To The New Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 501.
501) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists (1). Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
1. What Ombudsman Watchers do. Why they do it. And how successful they are.
Dear Mr Clark,
The Ombudsmas61percent Campaign would like to congratulate you on your promotion to the position of Business Secretary.
It has been a long journey from student activist for the Social Democrats to Secretary of State for the BIS in a Tory post-Brexit unelected government.
No doubt history will judge your legacy to a large extent on just how speedily and effectively you dealt with our complaint.
You predecessors; Vince Cable and Mr Javid were, let's face it, hopeless. Neither of them, "fixed" it for consumers. Both made matters far worse with their, "close and continuing relationship" with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services.
We see that your intention is in, "turning government upside down." May we suggest you begin by, turning Ombudsman Services, "inside out?"
In pat 3 of their Executive Summary, Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill state:
"The workshop with the ombudsman watchers covered the nature of their critique of ombudsman schemes and the goals of their campaigns, the methods used to achieve them and the responses they had obtained from ombudsman schemes and others."
We were unable to attend the workshop for family reasons.
And for the fact that it was, in part, funded by the PHSO. (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman). The response we had obtained from the Head of the PHSO, Dame Julie Mellor, had been to threaten us with prosecution should we make public her response to our complaint. Which of course we will do at some future date.
We asked Dame Julie Mellor what prosecution would entail - maybe a trip to the Tower of London? A hefty fine perhaps?
She rather unhelpfully told us to ask our solicitor.
On our behalf our MP, Oliver Colvile, asked the Chief Ombudsman and CEO of Ombudsman Services, The Rev Smith, to clarify what the ombudsman's duty was as set out in the company's Terms of Reference.
The Rev Smith also rather unhelpfully suggested that we had misunderstood the Terms of Reference and not his ombudsman, Gillian Fleming.
Mr Colvile was satisfied with the Rev Smith's response.
We weren't.
Our method was simply to ask various people to explain their decisions and actions. They found it easier not to.
Q. Mr Clark, if the ombudsman's Terms of Reference state that it is her duty to, "Report to the RICS Regulatory Body any cases which involve, serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by RICS Member Firms" - Monk and Partners in this instance - why did the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming write, "I would reiterate that the question of whether the Firm (Monk and Partners) has acted in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct required is a matter for the professional body concerned which in this case would be the RICS?"
Q. Mr Clarke, how are the RICS ever going to know if their Member Firm (Monk and Partners) has been involved in a, "serious or persistent breach of the RICS Rules of Conduct" if their ombudsman doesn't tell them?
Q. Mr Clark, as their ombudsman wasn't going to report them is at all likely that Monk and Partners would hand themselves in?
Q. Mr Clark, is this in any way logical?
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, just letting her fee-paying Member Firm off the hook?
Q. Mr Clark, do you consider that the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, has acted, "fairly" and "independently?
Q. Mr Clark, the Rev Smith stated that we had misunderstood the Terms of Reference. In what way do you think we have misunderstood them?
Q. Mr Clark, why was Mr Colvile satisfied with the Rev Smith's response?
Our goal is for a public inquiry into the maladministration and illogical Final Decisions coming from Ombudsman Services.
We believe that the victims of this injustice deserve to be compensated.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment