To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 502.
502) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists (2). Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understand-and-engage)
2. How Ombudsman Schemes Interact With Their Critics.
Dear Mr Clark,
Part 4 of Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's Executive Summary stated:
"The aim of the workshop with ombudsman schemes was to discuss what they felt the issues to be and how they had interacted with ombudsman watchers operating in their area."
Our first Blog - "Blog Forever" - was an European Funded Project and, yes you've guessed it, closed down. Nothing but injustice seems to last forever. We began each of those blogs to the various Business Secretaries who preceded you with the heading, "Being More Specific" because that was what civil servants asked us to be - more specific.
Interaction has proven to be difficult. An uphill struggle. Sisyphus had it easy.
This series of Blogs start with, "For Clarity" and is based on ombudsman, Gillian Fleming's, letter to us where she set out what she meant by clarity. (Please see Blog 414)
Ombudsman Services:Property's preferred way of interacting with those of us who seek to challenge their illogical decisions is summed up by Gillian Fleming's definition of clarity. It is anything but. What is clear - and it appears to be matter of principle - is that complainant's questions will not be answered.
Ombudsmen wish us to believe that an ombudsman's decision is sacrosanct.
We were told by one Independent Assessor (who was neither of those things) that the ombudsman's decision is final and can only be overturned by judicial review.
In which case it is not final.
An analysis of the way in which language is used by the company's executives, ombudsman and Independent Assessor would be an interesting area for future research. It would reveal a hidden world of meaning. A melange of quasi-judicial, pro-business ombudspeak.
Complainants who have the cheek to complain about being handed illogical decisions are viewed as timewasting troublemakers.
We tried asking Richard Brown to forward our complaint to the company's council of lay members. We were told;
"In your email you say we have failed to inform you of the contact details of the lay members of the council. It is not that we have refused rather that the provision of this information would not advance your case any, as they, have no part to play in ombudsman decisions."
He inadvertently seemed to have acknowledged that our case did need advancing. It did. and it still does. Only he wasn't going to help in its advancement.
The Campaign replied;
"If you have not refused then why is it you still haven't sent me their details? It is not for you to decide what information would advance my case or not as to do so would appear to be both patronising and undemocratic.
I am challenging the ombudsman's decision and I wish to contact the council members because in your publication - 'Resolving complaints fairly' - I read that their job is to; agree the appointment of the ombudsman, keep the service independent, review our performance and recommend any changes that might need to be made to the way we work.
I will be sending copies of my case to them by recorded delivery along with a raft of recommendations for change. Some of these recommendations I included in my email to you. I see that you have failed to comment on them."
We sent copies to Warrington. We never heard from any of the lay council members.
The Ombudsman Services scheme is a secretive organisation. It has no whistleblowing policy, withholds information from consumers and denies them their Human Rights. Its reporting of its own performance is highly sanitised and even the lay council members are kept in the dark as to what is actually going on.
One wonders how the lay council members can possibly do their job if all the time they're being told that they inhabit a magical ombudsland of unicorns, crystal clear waterfalls and beautiful rainbows.
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign's recommendations are as follows:
1. Ombudsman Services urgently needs a whistleblowing policy.
2. All cases should automatically go on a database which is freely available to consumers to scrutinise.
3. If a, "financial award" is made it should say what that award was.
4. Each case should clearly state whether the complainant was; very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or vey dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation of their case.
5. The complainant's views should always be sacrosanct.
The complainant is king.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't enormous power without accountability a definition of tyranny?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment