To the Business secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 488.
488) Ombudsman Services: Victims Just Want To Tell Their Stories.
Dear Mr Javid,
The mark of a well rigged enterprise is just how remarkably successful they are at silencing those who would seek to complain about the treatment they've received at their callous hands.
Take the case of Ombudsman Services:Property and simply compare the data collected and published now with the halcyon days of DJS Research and their 3 Customer Satisfaction Reports. But you'd better act quickly before they too are airbrushed from the company's website and history.
One of the company's many victims who wanted to tell her story and in doing so help others is Julia. She wrote;
"We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor - please refer to the Surveyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them!
It has been eye-wateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues.
I really do want to tell my story if for nothing more than to help other people."
We still find that short statement both moving and inspiring - a victim of injustice whose first thought is to help others. What a pity not all our politicians share a similar grounding in humanity and compassion.
Perhaps after yesterday's show of unity in the House of Commons and the fine tributes paid to Jo Cox a new politics and long needed change is on its way.
The Sociologist of the Family and Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch, could have a whole research project based on the everyday lives of those victims of, "civil justice" whose health and finances have been severely damaged as a consequence of coming into close contact with it.
Nothing so far.
Q. Mr Javid, as someone who has a, "close and continuing relationship" with prof. Dame Janet Finch, perhaps you might have more success helping Julia to tell her story than the Prof. did?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 21 June 2016
Monday, 20 June 2016
Ombudsman Services: Leave or Remain? Either Way We Want Our Justice Back. (487)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign at - www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 487.
487) Ombudsman Services: Leave or Remain? Either Way We Want Our Justice Back.
Dear Mr Javid,
The overwhelming body of evidence collected by the experts - DJS Research - suggests that the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman is biased. They state that the evidence they amassed for their 2010 Customer Satisfaction Report led them to conclude that,
"To be effective the SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services:Property) must be seen to be an impartial arbitrator- currently this does not seem to be the case."
What they found was an Ombudsman who was a partial arbitrator - partial towards her fee-paying Members - and this was before the scam of cutting and pasting the Ombudsman's signature on to reports written by Investigating Officers (as a way of clearing a backlog of cases) and other practices that are not working in the complainant's interests, had been allowed to set in and fester.
When something's rotten in the state of England it is somewhat hypocritical to criticise the EU for being a rotten, remote and an expensive failure.
Government, "monitors" of a scheme that Jonathan May approved on behalf of the taxpayer in 2009 and RICS, the world's leading property regulator so they say, have both looked the other way - for years - as the shambles at OS unfolded.
Q. Mr Javid, if Government "monitors" and the RICS regulators continue to leave OS executives free to maladminister consumers' complaints won't justice simply remain out of the reach of the rest of us - you can't blame the EU for that, can you?
A seven year long case of the UK Government failing to govern on behalf of the people.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 487.
487) Ombudsman Services: Leave or Remain? Either Way We Want Our Justice Back.
Dear Mr Javid,
The overwhelming body of evidence collected by the experts - DJS Research - suggests that the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman is biased. They state that the evidence they amassed for their 2010 Customer Satisfaction Report led them to conclude that,
"To be effective the SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services:Property) must be seen to be an impartial arbitrator- currently this does not seem to be the case."
What they found was an Ombudsman who was a partial arbitrator - partial towards her fee-paying Members - and this was before the scam of cutting and pasting the Ombudsman's signature on to reports written by Investigating Officers (as a way of clearing a backlog of cases) and other practices that are not working in the complainant's interests, had been allowed to set in and fester.
When something's rotten in the state of England it is somewhat hypocritical to criticise the EU for being a rotten, remote and an expensive failure.
Government, "monitors" of a scheme that Jonathan May approved on behalf of the taxpayer in 2009 and RICS, the world's leading property regulator so they say, have both looked the other way - for years - as the shambles at OS unfolded.
Q. Mr Javid, if Government "monitors" and the RICS regulators continue to leave OS executives free to maladminister consumers' complaints won't justice simply remain out of the reach of the rest of us - you can't blame the EU for that, can you?
A seven year long case of the UK Government failing to govern on behalf of the people.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 18 June 2016
Ombudsman Services And The Mask of Anarchy. (486)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 486.
486) Ombudsman Services And The Mask of Anarchy.
Dear Mr Javid,
We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch, that as she was a sociologist of the family why it was that she didn't insist upon follow-up surveys of complainants to ascertain just how her organisation's illogical final decisions had impacted upon their lives.
How had they suffered as a consequence of those illogical decisions? What further woes had befallen them? What had their customer journey cost them and did they believe they'd been recipients of civil justice? Indeed, what did they make of her company's particular brand of, "civil justice?" In short, why weren't they asked for their thoughts and feelings on how they'd been treated?
Dame Janet didn't reply.
In 1819 Shelley wrote,
"Ye who suffer woes untold
Or to feel, or to behold
Your lost country bought and sold
With a price of blood and gold.
Thou art Justice - ne'er for gold
May thy righteous laws be sold
As laws are in England - thou
Shield'st alike both high and low."
Nearly 200 years later and it would seem that an ombudsman's illogical final decisions still shield'st the high to the cost of the low and that private civil justice is being bought and sold as we write.
Q, Mr Javid this ain't justice either bro is it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 486.
486) Ombudsman Services And The Mask of Anarchy.
Dear Mr Javid,
We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch, that as she was a sociologist of the family why it was that she didn't insist upon follow-up surveys of complainants to ascertain just how her organisation's illogical final decisions had impacted upon their lives.
How had they suffered as a consequence of those illogical decisions? What further woes had befallen them? What had their customer journey cost them and did they believe they'd been recipients of civil justice? Indeed, what did they make of her company's particular brand of, "civil justice?" In short, why weren't they asked for their thoughts and feelings on how they'd been treated?
Dame Janet didn't reply.
In 1819 Shelley wrote,
"Ye who suffer woes untold
Or to feel, or to behold
Your lost country bought and sold
With a price of blood and gold.
Thou art Justice - ne'er for gold
May thy righteous laws be sold
As laws are in England - thou
Shield'st alike both high and low."
Nearly 200 years later and it would seem that an ombudsman's illogical final decisions still shield'st the high to the cost of the low and that private civil justice is being bought and sold as we write.
Q, Mr Javid this ain't justice either bro is it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 17 June 2016
Ombudsman Services: Justice First. (485)
To the Business Secretary
For Clarity - Attempt 485.
485) Ombudsman Services: Justice First.
Dear Mr Javid,
In a modern, healthy and forward-looking democracy the people, through their elected representatives, would play a key role in saying what justice was or wasn't.
Not ours.
Instead, private, "civil justice" has been sub-contracted out to unelected ombudsmen. Future historians or sociologists of, "The Age of The Ombudsman" will reveal a process whereby decisions were taken behind the scenes by unelected brokers engaging with and politically influencing; MPs, Ministers and Senior Civil Servants. The day-to-day practicalities in how to successfully rig the property market and get away with it - apparently.
Things haven't changed much since the days of Tom Paine.
"Legislators who were elected by no one were accountable to no one and, consequently, should be trusted by no one."
(Edward Vallance: A Radical History of Britain)
Who elects ombudsmen? No one. Then why should we trust them? To whom are they accountable? That's a moot point and depends on which brand of ombudsman you're talking about and what you take to mean by, "accountability."
In the case of the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman that one appears to be accountable to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) who modestly announce that they are, "the world's leading professional body for qualifications, and standards in land, property, infrastructure and construction."
The world's leading professionals in property standards where openly criticised by the late Consumer Focus who themselves became history after revealing that, "Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. We believe that the problem has its origins in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms."
Professionals at leading the world and his dog up the garden path.
Those writing the history of, "Ombudsman Schemes and Scheming Ombudsman in The Early 21st Century" will find it a challenge to access source material. Not only did Consumer Focus become history but their quote did too, vanishing from the internet.
Also airbrushed from history are Ombudsman Services' minutes. As for their Annual Property Report? It's not worth the paper its written on. Searching questions no longer being asked - embarrassing answers no longer needing an explanation.
No accountability. No transparency. So no justice.
Was Consumer Focus axed because it had the temerity to openly criticise the RICS for it's apparent failure to adequately do its job and regulate its Members and Regulated Firms? Surely a regulator that doesn't regulate isn't a regulator - it's something else. A rigger of so-called redress. Scandalously, everyone apart from Consumer Focus whistled as they looked the other way.
Why weren't questions asked in Parliament at the time? Is the rigged property market so important to the economy that those rigging it must be protected at all costs?
Q. Mr Javid, why has the RICS allowed practices to develop that are not working in the customer's interests?
Q. Where were the Privy Councillors when this happened and where are they now as it continues to happen?
We won't know until someone in the press or media starts asking questions or a MP stands up in Parliament and does likewise. Clearly, no one in Government is listening to ours.
As a result it's dirty business in the RICS regulated property market as usual.
When the BBC with its Royal Charter is under constant attack from certain sections of the largely self-regulating media, the Byzantine RICS with its Royal Charter and world leading position in setting standards in the property market barely warrents a mention.
Q. Mr Javid, this ain't justice bro is it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 485.
485) Ombudsman Services: Justice First.
Dear Mr Javid,
In a modern, healthy and forward-looking democracy the people, through their elected representatives, would play a key role in saying what justice was or wasn't.
Not ours.
Instead, private, "civil justice" has been sub-contracted out to unelected ombudsmen. Future historians or sociologists of, "The Age of The Ombudsman" will reveal a process whereby decisions were taken behind the scenes by unelected brokers engaging with and politically influencing; MPs, Ministers and Senior Civil Servants. The day-to-day practicalities in how to successfully rig the property market and get away with it - apparently.
Things haven't changed much since the days of Tom Paine.
"Legislators who were elected by no one were accountable to no one and, consequently, should be trusted by no one."
(Edward Vallance: A Radical History of Britain)
Who elects ombudsmen? No one. Then why should we trust them? To whom are they accountable? That's a moot point and depends on which brand of ombudsman you're talking about and what you take to mean by, "accountability."
In the case of the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman that one appears to be accountable to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) who modestly announce that they are, "the world's leading professional body for qualifications, and standards in land, property, infrastructure and construction."
The world's leading professionals in property standards where openly criticised by the late Consumer Focus who themselves became history after revealing that, "Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. We believe that the problem has its origins in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms."
Professionals at leading the world and his dog up the garden path.
Those writing the history of, "Ombudsman Schemes and Scheming Ombudsman in The Early 21st Century" will find it a challenge to access source material. Not only did Consumer Focus become history but their quote did too, vanishing from the internet.
Also airbrushed from history are Ombudsman Services' minutes. As for their Annual Property Report? It's not worth the paper its written on. Searching questions no longer being asked - embarrassing answers no longer needing an explanation.
No accountability. No transparency. So no justice.
Was Consumer Focus axed because it had the temerity to openly criticise the RICS for it's apparent failure to adequately do its job and regulate its Members and Regulated Firms? Surely a regulator that doesn't regulate isn't a regulator - it's something else. A rigger of so-called redress. Scandalously, everyone apart from Consumer Focus whistled as they looked the other way.
Why weren't questions asked in Parliament at the time? Is the rigged property market so important to the economy that those rigging it must be protected at all costs?
Q. Mr Javid, why has the RICS allowed practices to develop that are not working in the customer's interests?
Q. Where were the Privy Councillors when this happened and where are they now as it continues to happen?
We won't know until someone in the press or media starts asking questions or a MP stands up in Parliament and does likewise. Clearly, no one in Government is listening to ours.
As a result it's dirty business in the RICS regulated property market as usual.
When the BBC with its Royal Charter is under constant attack from certain sections of the largely self-regulating media, the Byzantine RICS with its Royal Charter and world leading position in setting standards in the property market barely warrents a mention.
Q. Mr Javid, this ain't justice bro is it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)