"The Ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner" - DJS Research (441)

To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 441.

441) "The Ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner" - DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report.

Dear Mr Javid,

We asked the Chairman of Ombudsman Services, Pof. Dame Janet Finch;
"Q 99: Should it not be a basic requirement to confirm in writing what has been said or agreed on visits? Wouldn't it put an end to nonsense such as this - Letter dated 30th June 2010 Our ref: 510458 From the Ombudsman. Gillian Fleming;
"Your first recorded representation to the Firm was in December although you now say you telephoned Monk and Partners immediately after moving in."

Having disclosed my information to the Ombudsman, not only is this offensive, it is wrong.

As there was no Case File to support the Ombudsman's observation that, "You now say you telephoned Monk and partners immediately after moving in" the Ombudsman appears not to have taken the trouble to read the letter (my letter to Monk and Partners). What is clear is that from the start of the process, the Ombudsman was happy to accept the Firm's version of events.

If she'd taken the trouble to have read my letter dated Sunday 18th Jan she might have come to a more informed and balanced view of the case.. The letter - stamped, "Received" - by Ombudsman Services:Property said;
"After the second visit to our home last summer you had assured me that you would be contacting me either phone or by letter. This has not happened...The stain in the attic ceiling which I had been told (by the surveyor who was responsible for the survey) was probably staining from fires lit over the years, is indeed damp."

I tried to point out that a, "second visit in the summer" logically must have come before December  It was a second visit implying one had preceded it. And that the person I was talking to about all this, was the original surveyor.

The Ombudsman has chosen to ignore the evidence placed in front of her.

There is no Case File record of any of this. I have asked Monk and Partners when the surveyor responsible for my survey left the Firm and for a contact number so that some light might be thrown on all of this, but without success.

My case - 510458  began with the ombudsman not looking at the evidence and accepting the Firm's version of events. And it ended that way."

The Chairman didn't write or phone either.

Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that the Ombudsman does appear to have arrived at her decision in an illogical manner and that logically there needs to be a public inquiry into this RICS regulated private redress scheme so that all the victims of such shocking decisions might eventually get some public justice?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.