To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 525.
525) Accountability 5: Making It Right - Customer Satisfaction Reports.
Dear Mr Clark,
The Ombudsman Services executives talk about, "Making It Right" but where to start? Perhaps with their unsatisfactory Customer Satisfaction Reports.
There is so much that this company needs to do regarding making it right for the complainant that the sensible thing to do would be to close them down and take the whole sorry mess into public ownership and control. We need to take back control of ombudsman defined, "civil justice."
Their 2015 Property Report is a case in point.
It's now a pale imitation of what went before. In the good old days of DJS Research, complainants were actually asked what they thought of the way in which their complaint had been investigated. Not any more. Why not? Because most thought that their customer journey was a nightmare and the executives have decided to bury the bad news about their abysmal performance.
Don't just take our word for it - judge for yourself. Simply go to www.ombudsman-servces.org and compare the information for 2015 with that of 2010.
The Rev Smith and Prof Finch have eviscerated the, "Property Report" and it now stands at a whopping one page. (well 2 if you count a page of self promotion) Down from 8 in 2010. So much for accountability. However, that one page does contrast remarkably with what is said on page 21 of their main report. Here we are told;
"81% said they were satisfied with the mutually accepted settlement process."
81% no less!
That's incredible, especially when you set it alongside what is reported in the Property Report. Here things are significantly different - but you have to search for it as the truth is hard to find - 2% of complainants settled for a, "mutually acceptable" outcome of their case. That leaves a staggering 98% who had an, "ombudsman decision" forced upon them.
For 98% of property complainants the ombudsman's decision was not mutually acceptable.
An overwhelming complainant rejection of Prof Finch's new fangled way of, "resolving" disputes.
As for accountability - what did the 98% actually think of their customer journey? We don't know because The Rev Smith and Prof Finch didn't bother to ask them. When complainants were asked way back in 2010 most said it was, "very unsatisfactory."
So just how did The Rev Smith and Prof Finch make it right for 98% of property complainants? The citizen has a right to know.
Q. Mr Clark, how does this shameful lack of Ombudsman Services' accountability meet the European Directive 2013/11/EU requirement for ADR schemes to be - accountable?
Wednesday, 31 August 2016
Monday, 29 August 2016
Accountability 4: The RICS "Monitor" Ombudsman Services:Property's Decisions For Effectiveness. (523)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 523.
523) Accountability 4: The RICS Monitor Ombudsman Services:Property's Decisions For, "Effectiveness."
So, sadly, no independence there OS:Property.
Dear Mr Clark,
The EU Directive 2013/11/EU (21st May 2013) insists that;
"32: The independence and integrity of ADR entities is crucial in order to gain Union citizens trust that ADR mechanisms will offer them a fair and independent outcome."
Although, apparently, unable to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms in the first place - why? - the RICS have put in place a Memorandum of Understanding with its, "appointed" company and monitor it closely for its "effectiveness" in resolving citizens' disputes with its inadequately regulated Members and regulated Firms. It also has )or had) its placement sitting on the Board of the company.
Q. Mr Clark, how can our citizens trust a mechanism that has been rigged by the RICS from its top to its bottom?
Q. Mr Clark, where is the independence that the EU Directive insists upon when Ombudsman Services:Property clearly sits in RICS' pocket?
Q. Mr Clark, how can citizens trust The Rev Smith and Professor Dame Janet Finch when they preside over a company that maladministers our citizens' complaints?
Q. Mr Clark, how can citizens trust The Rev Smith and Professor Dame Janet Finch when they also preside over a company which hands our citizens illogical Final Decisions?
Q. Mr Clark, where is the integrity that the EU Directive insists upon when OS:Property maladminister our citizens' complaints and hand them illogical Final Decisions?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Oliver Colvile, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing rebranding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Dcisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment, share your story and join the campaign either by contacting the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmmail.com. Many thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 523.
523) Accountability 4: The RICS Monitor Ombudsman Services:Property's Decisions For, "Effectiveness."
So, sadly, no independence there OS:Property.
Dear Mr Clark,
The EU Directive 2013/11/EU (21st May 2013) insists that;
"32: The independence and integrity of ADR entities is crucial in order to gain Union citizens trust that ADR mechanisms will offer them a fair and independent outcome."
Although, apparently, unable to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms in the first place - why? - the RICS have put in place a Memorandum of Understanding with its, "appointed" company and monitor it closely for its "effectiveness" in resolving citizens' disputes with its inadequately regulated Members and regulated Firms. It also has )or had) its placement sitting on the Board of the company.
Q. Mr Clark, how can our citizens trust a mechanism that has been rigged by the RICS from its top to its bottom?
Q. Mr Clark, where is the independence that the EU Directive insists upon when Ombudsman Services:Property clearly sits in RICS' pocket?
Q. Mr Clark, how can citizens trust The Rev Smith and Professor Dame Janet Finch when they preside over a company that maladministers our citizens' complaints?
Q. Mr Clark, how can citizens trust The Rev Smith and Professor Dame Janet Finch when they also preside over a company which hands our citizens illogical Final Decisions?
Q. Mr Clark, where is the integrity that the EU Directive insists upon when OS:Property maladminister our citizens' complaints and hand them illogical Final Decisions?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Oliver Colvile, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing rebranding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Dcisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment, share your story and join the campaign either by contacting the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmmail.com. Many thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Friday, 26 August 2016
Accountability 3: The BIOA Hallmark of Fair Redress.(522)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 522.
522) Accountability 3: The BIOA Hallmark of Fair Redress.
Dear Mr Clark,
Government guidance states;
"An effect (and BIOA compliant) Ombudsman scheme can be the hallmark of fair redress. It is important therefore that anyone establishing such a scheme should consult with the Cabinet Office which acts as a Government liaison point on Ombudsman matters, and also provides the channel of communication with BIOA."
(New Ombudsman schemes:guidance 21st September 2010)
We attempted to liaise with the Cabinet Office over the illogical Final Decisions flooding out of Ombudsman Services:Property but no one took the time or trouble to respond to our concerns thereby condemning hundreds (if not thousands) to a similar fate - an illogical Final Decision from the OS:P ombudsman.
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services' illogical Final Decisions and maladministration is extremely effective but how is it BIOA compliant, how is it a hallmark of fair redress and does it comply with the European Directive on fair and effective ADR?
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, Oliver Colvile, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment, share your story or join the campaign either by liaising with the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve G.
For Clarity - Attempt 522.
522) Accountability 3: The BIOA Hallmark of Fair Redress.
Dear Mr Clark,
Government guidance states;
"An effect (and BIOA compliant) Ombudsman scheme can be the hallmark of fair redress. It is important therefore that anyone establishing such a scheme should consult with the Cabinet Office which acts as a Government liaison point on Ombudsman matters, and also provides the channel of communication with BIOA."
(New Ombudsman schemes:guidance 21st September 2010)
We attempted to liaise with the Cabinet Office over the illogical Final Decisions flooding out of Ombudsman Services:Property but no one took the time or trouble to respond to our concerns thereby condemning hundreds (if not thousands) to a similar fate - an illogical Final Decision from the OS:P ombudsman.
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services' illogical Final Decisions and maladministration is extremely effective but how is it BIOA compliant, how is it a hallmark of fair redress and does it comply with the European Directive on fair and effective ADR?
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, Oliver Colvile, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment, share your story or join the campaign either by liaising with the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve G.
Wednesday, 24 August 2016
Accountability 2: The BIOA Has Considerable Experience And Expertise. (521)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 521.
521) Accountability 2: The BIOA Has Considerable Experience And Expertise.
Dear Mr Clark,
According to the Government's, "New Ombudsman schemes: guidance" (Sept 21st 2010) the British and Irish Ombudsman Association - now re-branded as The Ombudsman Association (OA) - has;
"considerable experience and expertise, gained since its inception in 1993, in the establishment and running of Ombudsman schemes."
(www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-ombudsman-schemes-guidance)
The BIOA',s (OA's) Chair is also the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services. He has an Independent Assessor. In her, "First and final report" the organisation's Independent Assessor stated;
"I was concerned by the scale and significance of the failings of certain cases. I was surprised to find such instances of maladministration within an Ombudsman organisation."
The scale and significance of such failings + maladministration = considerable experience and expertise. Extraordinary.
Q Mr Clark, if your Government is going to cull badgers on the flimsiest of evidence shouldn't you now, at long last, take action against maladministrating ombudsmen the scale and significance of whose failings are now well documented?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Nick Clegg, Sajid Javid, Tom Cobley and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before being re-branded) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment, share your story and join the campaign either by contacting the blog or emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 521.
521) Accountability 2: The BIOA Has Considerable Experience And Expertise.
Dear Mr Clark,
According to the Government's, "New Ombudsman schemes: guidance" (Sept 21st 2010) the British and Irish Ombudsman Association - now re-branded as The Ombudsman Association (OA) - has;
"considerable experience and expertise, gained since its inception in 1993, in the establishment and running of Ombudsman schemes."
(www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-ombudsman-schemes-guidance)
The BIOA',s (OA's) Chair is also the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services. He has an Independent Assessor. In her, "First and final report" the organisation's Independent Assessor stated;
"I was concerned by the scale and significance of the failings of certain cases. I was surprised to find such instances of maladministration within an Ombudsman organisation."
The scale and significance of such failings + maladministration = considerable experience and expertise. Extraordinary.
Q Mr Clark, if your Government is going to cull badgers on the flimsiest of evidence shouldn't you now, at long last, take action against maladministrating ombudsmen the scale and significance of whose failings are now well documented?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Nick Clegg, Sajid Javid, Tom Cobley and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before being re-branded) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment, share your story and join the campaign either by contacting the blog or emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Tuesday, 23 August 2016
Accountability 1: The British And Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA), The Cabinet Office, Ombudsman Services and The Rev Smith. (520)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.:
For Clarity - Attempt 520.
520) Accountability 1: The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA), The Cabinet Office, Ombudsman Services and The Rev Smith.
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomis Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's workshop with Ombudsman Watchers highlighted the huge and systemic failing of ombudsman schemes to be, in any meaningful way, accountable.
At about the same time as we were attempting to contact Francis Maude to complain about Ombudsman Services, the Cabinet Office issued the following guidance to the British public in September 2010;
"3. The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) is a voluntary organisation to which all of the Ombudsman in the UK and Republic of Ireland belong. It has considerable experience and expertise, gained since its inception in 1993, in the establishment and running of Ombudsman schemes."
(www.gov.uk/governemnt/publications/new-ombudsman-schmes-guidance.)
Part of that supposed expertise included the insistence that Ombudsman Schemes wishing to become members of its organisation must have a Whistleblowing Policy.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign thought that was both fair and reasonable.
To any fair-minded person, a Whistleblowing Policy seems to be a fundamental and essential corollary to accountability. Like seat belts in a car.
Q. Mr Clark, when the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services became the Chair of The BIOA hat requirement for member organisations - like his - to have a Whistleblowing Policy suddenly vanished. Why?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Monk and Partners, Jonathan May, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Daniel Whiddon and yourself.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment, share your story and join the campaign either by contacting the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 520.
520) Accountability 1: The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA), The Cabinet Office, Ombudsman Services and The Rev Smith.
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomis Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's workshop with Ombudsman Watchers highlighted the huge and systemic failing of ombudsman schemes to be, in any meaningful way, accountable.
At about the same time as we were attempting to contact Francis Maude to complain about Ombudsman Services, the Cabinet Office issued the following guidance to the British public in September 2010;
"3. The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) is a voluntary organisation to which all of the Ombudsman in the UK and Republic of Ireland belong. It has considerable experience and expertise, gained since its inception in 1993, in the establishment and running of Ombudsman schemes."
(www.gov.uk/governemnt/publications/new-ombudsman-schmes-guidance.)
Part of that supposed expertise included the insistence that Ombudsman Schemes wishing to become members of its organisation must have a Whistleblowing Policy.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign thought that was both fair and reasonable.
To any fair-minded person, a Whistleblowing Policy seems to be a fundamental and essential corollary to accountability. Like seat belts in a car.
Q. Mr Clark, when the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services became the Chair of The BIOA hat requirement for member organisations - like his - to have a Whistleblowing Policy suddenly vanished. Why?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Monk and Partners, Jonathan May, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Daniel Whiddon and yourself.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment, share your story and join the campaign either by contacting the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Sunday, 21 August 2016
"Get Right With God" - Lucinda Williams. (519)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 519.
519) "Get Right With God" by Lucinda Williams.
Dear Mr Clark,
"If I could learn and be complete
If I could walk righteously again."
(Lucinda Williams)
It's becoming ever clearer from the growing body of evidence that is being painstakingly amassed by the gallant few, that a staggering a number of ombudsmen have still not learnt how to walk righteously. Many have yet to reach the toddler stage.
Getting right with God is one thing but ombudsman schemers need to get right with the People. That's something of an entirely different magnitude.
Q. Where are our gold medal Parliamentarians when we need them?
There is one we can think of, Peter Heaton-Jones, an MP who did stand up to be counted over the issue of the regulation of care homes and the rotten-to-the-core system of extorting money from the sick, the elderly and the dying in order that they pay for the full cost of their care and not the State - this is the NHS at its very worst.
Q. Where is the Parliamentary and Health Service Secretary, Dame Julie Mellor, on this hugely important issue?
No doubt busily threatening some poor, hapless complainant with prosecution if the way she treated us is anything to go by.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill conclude the first part of the ombudsman watchers' criticism of the lack of accountability of ombudsman schemes with;
"one participant accepted that demands for greater accountability by ombudsman schemes needed to be balanced against the need for their independence, and that a key issue in the relation to the effectiveness of ombudsman schemes was getting the balance right between accountability and independence."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the -ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
Like the other participants we fundamentally disagree with this strange notion of, "balance."
Why attempt to walk over Niagara Falls on a tightrope when you can go around it?
The promise of, "independence" is being cynically exploited by ombudsman to miss-sell the idea that civil justice automatically awaits complainants. They would have us believe that because they say they are independent they are automatically, "fair" and "efficient."
"Believe me - I'm an ombudsman."
Ombudsmen like The Rev Smith have taken it upon themselves to define what is meant by being, "independent" and so, hey presto and as if by magic, they appear to be really independent.
It's the key to the con.
And because ombudsman schemers abhor accountability like vampires abhor sunlight the complainant will never know if in reality they are actually independent or not. Ombudsmen like The Rev Smith also define what is meant by, "civil justice." They have appropriated both of these terms for their own purposes whilst at the same time surreptitiously removing, "accountability" from the equation. They imply that if they were made to be accountable that that would somehow undermine their independence and ability to be both fair and effective.
There is no balancing act between independence and accountability.
They are not independent and they are most certainly not accountable.
Indeed, they have become a law unto themselves stealthily inveigling themselves onto the legal landscape. It has been carefully rigged that way. An act of colonisation. Otherwise ombudsman schemes would be very, very different.
The time has now come when ombudsman schemers must be firmly and consistently regulated by Parliament in order that at all times they can rigorously demonstrate their, "accountability" and "transparency" (something which their highly paid executives stubbornly and deliberately refuse to do so as to cover their arses). Then - and only then - might the British public begin to have some confidence in the schemers' much vaunted "independence."
To date their self-proclaimed, "independence" is entirely spurious. A carefully constructed fiction. A key part in their miss-selling of what they call, "civil justice."
Our evasive ombudsmen quickly need to learn to walk righteously and to step out from the comfort of the shadows they've been allowed to inhabit for so long by our complaisant, colluding and conniving civil servants and parliamentarians.
Q. Mr Clark, scheming maladministrating ombudsmen such as the ones found at Ombudsman Services:Property can no longer be trusted to run the show by themselves. Do you not agree that there is now an urgent need for a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Mark Prisk, Norman Lamb, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, Jonathan May, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Nick Clegg, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Peter Davy and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment, share your story or join the campaign either by contacting the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 519.
519) "Get Right With God" by Lucinda Williams.
Dear Mr Clark,
"If I could learn and be complete
If I could walk righteously again."
(Lucinda Williams)
It's becoming ever clearer from the growing body of evidence that is being painstakingly amassed by the gallant few, that a staggering a number of ombudsmen have still not learnt how to walk righteously. Many have yet to reach the toddler stage.
Getting right with God is one thing but ombudsman schemers need to get right with the People. That's something of an entirely different magnitude.
Q. Where are our gold medal Parliamentarians when we need them?
There is one we can think of, Peter Heaton-Jones, an MP who did stand up to be counted over the issue of the regulation of care homes and the rotten-to-the-core system of extorting money from the sick, the elderly and the dying in order that they pay for the full cost of their care and not the State - this is the NHS at its very worst.
Q. Where is the Parliamentary and Health Service Secretary, Dame Julie Mellor, on this hugely important issue?
No doubt busily threatening some poor, hapless complainant with prosecution if the way she treated us is anything to go by.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill conclude the first part of the ombudsman watchers' criticism of the lack of accountability of ombudsman schemes with;
"one participant accepted that demands for greater accountability by ombudsman schemes needed to be balanced against the need for their independence, and that a key issue in the relation to the effectiveness of ombudsman schemes was getting the balance right between accountability and independence."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the -ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
Like the other participants we fundamentally disagree with this strange notion of, "balance."
Why attempt to walk over Niagara Falls on a tightrope when you can go around it?
The promise of, "independence" is being cynically exploited by ombudsman to miss-sell the idea that civil justice automatically awaits complainants. They would have us believe that because they say they are independent they are automatically, "fair" and "efficient."
"Believe me - I'm an ombudsman."
Ombudsmen like The Rev Smith have taken it upon themselves to define what is meant by being, "independent" and so, hey presto and as if by magic, they appear to be really independent.
It's the key to the con.
And because ombudsman schemers abhor accountability like vampires abhor sunlight the complainant will never know if in reality they are actually independent or not. Ombudsmen like The Rev Smith also define what is meant by, "civil justice." They have appropriated both of these terms for their own purposes whilst at the same time surreptitiously removing, "accountability" from the equation. They imply that if they were made to be accountable that that would somehow undermine their independence and ability to be both fair and effective.
There is no balancing act between independence and accountability.
They are not independent and they are most certainly not accountable.
Indeed, they have become a law unto themselves stealthily inveigling themselves onto the legal landscape. It has been carefully rigged that way. An act of colonisation. Otherwise ombudsman schemes would be very, very different.
The time has now come when ombudsman schemers must be firmly and consistently regulated by Parliament in order that at all times they can rigorously demonstrate their, "accountability" and "transparency" (something which their highly paid executives stubbornly and deliberately refuse to do so as to cover their arses). Then - and only then - might the British public begin to have some confidence in the schemers' much vaunted "independence."
To date their self-proclaimed, "independence" is entirely spurious. A carefully constructed fiction. A key part in their miss-selling of what they call, "civil justice."
Our evasive ombudsmen quickly need to learn to walk righteously and to step out from the comfort of the shadows they've been allowed to inhabit for so long by our complaisant, colluding and conniving civil servants and parliamentarians.
Q. Mr Clark, scheming maladministrating ombudsmen such as the ones found at Ombudsman Services:Property can no longer be trusted to run the show by themselves. Do you not agree that there is now an urgent need for a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Mark Prisk, Norman Lamb, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, Jonathan May, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Nick Clegg, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Peter Davy and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment, share your story or join the campaign either by contacting the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Saturday, 20 August 2016
The Secretive, Masonic Ombudsman Schemers of the Early 21st Century. (518)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 518.
518) The Secretive, Masonic Ombudsman Schemers of the Early 21st Century.
Dear Mr Clark,
These highly secretive and masonic ombudsman schemers of the early 21st century could well provide the plot and characters for a Dan Brown novel.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tells us;
"several participants also felt that the approach of ombudsman schemes could be secretive and opaque. For example, it was alleged that one ombudsman scheme refused to release the identity of provisional advisers used to provide advice on cases, while information provided by organisations was not always shared with complainants. It was not always clear to complainants how cases had been dealt with, leading to a perception of unfairness. Some participants mentioned that this sense of opacity was also present in relation to how ombudsman schemes dealt with Freedom of Information Act requests. They considered that basic information should be provided more transparently, without forcing people to use the FOI process."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and -engaging-online-citizen-activists.)
The spiritual leader of this highly secretive sect, The Rev Smith - Chair of The Ombudsman Association - seemingly answers to no one, only his god.
The response he gave to a question put to him by our MP, Oliver Colvile, would have been a good answer had it but been a different question. His regime has no Whistleblowing Policy and does not respond to FOI Act requests.
It is a well rigged regime - a model of opacity.
Q. Mr Clark, in a digital age, The Rev Smith's outfit is positively medieval. Why aren't all the cases that pass through Ombudsman Services automatically made available for public scrutiny on the internet?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude Michael Fallon, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, Nick Clegg, The Rev Smith, Jonathan May, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Peter Gureny and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment, share your story or support our campaign either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com . Thanks, Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 518.
518) The Secretive, Masonic Ombudsman Schemers of the Early 21st Century.
Dear Mr Clark,
These highly secretive and masonic ombudsman schemers of the early 21st century could well provide the plot and characters for a Dan Brown novel.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tells us;
"several participants also felt that the approach of ombudsman schemes could be secretive and opaque. For example, it was alleged that one ombudsman scheme refused to release the identity of provisional advisers used to provide advice on cases, while information provided by organisations was not always shared with complainants. It was not always clear to complainants how cases had been dealt with, leading to a perception of unfairness. Some participants mentioned that this sense of opacity was also present in relation to how ombudsman schemes dealt with Freedom of Information Act requests. They considered that basic information should be provided more transparently, without forcing people to use the FOI process."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and -engaging-online-citizen-activists.)
The spiritual leader of this highly secretive sect, The Rev Smith - Chair of The Ombudsman Association - seemingly answers to no one, only his god.
The response he gave to a question put to him by our MP, Oliver Colvile, would have been a good answer had it but been a different question. His regime has no Whistleblowing Policy and does not respond to FOI Act requests.
It is a well rigged regime - a model of opacity.
Q. Mr Clark, in a digital age, The Rev Smith's outfit is positively medieval. Why aren't all the cases that pass through Ombudsman Services automatically made available for public scrutiny on the internet?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude Michael Fallon, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, Nick Clegg, The Rev Smith, Jonathan May, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Peter Gureny and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment, share your story or support our campaign either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com . Thanks, Steve Gilbert.
Wednesday, 17 August 2016
Strategy? Rig The Statistics. It's A Dirty Business. (517)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 51.
517) Strategy? Rig The Statistics. It's A Dirty Business.
Dear Mr Clark,
After the Ombudsman Services:Property executives replaced DJS Research (the independent group who asked complainants what they actually thought of their customer journey) the company's customer satisfaction reports went from transparency to opaqueness.
Government, "monitors" at the OFT told us not only would the same questions be asked by the group replacing DJS but there would be extra ones for good measure.
As you can see for yourselves - by looking at all the reports from 2009/10 - this is a load of codswallop.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill continue;
"Another example that was given by participants related to the results of customer satisfaction surveys which were carried out and published in ways that did not allow for easy year-to-year comparison. The suggestion was that ombudsman schemes might report statistics in a way that made their performance more favourable than it was in actuality."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-ombudsman-schemes-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
OS:Property went one better and stopped bothering to collect those depressing statistics - it succeeded in making their performance look more favourable than in actuality.
Q. Mr Clark, why are ombudsman schemers rigging their statistics and how does this help complainants in their quest for civil justice?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Nick Clegg, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Jonathan May, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Jan Stewer and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS influence.
Please comment or hare your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 51.
517) Strategy? Rig The Statistics. It's A Dirty Business.
Dear Mr Clark,
After the Ombudsman Services:Property executives replaced DJS Research (the independent group who asked complainants what they actually thought of their customer journey) the company's customer satisfaction reports went from transparency to opaqueness.
Government, "monitors" at the OFT told us not only would the same questions be asked by the group replacing DJS but there would be extra ones for good measure.
As you can see for yourselves - by looking at all the reports from 2009/10 - this is a load of codswallop.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill continue;
"Another example that was given by participants related to the results of customer satisfaction surveys which were carried out and published in ways that did not allow for easy year-to-year comparison. The suggestion was that ombudsman schemes might report statistics in a way that made their performance more favourable than it was in actuality."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-ombudsman-schemes-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
OS:Property went one better and stopped bothering to collect those depressing statistics - it succeeded in making their performance look more favourable than in actuality.
Q. Mr Clark, why are ombudsman schemers rigging their statistics and how does this help complainants in their quest for civil justice?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Nick Clegg, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Jonathan May, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Jan Stewer and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS influence.
Please comment or hare your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Friday, 12 August 2016
Rigged Statistics, Rigged Performance and Rigged Redress. (516)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 516.
516) Rigged Statistics, Rigged Performance and Rigged Redress.
Dear Mr Clark,
We saw in the previous blog that some gallant Parliamentarians did attempt to ask searching questions of ombudsmen and their schemes but came up against a wall of evasion.
The schemers had clearly got their act together. Democracy hasn't.
Any fair, just and independent minded who took the time and trouble to read Ombudsman Services:Property's Customer Satisfaction Reports, from their first in 2009/10 to their latest in 2014/15, would find a remarkable change - from bad to heaven knows what because the schemers are no longer publishing the data.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill continue their exploration of the lack of accountability of ombudsman schemes with;
"Another example that was given by the participants relates to the results of customer satisfaction surveys, which were carried out and published in ways that did not allow for easy year-to-year comparisons. The suggestion was that ombudsman schemes might report statistics in a way that made their performance look more favourable than it was in actuality."
"www.oxlaw.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-ombudsman-schemes-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
We tried asking the Ombudsman Association, which is chaired by The Rev Smith who also just happens to be the CEO of Ombudsman Services;
"How has this requirement (the OFT Criterion 5 - ombudsmen must proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice) been met when year after year a majority of complainants express deep dissatisfaction with the logic of the ombudsman's recommendations?
Hasn't the evidence for this lack of credibility been carefully amassed year after year by DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports and the Chair's demand for new standards? Not only has the executive not acted on these findings and taken decisive action to ensure that future investigations would have been, "far" and "effective" (otherwise wouldn't DJS research's statistics been entirely different?) but hasn't the Ombudsman Association also ignored these findings in sanctioning the continuing membership of OS:Property?"
We were told by the Secretary of the Ombudsman Association that he couldn't help us in this matter but that he was in the process of reconfirming the membership of all his members - including The Rev Smith's Ombudsman Services.
It's an exclusive club, whistleblowers are not welcome.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't this ombudsman charade rotten to the core and shouldn't the new government act swiftly and decisively to protect members of the public from these scheming, conniving and ultimately, evasive conmen?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Nick Clegg, Monk and Partners, Gillian Flemming, The Rev Smith, Dame Julie Mellor, Dame Janet Finch, Jonathan May, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Bill Brewer and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please take the time and trouble to read OS:Property's Customer satisfaction Reports (www.ombudsman-services.org Our Information) and judge for yourself. Or share your story of being a victim of ombudsman civil justice - either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 516.
516) Rigged Statistics, Rigged Performance and Rigged Redress.
Dear Mr Clark,
We saw in the previous blog that some gallant Parliamentarians did attempt to ask searching questions of ombudsmen and their schemes but came up against a wall of evasion.
The schemers had clearly got their act together. Democracy hasn't.
Any fair, just and independent minded who took the time and trouble to read Ombudsman Services:Property's Customer Satisfaction Reports, from their first in 2009/10 to their latest in 2014/15, would find a remarkable change - from bad to heaven knows what because the schemers are no longer publishing the data.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill continue their exploration of the lack of accountability of ombudsman schemes with;
"Another example that was given by the participants relates to the results of customer satisfaction surveys, which were carried out and published in ways that did not allow for easy year-to-year comparisons. The suggestion was that ombudsman schemes might report statistics in a way that made their performance look more favourable than it was in actuality."
"www.oxlaw.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-ombudsman-schemes-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
We tried asking the Ombudsman Association, which is chaired by The Rev Smith who also just happens to be the CEO of Ombudsman Services;
"How has this requirement (the OFT Criterion 5 - ombudsmen must proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice) been met when year after year a majority of complainants express deep dissatisfaction with the logic of the ombudsman's recommendations?
Hasn't the evidence for this lack of credibility been carefully amassed year after year by DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports and the Chair's demand for new standards? Not only has the executive not acted on these findings and taken decisive action to ensure that future investigations would have been, "far" and "effective" (otherwise wouldn't DJS research's statistics been entirely different?) but hasn't the Ombudsman Association also ignored these findings in sanctioning the continuing membership of OS:Property?"
We were told by the Secretary of the Ombudsman Association that he couldn't help us in this matter but that he was in the process of reconfirming the membership of all his members - including The Rev Smith's Ombudsman Services.
It's an exclusive club, whistleblowers are not welcome.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't this ombudsman charade rotten to the core and shouldn't the new government act swiftly and decisively to protect members of the public from these scheming, conniving and ultimately, evasive conmen?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Nick Clegg, Monk and Partners, Gillian Flemming, The Rev Smith, Dame Julie Mellor, Dame Janet Finch, Jonathan May, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Bill Brewer and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please take the time and trouble to read OS:Property's Customer satisfaction Reports (www.ombudsman-services.org Our Information) and judge for yourself. Or share your story of being a victim of ombudsman civil justice - either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Wednesday, 10 August 2016
The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique of Ombudsman Schemes (515)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 515.
515) The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique of Ombudsman Schemes 3.
Dear Mr Clark,
In the previous blog we saw that democracy was, "the belief in freedom and equality between people." The ombudsman watchers' critiques of ombudsman schemes demonstrate conclusively that the belief has many rivers to cross before being turned into reality.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's exploration of the lack of accountability of ombudsman schemes continues;
"Some participants felt strongly, as a result, (of independent assessors being paid by the organisations they independently assess) the quality of ombudsman schemes' decisions were subject to almost no external oversight. The perception was expressed that the schemes were analogous to a bean factory where the only concern was on the procedures and efficiency of bean processing and no one tasted the quality of the final product. One participant noted that Parliamentary scrutiny did involve asking some searching questions, but that the evasive answers were not sufficiently followed up. Generally there was a lack of interest and knowledge amongst the public and Parliamentarians about ombudsman schemes and administrative justice, which accountability was weakened."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
Ombudsman schemes have clearly gone to remarkable lengths to avoid public scrutiny and democratic accountability. They're having their cake and eating it. As, too, are the markets and businesses they are supposedly, "ombudsing."
Because of the Parliamentary, "lack of interest" miscarriages of justice have become a matter of routine for ombudsman schemes. No one knows how many victims there are because ombudsman schemes such as Ombudsman Services:Property are rigged by its executives so as not to collect the data.
Q. Mr Clark, shouldn't there be an immediate public inquiry into the rigging of what Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill call, "administrative justice?"
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Monk and Partners, Jonathan May, Nick Clegg, The Rev Smith, Dame Julie Mellor, Dame Janet Finch,
Gillian Fleming, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS influence.
Please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 515.
515) The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique of Ombudsman Schemes 3.
Dear Mr Clark,
In the previous blog we saw that democracy was, "the belief in freedom and equality between people." The ombudsman watchers' critiques of ombudsman schemes demonstrate conclusively that the belief has many rivers to cross before being turned into reality.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's exploration of the lack of accountability of ombudsman schemes continues;
"Some participants felt strongly, as a result, (of independent assessors being paid by the organisations they independently assess) the quality of ombudsman schemes' decisions were subject to almost no external oversight. The perception was expressed that the schemes were analogous to a bean factory where the only concern was on the procedures and efficiency of bean processing and no one tasted the quality of the final product. One participant noted that Parliamentary scrutiny did involve asking some searching questions, but that the evasive answers were not sufficiently followed up. Generally there was a lack of interest and knowledge amongst the public and Parliamentarians about ombudsman schemes and administrative justice, which accountability was weakened."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
Ombudsman schemes have clearly gone to remarkable lengths to avoid public scrutiny and democratic accountability. They're having their cake and eating it. As, too, are the markets and businesses they are supposedly, "ombudsing."
Because of the Parliamentary, "lack of interest" miscarriages of justice have become a matter of routine for ombudsman schemes. No one knows how many victims there are because ombudsman schemes such as Ombudsman Services:Property are rigged by its executives so as not to collect the data.
Q. Mr Clark, shouldn't there be an immediate public inquiry into the rigging of what Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill call, "administrative justice?"
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Monk and Partners, Jonathan May, Nick Clegg, The Rev Smith, Dame Julie Mellor, Dame Janet Finch,
Gillian Fleming, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS influence.
Please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Tuesday, 9 August 2016
The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique Of Ombudsman Schemes (2) (514)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 514.
514) The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique of Ombudsman Schemes (2).
Dear Mr Clark,
A democracy where sections of the newly privatised state deliberately and methodically - as a matter of policy - refuse to be held to account is no longer a democracy. It has become something else - an executocracy perhaps where managers have captured and rig the economy.
"Democracy: the belief in freedom and equality between people or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.
- few of the Western democracies still have a royal family."
(www.dictionary.cambridge.org)
That would seem to rule out those of us living in the UK.
