooperating with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on the interpretation, development and implementation of the directive which must be transposed into law."
Q. Mr Javid, just how big a problem is maladministration at Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr Javid, is the maladministration a recent development or has it been going on since the beginning?
Q. Mr Javid, where in the EU Directive does it say that the maladministration of consumers' complaints is lawful?
Q.Mr Javid, is maladministration of consumers' complaints Conservative Government policy and is to be transposed into the law and civil justice of the land?
What we are witnessing is the development of a monopoly in private "civil justice" at a time when regulators can't or won't regulate but who, with government approval, are left free to appoint company executives to determine what is and isn't "civil justice" and what is "proportionate" compensation. Executives who appear to regard 21st century of transparency and accountability as an avoidable option and who resort to the simple expedient of no longer collecting data on their performance in maladministering consumers' complaints.
Statistics can't lie when there aren't any.
The advocates and practitioners of the new "civil justice" seem well versed in the age old traditions their rights to what once was simply known as "justice."
John Premble writes,
"There was corporate laxity and iniquity."
Q. Mr Javid, what could be more lax or iniquitous than a company engaged in bogus private redress maladministering complaints and calling the process, "civil justice."
Ian Klaus' book describes a consumer landscape of;
"low, confidence tricksters, ever more ingenious and plausible simulated trustworthiness."
Ombudsmen are fast becoming the snake-oil salesmen of early 21st century rigged market capitalism. They increasingly appear to play a vital role in helping inefficient and poorly regulated businesses pass on the cost that inefficiency to the consumer.
Ombudsmen, according to Prof. Dame Janet Finch, promote justice and along the way they decide without the need to debate the issues on the floor of the House of Commons, what price inadequately regulated businesses should pay consumers in, "redress." Justice has been sub-contracted out to private companies who because they are private have no legal requirement to comply with the Freedom of Information Act requests. The unit cost of redress for a member firm won't be very much. Why? Because ideologically Ombudsman Services believe its their economic function to, "add real value to our members' business practices," and that won't be achieved by awarding consumers "punitive" damages.
Parliament granted RICS its Royal Charter way back in 1881. In return it was expected to;
"Promote the usefulness of the profession for the public advantage."
Instead, it has become what Ian Klaus would describe as a bogus institution packed with confidence tricksters ever more ingenuous and plausible who simulate trustworthiness with their claims to set a benchmark, worldwide, gold standard in regulation and regulatory compliance and whose role is "to offer consumer protection" but who - when push comes to shove;
"cannot award compensation or force (our) members and Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules or Regulations."
With one hand they offer consumers protection and with the other they snatch it away.
Unable or unwilling to offer consumers protection themselves, The RICS, in turn have sub-contracted that responsibility out to their "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property - whilst maintaining the fiction that their "appointed" company's Ombudsman is "entirely independent." The RICS members sitting on the Board, the Memorandum of Understanding that exists between the parent company and its offspring and the requirement of the Ombudsman liaise regularly with head office over the issue of the "effective resolution of complaints" suggests otherwise.
We thought we'd run this up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it:
The RICS have developed practices that do not work in the customer's interests and by inadequately regulating their members have created a revenue source from OS:P's effective resolution of the resulting complaints.
It's an up-market version of the short-con pea under the shell routine, combined with some smoke and mirrors and a few well chosen words of magic and hey presto they've convinced you that civil justice is hiding under the new MAS, the new finely grained analysis or the new telephone interviews but no matter how hard you look you just aren't going to find it.
Why has RICS gone to all this trouble?
Perhaps Christopher Hamer has the answer when he asks the very simple question;
"Why not stop things going wrong in the first place?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 7 January 2016
Campaign Against OS:Property - "Ombudsmen Promote Justice" Prof. Finch. Chairman Ombudsman Services. (430)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign at www.blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 430.
430) "Ombudsmen Promote Justice" Prof Finch, Chairman Ombudsman Services.
Dear Mr Javid,
In her, "Forward From The Chairman" Prof. Finch makes the claim that, "Ombudsmen promote justice."
She provides no evidence with which to support that statement. Evidence has become a scarce commodity at Ombudsman Services since she became Chair.
