To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 467.
.
467) The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith. The Ombudsman Association. Maladministration.
Dear Mr Javid,
We sent the following letter to The Ombudsman Association:
Dear Director,
We did try writing to you earlier in our campaign to complain about the following:
Your Association - The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) - clearly state in its Rules that to be an associate member each ombudsman scheme is required to have a Whistleblowing Policy.
This seemed fair and reasonable to us.
One member of your Board, The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith is CEO and Chief Ombudsman for Ombudsman Services. Ombudsman Services does not have a Whistleblowing Policy.
Q Why is The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith a Board Member when the scheme for which he is CEO does not have a Whistleblowing Policy?
Q. Why is Ombudsman Services permitted to remain a member of your organisation when it doesn't have a Whistleblowing Policy?
We were told by the BIOA Secretary that he, "was in the process of reconfirming the membership of all existing members."
In short, you did nothing about the Ombudsman Services deliberate breach of your rules.
It would seem that when a member - The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith's Ombudsman Services - break your rules of membership instead of expelling that member you simply amend the rules to accommodate them. And so it became no longer a requirement for members to have a Whistleblowing Policy.
The British and Irish Ombudsman Association - now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association state in their present day rules;
"The Association will only give recognition to Ombudsman's Offices whose primary role is to handle complaints by individuals about; maladministration, unfair treatment, poor service or other inequitable conduct of those subject to investigation."
(www.ombudsmanassociation.org/docs/ OA-Rules-Schedule1)
You will be shocked to learn that last year the Ombudsman Services Independent Assessor wrote the following;
"I was concerned by the scale and significance of the failings I identified in certain cases.
I was surprised to find such instances of maladministration in an ombudsman organisation."
(For The Good - annual report and accounts 2014-15)
The Independent Assessor was surprised at the scale and significance of maladministration at Ombudsman Services..
We weren't in the least bit surprised because we have had dealings with The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith in the past and so has our MP Oliver Colvile. The scale and significance of the maladministration comes as no surprise to us whatsoever.
However, if the BIOA (now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association) had acted on our earlier complaint a significant number of consumers might have been spared; the inadequate conduct, the poor service, the unfair treatment and the maladministration of their complaints by the Rev Lewis Shand Smith.
Q. What do you intend to do about these instances of maladministration by your Board Chairman? Cover them up - again?
Yours sincerely,
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign at www.logspot.com
Q. Mr Javid, you have a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services. Is the reason why you haven't called for a public inquiry into the governance of this scheme because you have a close and continuing relationship with its maladministrators and are as guilt of maladministration as they are?
This is a fine example of early 21st century rigged market capitalism where executives and colluding politicians have captured the market in private redress at the expense of individual citizens who continue to seek justice in ever increasing numbers but who are being denied it in ever increasing numbers.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 21 April 2016
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
Michael Gove Explains, "Cuckoo Conservatism" and "Janet and John Economics..." (466)
.To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 466
Michael Gove would have us believe that,
"For Britain, voting to leave will be a galvanizing, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal...."
but our childlike attentions wandered when we found ourselves in the boot of Mr Gove's car being driven to the outermost regions of Mr Gove's weird, and some might say, slightly unhinged imagination. It's those glasses. They don't help.
Trump has his hair. Gove has his glasses. Hitler had his moustache.
To the Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 466,
466) Michael Gove Explains, "Cuckoo Conservatism" and "Janet and John Economics..."
In a nutshell, Mr Gove was saying, "trust me I'm a man with impressive black glasses - I'm wearing bifocals when the rest of the world has 20 20 vision."
Q. Mr Javid, the Justice Minister speaks of, "Patriotic Renewal" so where better to start than with a no grace no favours public inquiry into the RICS failure to regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and the shocking way its private redress company makes money out of maladministering consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 466
Michael Gove would have us believe that,
"For Britain, voting to leave will be a galvanizing, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal...."
but our childlike attentions wandered when we found ourselves in the boot of Mr Gove's car being driven to the outermost regions of Mr Gove's weird, and some might say, slightly unhinged imagination. It's those glasses. They don't help.
Trump has his hair. Gove has his glasses. Hitler had his moustache.
To the Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 466,
466) Michael Gove Explains, "Cuckoo Conservatism" and "Janet and John Economics..."
In a nutshell, Mr Gove was saying, "trust me I'm a man with impressive black glasses - I'm wearing bifocals when the rest of the world has 20 20 vision."
Q. Mr Javid, the Justice Minister speaks of, "Patriotic Renewal" so where better to start than with a no grace no favours public inquiry into the RICS failure to regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and the shocking way its private redress company makes money out of maladministering consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 15 April 2016
The Free Press. Regulation. And The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or RICS. (463)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 463.
463) The British Free Press. Regulation. And The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or RICS.
Dear Mr Javid,
When it comes to the subject of regulation - and not just press regulation - large sections of the British Free Press are at their least objective, least reasoned and most partisan. Articles are conspicuous by their absence.
Mere mention of the word, "regulation" and far too many professional journalists morph into hacks.
In an instant they become acutely aware of their mortgage repayments, the tax arrangements of their tax-avoiding absentee employers and their employers' dictum that they didn't get where they are today without breaking a few rules along the way. They write accordingly.
This goes someway in explaining why so much of what is written on the subject of regulation lacks reason, depth or balance and why there is a dearth of critical insight from the press and media into the machinations of The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
We assume that the press avoid drawing attention that organisation's serious shortcomings for fear of drawing attention to their own. And so we have a free press that imprisons itself in self censorship when it comes to the subject of regulation..
The RICS state,
"The Royal Charter requires us to promote the usefulness of the profession to the advantage of the UK public."
Their usefulness, professionalism and subsequent advantage to the public are a requirement. Their ability to deliver on this requirement is supposedly monitored by the Privy Council who are put there to act on our behalf and not that of feuding RICS executives.
The Privy Council, on behalf of the UK taxpayer, is required to regulate the RICS who in turn are required to regulate their surveyors but in reality little, if any, of this actually happens with the result that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the consumer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in The RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms." (Consumer Focus)
That entire market just happens to be the rigged housing market.
So, according to one former branch of government (Consumer Focus), the RICS, supposedly monitored by the Privy Council, is unable to regulate its surveyors. Given that the housing market is never out of the news you would think that the fact that RICS can't or won't regulate its surveyors is a matter of huge economic significance and worthy of front page news..
So why isn't it? If you search the internet for;
- articles critical of the RICS,
- academic articles critical of the RICS,
- newspaper articles of the RICS,
- media articles critical of the RICS,
- critiques of the RICS,
you will somewhat amazingly (given their appalling regulatory failings) find virtually nothing.
Here is what we managed to unearth:
1) "The civil war at the RICS is in its fifth year"
"Morrell's speech to the RICS governing council on Monday afternoon was a public dressing down. In a blunt and straightforward fashion - not at all the usual style of conducting internal debate at the RICS - Morrell laid into the institution for its lack of respect for construction and its self-obsession. His description of the institution's Byzantine structure and lack of accountability will ring true with its 30.000 QSs. ..."
Morrell stated that the RICS needed to become,
"more transparent, accountable and representative."
(www.building.co.uk/the-rics-must-come0to-terms.)
What we know so far then is that thanks to the RICS, an entire market is not working in the customer's interests, that they are apparently unable to adequately regulate their surveyors, are Byzantine, self-obsessive and lack transparency and accountability.
Q. Mr Javid, we're told by Government that the RICS were required to promote the usefulness of their profession for the public advantage. How is any of the above "professional" and what advantage does it bring to the public?
2). "Surveying the crisis. How the failure of RICS to regulate surveyors is threatening the sustainable development of our cities." (by George Turner Feb 2016)
In this article Gorge Turner asks why is the planning system failing and how RICS surveyors have captured the system for their clients and why their regulator the RICS must act to restore the public interest.
The RICS has captured one market ie rigged it and allowed/encouraged the development of practices that do not work in the customer's interests.
He points out that regarding development, 10 year plans, "are supposed to ensure a good quality built environment for the public." The emphasis being on the public. However, the reality is somewhat different - it always is when property is involved.
For George Turner the stumbling block facing landowners and their developers is affordable housing. Developers can't afford tenants as they selfishly get in the way of developers' profits. He tells us that, "this requirement (affordable housing) is currently being dismantled by the present Conservative Government" which of course is enabling developers to make, "more money by not providing affordable housing."
The already rich have devised a way of becoming even richer at the expense of those struggling to satisfy a basic human need - providing a roof over their family's head. What's more because of, "Development Vulnerability Testing" the developer's need to achieve a certain profit trumps the housing needs of the general public.
Here is where RICS surveyors come in.
Development Vulnerability Testing rests upon a developer employing, "a surveyor to estimate the cost of building and any future revenue the developer will achieve. The entire system relies on the estimates made by the surveyors, who are paid by the developer."
Furthermore, "councils conduct the process in secret."
This is the perfect recipe for corrupt wealth creation on a massive scale and he cites as an example; the Shell Centre. This involved Knight Frank and Savills, Lambeth Council and their consultant BNP Paribas. Here, "with a single stroke of a pen, the surveyors had increased the value of the building by £323M. Of course none of this was disclosed to the Council or the public."
Panama City comes to the City of London with RICS surveyors capturing the system for their wealthy clients. Yet again the well-heeled walk all-over the down at heel.
Finally, George Turner, in his excellent article asks, "So where is the RICS on this issue? The simple answer is nowhere." He wonders as do all those at the wrong end of the housing crisis if any of this, "is in the public interest?"
Public tenants or private investors. Private investors every time.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS are nowhere. Is this in the public interest?
3) SNP Accused of "Class War" over land reform.
(Tom Freeman 26th Feb 2015)
The accuser was Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson who sprang to the defence of absentee estate landowners and RICS Scotland. It was her class duty. Firing the first warning shots she said,
"We know the SNP is trying to hide behind shooting estates to turn this in to class war."
It's interesting that the reform of land/property should be seen by Conservatives as "class war" but when it comes to their "reform" of education, "reform" becomes an entirely different matter and seen by them as being "aspirational."
Tom Freeman wrote that, "land reform proposals designed to revitalise Scotland's tenant farming sector have been criticised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) saying they could, 'trigger unintended consequences.'"
Imagine that. The RICS standing in the way of reform.
What of those on the other side in this Davidsonian "class war" the Scottish tenant farmers? Tom Freeman continued, "however, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association called the RICS response, 'entirely unrealistic ' and would, 'cut no ice' with the Scottish Government. Chairman Christopher Nicholson said, 'such damning criticism of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group's Final Report is irresponsible and out of kilter with the wider industry recognition of the need for change. Furthermore it is of great worry for the tenanted sector to see RICS Scotland take this defensive position given that their membership primarily represent landlord interests."
To summarise: in the class war between those who own land and property and those who don't, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) represent the class interests of the former.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS represent the class interests of the landlords, how is this commensurate with their requirement to benefit the public interest?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The ombudsmans61percent Campaign
For Clarity - Attempt 463.
463) The British Free Press. Regulation. And The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or RICS.
Dear Mr Javid,
When it comes to the subject of regulation - and not just press regulation - large sections of the British Free Press are at their least objective, least reasoned and most partisan. Articles are conspicuous by their absence.
Mere mention of the word, "regulation" and far too many professional journalists morph into hacks.
In an instant they become acutely aware of their mortgage repayments, the tax arrangements of their tax-avoiding absentee employers and their employers' dictum that they didn't get where they are today without breaking a few rules along the way. They write accordingly.
This goes someway in explaining why so much of what is written on the subject of regulation lacks reason, depth or balance and why there is a dearth of critical insight from the press and media into the machinations of The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
We assume that the press avoid drawing attention that organisation's serious shortcomings for fear of drawing attention to their own. And so we have a free press that imprisons itself in self censorship when it comes to the subject of regulation..
The RICS state,
"The Royal Charter requires us to promote the usefulness of the profession to the advantage of the UK public."
Their usefulness, professionalism and subsequent advantage to the public are a requirement. Their ability to deliver on this requirement is supposedly monitored by the Privy Council who are put there to act on our behalf and not that of feuding RICS executives.