After having carefully studied DJS Research's surveys this must have an exceedingly difficult conclusion for a Professor of Sociology to have arrived at. She would have had to have read them as part of her role as Chairman.
But why not judge for yourself? How fair-minded and objective are you?
Just read their reports - go to www.ombudsman-services.org and type, "DJS Research" into the box provided and there they are. We've quoted from: Property Ombudsman - Customer Sat Report 2011.
Under, "Provisional Conclusion Report," DJS Research say,
"7.28: We asked about satisfaction with various aspects of the provisional conclusion report. In keeping with the trend throughout this complainants' section, satisfaction levels dropped in all areas relating to the general content of the provisional conclusion report this was also the case when focussing on the conclusions of the report."
And,
"7.29: The number satisfied with the readability fell to 58% in 2011from 65% in 2010, likewise, the number satisfied with the accuracy of the report (34%) and its recommendations (30%) fell from the 2010 of (40%) and (34%) respectively." (page32)
The conclusion anyone with unimpeachable integrity is likely to arrive at is that the majority of complainants are dissatisfied with the conclusions of reports, that they are not accurate and that their recommendations are not accepted.
Q. As Chairman, what conclusions would you have reached and actions would you have taken?
So, of 428 cases "investigated" by the ombudsman in 2010/11, 273 were dissatisfied with the accuracy of the report and 300 were dissatisfied with their report's recommendations.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that these statistics would suggest that far from promoting justice, ombudsmen actively promote injustice?
Q. Mr Javid, when are you going to act to protect complainants from this injustice?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 430.
430) "Ombudsmen Promote Justice" Prof Finch, Chairman Ombudsman Services.
Dear Mr Javid,
In her, "Forward From The Chairman" Prof. Finch makes the claim that, "Ombudsmen promote justice."
She provides no evidence with which to support that statement. Evidence has become a scarce commodity at Ombudsman Services since she became Chair.
After having carefully studied DJS Research's surveys this must have an exceedingly difficult conclusion for a Professor of Sociology to have arrived at. She would have had to have read them as part of her role as Chairman.
But why not judge for yourself? How fair-minded and objective are you?
Just read their reports - go to www.ombudsman-services.org and type, "DJS Research" into the box provided and there they are. We've quoted from: Property Ombudsman - Customer Sat Report 2011.
Under, "Provisional Conclusion Report," DJS Research say,
"7.28: We asked about satisfaction with various aspects of the provisional conclusion report. In keeping with the trend throughout this complainants' section, satisfaction levels dropped in all areas relating to the general content of the provisional conclusion report this was also the case when focussing on the conclusions of the report."
And,
"7.29: The number satisfied with the readability fell to 58% in 2011from 65% in 2010, likewise, the number satisfied with the accuracy of the report (34%) and its recommendations (30%) fell from the 2010 of (40%) and (34%) respectively." (page32)
The conclusion anyone with unimpeachable integrity is likely to arrive at is that the majority of complainants are dissatisfied with the conclusions of reports, that they are not accurate and that their recommendations are not accepted.
Q. As Chairman, what conclusions would you have reached and actions would you have taken?
So, of 428 cases "investigated" by the ombudsman in 2010/11, 273 were dissatisfied with the accuracy of the report and 300 were dissatisfied with their report's recommendations.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that these statistics would suggest that far from promoting justice, ombudsmen actively promote injustice?
Q. Mr Javid, when are you going to act to protect complainants from this injustice?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Campaign Against OS:Property - "Dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules." (429)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 429.
429) "Dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules."
(President Obama)
Dear Mr Javid,
Barack Obama summed up in one sentence what's taken us 429 Attempts At Being Clearer And More Specific (and which has still got us nowhere - apparently) when he said,
"We've created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules."
The President of the United States of America (USA) could have been describing the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the way it cavalierly makes up Rules and Regulations which it doesn't enforce and who then use a supposedly independent ombudsman whose salary is paid for by the very members RICS can't or won't regulate to sort out the resulting carnage. Its own Independent Assessor then exposes maladministration at this RICS "appointed" private redress scheme for who she no longer works.
It really is a different set of rules when an Independent Assessor who exposes maladministration has no job but those who are responsible for that maladministration carry on regardless.
That's dangerous.
What's even more dangerous is that those responsible for the maladministration are left totally free to make up the rules.
When no-one in government - on behalf of the UK taxpayer - regulates the regulators those "regulators" are then left totally free to decide what the rules are, they're also free to decide what is and isn't, "fair" and "reasonable" and they're free to decide what compensation their "independent" ombudsman might hand out - a bit like distributing Maundy money on Maundy Thursday.
For example;
"Yet there are 70 million potential complaints which are never made...each one a risk to the trust and confidence on which our economy and society depends."
(Dame Janet Finch: Forward From The Chairman - Annual Report 2014/15, page 3)
Q. Mr Javid, is not maladministration of consumer complaints by private ombudsmen not the ultimate risk to the trust and confidence on which our economy and society depends?
Q. Mr Javid, this is dangerous so why haven't you done anything about it?
Another example;
"Thousands of companies place their trust in Alternative Dispute Resolution providers to make fair and reasoned decisions. ADR is an important part of the civil justice system."
(Dame Janet Finch - page 3)
Q. Mr Javid, when DJS Research say two thirds of complainants - and importantly not companies - felt the report was completely against them then isn't there clearly a massive issue of consumer trust in private ADR providers to make, "fair" and "reasoned" decisions?
Q. Mr Javid, when combined with maladministration isn't this also dangerous?
Q. Mr Javid, when the foundations of "civil justice" are built on an ombudsman's appalling decisions, derisory "financial awards," maladministration and OS executives' propaganda isn't this extremely dangerous for our economy and society?
Or,
"By considering the particular needs of the vulnerable in society, by considering wider issues of consumer detriment and by defining what is fair and reasonable, ombudsmen promote justice."
(Dame Janet Finch - page 3)
Q. Mr Javid, how does handing a vulnerable person a report that is completely against them and maladministrating it just for good measure - alleviating consumer detriment?
Q. Mr Javid, in a fair and just society isn't it insanely dangerous to allow ombudsmen who maladminister consumers' complaints to define what is, "fair" and "reasonable?"
Q. Mr javid, how do ombudsmen who engage in maladministration and then hand two thirds of complainants reports that are completely against them - promoting justice?
Barack Obama believes that;
"All of us need a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby's lies."
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that,;
"All of us need a Parliament brave enough to stand up to the RICS/OS:Property lobby's lies."
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 429.
429) "Dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules."
(President Obama)
Dear Mr Javid,
Barack Obama summed up in one sentence what's taken us 429 Attempts At Being Clearer And More Specific (and which has still got us nowhere - apparently) when he said,
"We've created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules."
The President of the United States of America (USA) could have been describing the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the way it cavalierly makes up Rules and Regulations which it doesn't enforce and who then use a supposedly independent ombudsman whose salary is paid for by the very members RICS can't or won't regulate to sort out the resulting carnage. Its own Independent Assessor then exposes maladministration at this RICS "appointed" private redress scheme for who she no longer works.
It really is a different set of rules when an Independent Assessor who exposes maladministration has no job but those who are responsible for that maladministration carry on regardless.
That's dangerous.
What's even more dangerous is that those responsible for the maladministration are left totally free to make up the rules.
When no-one in government - on behalf of the UK taxpayer - regulates the regulators those "regulators" are then left totally free to decide what the rules are, they're also free to decide what is and isn't, "fair" and "reasonable" and they're free to decide what compensation their "independent" ombudsman might hand out - a bit like distributing Maundy money on Maundy Thursday.
For example;
"Yet there are 70 million potential complaints which are never made...each one a risk to the trust and confidence on which our economy and society depends."
(Dame Janet Finch: Forward From The Chairman - Annual Report 2014/15, page 3)
Q. Mr Javid, is not maladministration of consumer complaints by private ombudsmen not the ultimate risk to the trust and confidence on which our economy and society depends?
Q. Mr Javid, this is dangerous so why haven't you done anything about it?
Another example;
"Thousands of companies place their trust in Alternative Dispute Resolution providers to make fair and reasoned decisions. ADR is an important part of the civil justice system."
(Dame Janet Finch - page 3)
Q. Mr Javid, when DJS Research say two thirds of complainants - and importantly not companies - felt the report was completely against them then isn't there clearly a massive issue of consumer trust in private ADR providers to make, "fair" and "reasoned" decisions?
Q. Mr Javid, when combined with maladministration isn't this also dangerous?
Q. Mr Javid, when the foundations of "civil justice" are built on an ombudsman's appalling decisions, derisory "financial awards," maladministration and OS executives' propaganda isn't this extremely dangerous for our economy and society?
Or,
"By considering the particular needs of the vulnerable in society, by considering wider issues of consumer detriment and by defining what is fair and reasonable, ombudsmen promote justice."
(Dame Janet Finch - page 3)
Q. Mr Javid, how does handing a vulnerable person a report that is completely against them and maladministrating it just for good measure - alleviating consumer detriment?
Q. Mr Javid, in a fair and just society isn't it insanely dangerous to allow ombudsmen who maladminister consumers' complaints to define what is, "fair" and "reasonable?"
Q. Mr javid, how do ombudsmen who engage in maladministration and then hand two thirds of complainants reports that are completely against them - promoting justice?
Barack Obama believes that;
"All of us need a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby's lies."
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that,;
"All of us need a Parliament brave enough to stand up to the RICS/OS:Property lobby's lies."
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 6 January 2016
Campaign Against Property-Ombudsman: "Our People Are Highly Skilled." (428)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 428.
428) "Our People Are Highly Skilled."
Dear Mr Javid,
The Ombudsman Services' executives claim that their, "People Are Highly Skilled" but as we've tried to show in Attempt (427), DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports provide evidence to the contrary.
If you go to www.ombudsman-services.org and type DJS Research into the box provided it will take you to their third and final report. On page 3 they state;
"1.12: However, views were mixed on the ease of access to the Investigating Officer, extent to which they were updated and the extent to which OS:Property attempted to resolve complaints through mediation, negotiation, efficiency of process, speed of process and overall level of service."
However, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith appears not to have actually read the Customer Satisfaction Report and so was able to proclaim;
"This year we successfully managed a significant increase in property complaints."
Q. As Chairman, would you regard high levels of complainant dissatisfaction with the way your company resolved complaints through: a lack of mediation, lack of negotiation, through a lack of efficiency of its processes, through a lack of speed of its processes and an overall high degree of dissatisfaction with the level of service, as -"success?"
The Report continues;
"1.13: However, there was some strong level of strong dissatisfaction with the accuracy of
content and the report's recommendations and aspects surrounding it with nearly half very dissatisfied."
Complainants - taxpayers - take complex property disputes with thousands of pounds at stake to a private company which has been "appointed" by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS - who can't or won't regulate their members adequately) and has been "approved" and monitored" by the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT's Executive Director, Jonathan may, having assured taxpayers that their complaints would be investigated, "speedily," "fairly" and "independently" and what does the complainant actually get?
Investigators who aren't friendly, aren't helpful and who lack the knowledge, understanding or authority to deal with their problems, are slow and who also don't go that extra mile to negotiate or mediate."
Q. As Chairman-with-unimpeachable-integrity, would you say that your people were highly skilled and managed consumers' complaints - "successfully?"
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Jonathan May.
- answers from Vince cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- answers from Dame janet Finch.
- answers from Dame Maggie Jones.
- answers from The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions,
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
How would you Chair this organisation? What would be your priorities? Would you make changes and if so what changes would you make?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 428.
428) "Our People Are Highly Skilled."
Dear Mr Javid,
The Ombudsman Services' executives claim that their, "People Are Highly Skilled" but as we've tried to show in Attempt (427), DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports provide evidence to the contrary.
If you go to www.ombudsman-services.org and type DJS Research into the box provided it will take you to their third and final report. On page 3 they state;
"1.12: However, views were mixed on the ease of access to the Investigating Officer, extent to which they were updated and the extent to which OS:Property attempted to resolve complaints through mediation, negotiation, efficiency of process, speed of process and overall level of service."
However, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith appears not to have actually read the Customer Satisfaction Report and so was able to proclaim;
"This year we successfully managed a significant increase in property complaints."
Q. As Chairman, would you regard high levels of complainant dissatisfaction with the way your company resolved complaints through: a lack of mediation, lack of negotiation, through a lack of efficiency of its processes, through a lack of speed of its processes and an overall high degree of dissatisfaction with the level of service, as -"success?"
The Report continues;
"1.13: However, there was some strong level of strong dissatisfaction with the accuracy of
content and the report's recommendations and aspects surrounding it with nearly half very dissatisfied."
Complainants - taxpayers - take complex property disputes with thousands of pounds at stake to a private company which has been "appointed" by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS - who can't or won't regulate their members adequately) and has been "approved" and monitored" by the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT's Executive Director, Jonathan may, having assured taxpayers that their complaints would be investigated, "speedily," "fairly" and "independently" and what does the complainant actually get?
Investigators who aren't friendly, aren't helpful and who lack the knowledge, understanding or authority to deal with their problems, are slow and who also don't go that extra mile to negotiate or mediate."
Q. As Chairman-with-unimpeachable-integrity, would you say that your people were highly skilled and managed consumers' complaints - "successfully?"
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Jonathan May.
- answers from Vince cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- answers from Dame janet Finch.
- answers from Dame Maggie Jones.
- answers from The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions,
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
How would you Chair this organisation? What would be your priorities? Would you make changes and if so what changes would you make?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 5 January 2016
OS:Property: And We Thought Smith And Jones Were The Good Guys. (427)
To the Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 427.
427) And We Thought Smith And Jones Were The Good Guys.
Dear M Javid,
As we saw in our previous Attempt (426) the Executive Summary of DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report for the Ombudsman Services:Property 2010-11 Annual Report, left out most of the juicy bits and for some reason - known only to themselves - Lewis Shand Smith and Dame Maggie Jones chose not to comment on it.
However, they did say that the Report's,
"results will be used by OS:Property to measure customer service levels and prioritise improvements for the future."
(OS:Property Annual Report 2010-11)
But they said something similar the previous year and then, "reduced financial awards significantly" despite DJS recommending that they be raised significantly.
Our invitation for readers to become Chairmen-with-unimpeachable-integrity appears to be growing in popularity.
Q. As just such a Chairman, if independent advice was to raise the levels of financial awards to be more in line with the losses complainants were actually experiencing, due to the incompetence of RICS surveyors, would you have also lowered them?
Q. Would you have considered that to have been an, "improvement" and if so, for whom?
DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report can be downloaded if you type "DJS Research" into the box at the top of their webpage - www.ombudsman-services.org
If you do you should see a woman sitting in a chair accompanied by the words - "Our People Are Highly Skilled."
DJS Research state,
1.9: Looking specifically at Investigating Officers, views were mixed with only about a half satisfied with the friendliness, helpfulness, knowledge, understanding, reliability and authority to deal with the problem. This likely to reflect the high proportion who felt the outcome of the case went against them.
Q. As Chairman, does that sound like a working definition of a highly skilled worker?
Q. As Chairman, with unimpeachable integrity and no particular axe to grind, would you be satisfied with the situation that found your people not having the requisite knowledge, understanding, reliability or authority to deal with complex property complaints?
Q. As Chairman, and someone who works closely with Lewis Shand Smith and his team, would you agree with him when he says that people who don't appear to have the knowledge, understanding, reliability or authority to investigate complex property complaints, have handled them -"successfully?"
Q. As Chairman, how do you rate the above as a measure of customer service and what would your priorities now be?
Why not be Chairmen-for-the-day, be part of democracy in action and share with the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign your views on just how you would have managed this situation. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 427.
427) And We Thought Smith And Jones Were The Good Guys.
Dear M Javid,
As we saw in our previous Attempt (426) the Executive Summary of DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report for the Ombudsman Services:Property 2010-11 Annual Report, left out most of the juicy bits and for some reason - known only to themselves - Lewis Shand Smith and Dame Maggie Jones chose not to comment on it.
However, they did say that the Report's,
"results will be used by OS:Property to measure customer service levels and prioritise improvements for the future."
(OS:Property Annual Report 2010-11)
But they said something similar the previous year and then, "reduced financial awards significantly" despite DJS recommending that they be raised significantly.
Our invitation for readers to become Chairmen-with-unimpeachable-integrity appears to be growing in popularity.
Q. As just such a Chairman, if independent advice was to raise the levels of financial awards to be more in line with the losses complainants were actually experiencing, due to the incompetence of RICS surveyors, would you have also lowered them?
Q. Would you have considered that to have been an, "improvement" and if so, for whom?
DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report can be downloaded if you type "DJS Research" into the box at the top of their webpage - www.ombudsman-services.org
If you do you should see a woman sitting in a chair accompanied by the words - "Our People Are Highly Skilled."
DJS Research state,
1.9: Looking specifically at Investigating Officers, views were mixed with only about a half satisfied with the friendliness, helpfulness, knowledge, understanding, reliability and authority to deal with the problem. This likely to reflect the high proportion who felt the outcome of the case went against them.
Q. As Chairman, does that sound like a working definition of a highly skilled worker?
Q. As Chairman, with unimpeachable integrity and no particular axe to grind, would you be satisfied with the situation that found your people not having the requisite knowledge, understanding, reliability or authority to deal with complex property complaints?
Q. As Chairman, and someone who works closely with Lewis Shand Smith and his team, would you agree with him when he says that people who don't appear to have the knowledge, understanding, reliability or authority to investigate complex property complaints, have handled them -"successfully?"
Q. As Chairman, how do you rate the above as a measure of customer service and what would your priorities now be?
Why not be Chairmen-for-the-day, be part of democracy in action and share with the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign your views on just how you would have managed this situation. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Monday, 4 January 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property - How Dame Maggie And Lewis Met The Challenge. (426)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 426.
426) How Dame Janet And Lewis Met The Challenge.
Dear Mr Javid,
In our previous email/blog we asked you and our readers to become part-time Chairmen with unimpeachable integrity and to manage the challenge of;
a) a majority of complainants complaining that their complaints had been handled unfairly.
And,
b) the widespread dissatisfaction with the derisory financial "awards" being handed to disgruntled complainants by the Lead Ombudsman.
We should like to thank all those who took the time to respond - unfortunately, Mr Javid, you chose not to.
So, how was the challenge met?
The CEO and Chief Ombudsman, the Rev Lewis Shand Smith wrote in the Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Report 2010/11 about how,
"Firm foundations support increasing complaints." (page 1) And how,
"We successfully managed a significant increase in property complaints and have looked at how we can deal with complaints about a range of property professionals, in the UK and abroad." (page 3)
How successful are they at resolving consumers' complaints?
As part-time Chairmen you will need to read the independent survey carried out by DJS Research Ltd. This is hidden away from the light of day and you will need to type, "DJS Research" into the box at the top right had side of the of the Ombudsman Services webpage - www.ombudsman-services.org - then go to: DJS Research Ltd., James Hinde, Property Ombudsman - Customer Satisfaction Report 2011.
The Report is 134 pages. As Chairmen with unimpeachable integrity you might find that it makes for a depressing and disturbing read.
The Executives at Ombudsman Services:Property, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith and Dame Maggie Jones reduced it all to a few paragraphs on page 7 of their Annual Report. They say,
"Customer Satisfaction Survey: Executives Summary - ' The results will be used by OS:Property to measure customer service levels and prioritise improvements in the future.'"
But didn't they say the same thing the year before?
Then, the priorities for improvement were the ones as set out at the top of this page - to tackle the lack of reasonableness of the Lead Ombudsman's findings and do something about the derisory levels of the Lead Ombudsman's financial awards.
The Property Lead Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming stated,
"'Property cases are usually more time consuming than the other complaints we handle (energy and communications) because they tend to involve complicated issues and a lot of information needs to be considered against the relevant guidance and legal background.' Gillian continues, 'When complaint numbers increase, even slightly, this can have a significant impact on our business. We have therefore trained more staff so we have the flexibility to cope with more cases ...the complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge.'"
So as a business just how well did they cope with the challenge of resolving complex property complaints?
"Successfully," says The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith.
DJS Research beg to differ. They report,
"Many (around two thirds) felt the report was completely, or on balance against them, in line with previous years. This did not change even after further representations were made... many were complaining about poor information/advice which could potentially have led to a costly purchasing mistake far in excess of a few hundred or thousand pounds."
Q. As Chairmen with unimpeachable integrity, would you regard that as a successful resolution of a consumers' disputes with RICS chartered surveyors?
Q. Is the reason why a majority of consumers were forced - unsuccessfully - to resort to further representations due to the Chief Ombudsman's and Lead Ombudsman's failure to understand the complexity of property complaints?
Q. What sort of business is the Chair, Chief Ombudsman and Lead Ombudsman engaged in?
The second challenge the Labour Peer looked forward to meeting with The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith and his team was that of complainants' widespread dissatisfaction with the low level of financial awards. How did they meet that one?
DJS Research state,
"OS:Property is different to OS:Energy and OS:Communications in that the financial implications of complaints are much larger as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. There remains a key issue with regards to complainants' perceptions of of what recompense to expect (ie the scale of financial award they can expect from the complaint and what can actually be achieved) This should be looked at and either expectations be managed more tightly from the beginning of the claim, or the scale of financial award be increased to be more in line with the financial losses incurred by the complainant as a result of the problem."
(page 7 OS:Property Annual Report 2010/11)
So what did the team and Chair do?
Under, "OUTCOMES" on page 5 of the Annual Report, we're told,
"In reviewing the last year, even though the average financial award is significantly less, the range of awards has not changed.... the majority of awards are up to £250. Those awards together with any recommendations, demonstrate how our service makes a difference." (Gillian Fleming, Lead Ombudsman OS:Property)
Q. If the independent advice is to prioritise the level of financial award and increase them to be more in line with the financial losses incurred by complainants, why as Chairman, have you allowed Gillian Fleming to decrease them - significantly?
Q. Complex property complaints have continued to be misunderstood by the OS:Property team and their so-called financial "awards" have been reduced significantly, as Chairman how has this service - for which you are responsible - made a difference to your disgruntled
complainants?
Just how unimpeachable is your integrity? It's the start of a New Year so why not put yourself to the test and manage a private redress scheme for an hour or so? Could you do better for consumers?
If you do take the time and the trouble to find James Hinde's final Customer Satisfaction report at: www.ombudsman-services.org and go to the final page - 134 - you will see a set of final statistics: if you combine Fairly dissatisfied 17% with Very dissatisfied 44% you will hopefully arrive at 61% - which is why we are the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
We are seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors ombudsman Service until undergoing rebranding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the Lead Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the Executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS influence.
Happy New Year. Please comment and if you find the time to manage this private redress scheme please let us know how you get on.
Thanks. Steve Gilbert
For Clarity - Attempt 426.
426) How Dame Janet And Lewis Met The Challenge.
Dear Mr Javid,
In our previous email/blog we asked you and our readers to become part-time Chairmen with unimpeachable integrity and to manage the challenge of;
a) a majority of complainants complaining that their complaints had been handled unfairly.
And,
b) the widespread dissatisfaction with the derisory financial "awards" being handed to disgruntled complainants by the Lead Ombudsman.
We should like to thank all those who took the time to respond - unfortunately, Mr Javid, you chose not to.
So, how was the challenge met?
The CEO and Chief Ombudsman, the Rev Lewis Shand Smith wrote in the Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Report 2010/11 about how,
"Firm foundations support increasing complaints." (page 1) And how,
"We successfully managed a significant increase in property complaints and have looked at how we can deal with complaints about a range of property professionals, in the UK and abroad." (page 3)
How successful are they at resolving consumers' complaints?