The Privy Council, on behalf of the UK taxpayer, is required to regulate the RICS who in turn are required to regulate their surveyors but in reality little, if any, of this actually happens with the result that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the consumer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in The RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms." (Consumer Focus)
That entire market just happens to be the rigged housing market.
So, according to one former branch of government (Consumer Focus), the RICS, supposedly monitored by the Privy Council, is unable to regulate its surveyors. Given that the housing market is never out of the news you would think that the fact that RICS can't or won't regulate its surveyors is a matter of huge economic significance and worthy of front page news..
So why isn't it? If you search the internet for;
- articles critical of the RICS,
- academic articles critical of the RICS,
- newspaper articles of the RICS,
- media articles critical of the RICS,
- critiques of the RICS,
you will somewhat amazingly (given their appalling regulatory failings) find virtually nothing.
Here is what we managed to unearth:
1) "The civil war at the RICS is in its fifth year"
"Morrell's speech to the RICS governing council on Monday afternoon was a public dressing down. In a blunt and straightforward fashion - not at all the usual style of conducting internal debate at the RICS - Morrell laid into the institution for its lack of respect for construction and its self-obsession. His description of the institution's Byzantine structure and lack of accountability will ring true with its 30.000 QSs. ..."
Morrell stated that the RICS needed to become,
"more transparent, accountable and representative."
(www.building.co.uk/the-rics-must-come0to-terms.)
What we know so far then is that thanks to the RICS, an entire market is not working in the customer's interests, that they are apparently unable to adequately regulate their surveyors, are Byzantine, self-obsessive and lack transparency and accountability.
Q. Mr Javid, we're told by Government that the RICS were required to promote the usefulness of their profession for the public advantage. How is any of the above "professional" and what advantage does it bring to the public?
2). "Surveying the crisis. How the failure of RICS to regulate surveyors is threatening the sustainable development of our cities." (by George Turner Feb 2016)
In this article Gorge Turner asks why is the planning system failing and how RICS surveyors have captured the system for their clients and why their regulator the RICS must act to restore the public interest.
The RICS has captured one market ie rigged it and allowed/encouraged the development of practices that do not work in the customer's interests.
He points out that regarding development, 10 year plans, "are supposed to ensure a good quality built environment for the public." The emphasis being on the public. However, the reality is somewhat different - it always is when property is involved.
For George Turner the stumbling block facing landowners and their developers is affordable housing. Developers can't afford tenants as they selfishly get in the way of developers' profits. He tells us that, "this requirement (affordable housing) is currently being dismantled by the present Conservative Government" which of course is enabling developers to make, "more money by not providing affordable housing."
The already rich have devised a way of becoming even richer at the expense of those struggling to satisfy a basic human need - providing a roof over their family's head. What's more because of, "Development Vulnerability Testing" the developer's need to achieve a certain profit trumps the housing needs of the general public.
Here is where RICS surveyors come in.
Development Vulnerability Testing rests upon a developer employing, "a surveyor to estimate the cost of building and any future revenue the developer will achieve. The entire system relies on the estimates made by the surveyors, who are paid by the developer."
Furthermore, "councils conduct the process in secret."
This is the perfect recipe for corrupt wealth creation on a massive scale and he cites as an example; the Shell Centre. This involved Knight Frank and Savills, Lambeth Council and their consultant BNP Paribas. Here, "with a single stroke of a pen, the surveyors had increased the value of the building by £323M. Of course none of this was disclosed to the Council or the public."
Panama City comes to the City of London with RICS surveyors capturing the system for their wealthy clients. Yet again the well-heeled walk all-over the down at heel.
Finally, George Turner, in his excellent article asks, "So where is the RICS on this issue? The simple answer is nowhere." He wonders as do all those at the wrong end of the housing crisis if any of this, "is in the public interest?"
Public tenants or private investors. Private investors every time.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS are nowhere. Is this in the public interest?
3) SNP Accused of "Class War" over land reform.
(Tom Freeman 26th Feb 2015)
The accuser was Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson who sprang to the defence of absentee estate landowners and RICS Scotland. It was her class duty. Firing the first warning shots she said,
"We know the SNP is trying to hide behind shooting estates to turn this in to class war."
It's interesting that the reform of land/property should be seen by Conservatives as "class war" but when it comes to their "reform" of education, "reform" becomes an entirely different matter and seen by them as being "aspirational."
Tom Freeman wrote that, "land reform proposals designed to revitalise Scotland's tenant farming sector have been criticised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) saying they could, 'trigger unintended consequences.'"
Imagine that. The RICS standing in the way of reform.
What of those on the other side in this Davidsonian "class war" the Scottish tenant farmers? Tom Freeman continued, "however, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association called the RICS response, 'entirely unrealistic ' and would, 'cut no ice' with the Scottish Government. Chairman Christopher Nicholson said, 'such damning criticism of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group's Final Report is irresponsible and out of kilter with the wider industry recognition of the need for change. Furthermore it is of great worry for the tenanted sector to see RICS Scotland take this defensive position given that their membership primarily represent landlord interests."
To summarise: in the class war between those who own land and property and those who don't, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) represent the class interests of the former.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS represent the class interests of the landlords, how is this commensurate with their requirement to benefit the public interest?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The ombudsmans61percent Campaign
Tuesday, 12 April 2016
Flashman Jr. To Be Expelled From Big Society's Biggest Club House?! (460)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign at: www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 460
460) Flashman Jr. To Be Expelled From Big Society's Biggest Club House?!
Dear Mr Javid,
It seems wholly inappropriate that The Beast of Bolsover should be turfed out of the home of The Mother Of All Democracies for merely speaking what many take to be the truth - that Flashman Jr. is a dodgy geezer. Wouldn't it have been fairer if poor Dennis Skinner MP had remained in situ and The Speaker had instead insisted that Mr Cameron leave the Chamber to sit on the naughty step and reflect on his "team's" arrogant attempt to dismiss the P.M.'s tax affairs as merely being, "a private matter" when quite clearly they weren't?
No doubt conniving conservative conspirators are busily plotting his "Camexit" from No.10 as we write.
Transparency?
On the 3rd April 2013, Francis Maude announced to the world that;
"My Government is committed to transparency - it is at the heart of our reforming agenda in the UK."
The mere fact that this small and belated degree of transparency - from a party boasting that transparency would be at the heart of what it did - had to be dragged screaming out into the open in this way speaks volumes for the Big Closed Society we now live in and Francis Maude's ability to talk utter shite.
Unsurprisingly, Francis Maude hasn't stepped up to the mark and hasn't published his tax returns. So no; heart, guts, leadership or transparency there.
Q. Mr Javid, if the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor can all publish their tax returns in a New Golden Age of Transparency, why can't Ombudsman Services publish a full, open and transparent account of how they maladminister consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 460
460) Flashman Jr. To Be Expelled From Big Society's Biggest Club House?!
Dear Mr Javid,
It seems wholly inappropriate that The Beast of Bolsover should be turfed out of the home of The Mother Of All Democracies for merely speaking what many take to be the truth - that Flashman Jr. is a dodgy geezer. Wouldn't it have been fairer if poor Dennis Skinner MP had remained in situ and The Speaker had instead insisted that Mr Cameron leave the Chamber to sit on the naughty step and reflect on his "team's" arrogant attempt to dismiss the P.M.'s tax affairs as merely being, "a private matter" when quite clearly they weren't?
No doubt conniving conservative conspirators are busily plotting his "Camexit" from No.10 as we write.
Transparency?
On the 3rd April 2013, Francis Maude announced to the world that;
"My Government is committed to transparency - it is at the heart of our reforming agenda in the UK."
The mere fact that this small and belated degree of transparency - from a party boasting that transparency would be at the heart of what it did - had to be dragged screaming out into the open in this way speaks volumes for the Big Closed Society we now live in and Francis Maude's ability to talk utter shite.
Unsurprisingly, Francis Maude hasn't stepped up to the mark and hasn't published his tax returns. So no; heart, guts, leadership or transparency there.
Q. Mr Javid, if the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor can all publish their tax returns in a New Golden Age of Transparency, why can't Ombudsman Services publish a full, open and transparent account of how they maladminister consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)