As part-time Chairmen you will need to read the independent survey carried out by DJS Research Ltd. This is hidden away from the light of day and you will need to type, "DJS Research" into the box at the top right had side of the of the Ombudsman Services webpage - www.ombudsman-services.org - then go to: DJS Research Ltd., James Hinde, Property Ombudsman - Customer Satisfaction Report 2011.
The Report is 134 pages. As Chairmen with unimpeachable integrity you might find that it makes for a depressing and disturbing read.
The Executives at Ombudsman Services:Property, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith and Dame Maggie Jones reduced it all to a few paragraphs on page 7 of their Annual Report. They say,
"Customer Satisfaction Survey: Executives Summary - ' The results will be used by OS:Property to measure customer service levels and prioritise improvements in the future.'"
But didn't they say the same thing the year before?
Then, the priorities for improvement were the ones as set out at the top of this page - to tackle the lack of reasonableness of the Lead Ombudsman's findings and do something about the derisory levels of the Lead Ombudsman's financial awards.
The Property Lead Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming stated,
"'Property cases are usually more time consuming than the other complaints we handle (energy and communications) because they tend to involve complicated issues and a lot of information needs to be considered against the relevant guidance and legal background.' Gillian continues, 'When complaint numbers increase, even slightly, this can have a significant impact on our business. We have therefore trained more staff so we have the flexibility to cope with more cases ...the complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge.'"
So as a business just how well did they cope with the challenge of resolving complex property complaints?
"Successfully," says The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith.
DJS Research beg to differ. They report,
"Many (around two thirds) felt the report was completely, or on balance against them, in line with previous years. This did not change even after further representations were made... many were complaining about poor information/advice which could potentially have led to a costly purchasing mistake far in excess of a few hundred or thousand pounds."
Q. As Chairmen with unimpeachable integrity, would you regard that as a successful resolution of a consumers' disputes with RICS chartered surveyors?
Q. Is the reason why a majority of consumers were forced - unsuccessfully - to resort to further representations due to the Chief Ombudsman's and Lead Ombudsman's failure to understand the complexity of property complaints?
Q. What sort of business is the Chair, Chief Ombudsman and Lead Ombudsman engaged in?
The second challenge the Labour Peer looked forward to meeting with The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith and his team was that of complainants' widespread dissatisfaction with the low level of financial awards. How did they meet that one?
DJS Research state,
"OS:Property is different to OS:Energy and OS:Communications in that the financial implications of complaints are much larger as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. There remains a key issue with regards to complainants' perceptions of of what recompense to expect (ie the scale of financial award they can expect from the complaint and what can actually be achieved) This should be looked at and either expectations be managed more tightly from the beginning of the claim, or the scale of financial award be increased to be more in line with the financial losses incurred by the complainant as a result of the problem."
(page 7 OS:Property Annual Report 2010/11)
So what did the team and Chair do?
Under, "OUTCOMES" on page 5 of the Annual Report, we're told,
"In reviewing the last year, even though the average financial award is significantly less, the range of awards has not changed.... the majority of awards are up to £250. Those awards together with any recommendations, demonstrate how our service makes a difference." (Gillian Fleming, Lead Ombudsman OS:Property)
Q. If the independent advice is to prioritise the level of financial award and increase them to be more in line with the financial losses incurred by complainants, why as Chairman, have you allowed Gillian Fleming to decrease them - significantly?
Q. Complex property complaints have continued to be misunderstood by the OS:Property team and their so-called financial "awards" have been reduced significantly, as Chairman how has this service - for which you are responsible - made a difference to your disgruntled
complainants?
Just how unimpeachable is your integrity? It's the start of a New Year so why not put yourself to the test and manage a private redress scheme for an hour or so? Could you do better for consumers?
If you do take the time and the trouble to find James Hinde's final Customer Satisfaction report at: www.ombudsman-services.org and go to the final page - 134 - you will see a set of final statistics: if you combine Fairly dissatisfied 17% with Very dissatisfied 44% you will hopefully arrive at 61% - which is why we are the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
We are seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors ombudsman Service until undergoing rebranding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the Lead Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the Executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS influence.
Happy New Year. Please comment and if you find the time to manage this private redress scheme please let us know how you get on.
Thanks. Steve Gilbert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)