Naomi Creutzfeld and Chris Gill set out the Ombudsman Watchers' critique of Ombudsman Schemes. They say;
"Through the workshop discussions, we identified four broad themes in terms of the Ombudsman Watchers' critiques of Ombudsman Schemes:
1. Lack of accountability.
2. Procedural and practice issues.
3. Staffing and qualifications
4. The impact of the system on complainants.
(The Ombudsmans61percent believes that there are others)
1. Lack of Accountability:
Several Participants expressed the view that there was a lack of accountability, due to the absence of any effective form of appeal to challenge decisions by ombudsman schemes. Judicial review was regarded as a very limited and inaccessible form of review. Internal reviews are seen as, 'rubber stamping' exercises , which were insufficiently robust and gave very little assurance to complainants. Even where ombudsman schemes used, 'independent reviewers' these provided very little accountability because they were paid by ombudsman schemes and their remit covered administrative and service matters, rather than providing a route of appeal against the substantive decisions of ombudsmen."
(www.oxlaw.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-activists)
We believe that a fifth theme is the historical context in which ombudsman schemes have evolved and the economic interests they have been deliberately designed to serve. They didn't happen by accident. Somebody must have thought they were a good idea.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the main function of these highly secretive organisations to serve the interests of business and how is this democratic?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Monk and Partners, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free rom RICS influence.
Please feel free to comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks, Steve G.
For Clarity - Attempt 514.
514) The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique of Ombudsman Schemes (2).
Dear Mr Clark,
A democracy where sections of the newly privatised state deliberately and methodically - as a matter of policy - refuse to be held to account is no longer a democracy. It has become something else - an executocracy perhaps where managers have captured and rig the economy.
"Democracy: the belief in freedom and equality between people or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.
- few of the Western democracies still have a royal family."
(www.dictionary.cambridge.org)
That would seem to rule out those of us living in the UK.
Naomi Creutzfeld and Chris Gill set out the Ombudsman Watchers' critique of Ombudsman Schemes. They say;
"Through the workshop discussions, we identified four broad themes in terms of the Ombudsman Watchers' critiques of Ombudsman Schemes:
1. Lack of accountability.
2. Procedural and practice issues.
3. Staffing and qualifications
4. The impact of the system on complainants.
(The Ombudsmans61percent believes that there are others)
1. Lack of Accountability:
Several Participants expressed the view that there was a lack of accountability, due to the absence of any effective form of appeal to challenge decisions by ombudsman schemes. Judicial review was regarded as a very limited and inaccessible form of review. Internal reviews are seen as, 'rubber stamping' exercises , which were insufficiently robust and gave very little assurance to complainants. Even where ombudsman schemes used, 'independent reviewers' these provided very little accountability because they were paid by ombudsman schemes and their remit covered administrative and service matters, rather than providing a route of appeal against the substantive decisions of ombudsmen."
(www.oxlaw.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-activists)
We believe that a fifth theme is the historical context in which ombudsman schemes have evolved and the economic interests they have been deliberately designed to serve. They didn't happen by accident. Somebody must have thought they were a good idea.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the main function of these highly secretive organisations to serve the interests of business and how is this democratic?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Monk and Partners, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free rom RICS influence.
Please feel free to comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks, Steve G.
The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique of Ombudsman Schemes (1) (513)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 513.
513) The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique of Ombudsman Schemes (1).
Dear Mr Clark,
A democracy where sections of the newly privatised state deliberately and methodically - as a matter of policy - refuses to be held to account is no longer a democracy. It has become something else - an executocracy perhaps where managers have captured and rig the economy.
"Democracy: the belief in freedom and equality between people or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.
- few of the Western democracies still have a royal family."
(www.dictionary.cambridge.org)
That would seem to rule out those of us living in the UK.
Naomi Creutzfeld and Chris Gill set out the Ombudsman Watchers' critique of Ombudsman Schemes. They say;
"Through the workshop discussions, we identified four broad themes in terms of the Ombudsman Watchers' critiques of Ombudsman Schemes:
1. Lack of accountability.
2. Procedural and practice issues.
3. Staffing and qualifications
4. The impact of the system on complainants.
(The Ombudsmans61percent believes that there are others)
1. Lack of Accountability:
Several Participants expressed the view that there was a lack of accountability, due to the absence of any effective form of appeal to challenge decisions by ombudsman schemes. Judicial review was regarded as a very limited and inaccessible form of review. Internal reviews are seen as, 'rubber stamping' exercises , which were insufficiently robust and gave very little assurance to complainants. Even where ombudsman schemes used, 'independent reviewers' these provided very little accountability because they were paid by ombudsman schemes and their remit covered administrative and service matters, rather than providing a route of appeal against the substantive decisions of ombudsmen."
(www.oxlaw.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-activists)
We believe that a fifth theme is the historical context in which ombudsman schemes have evolved and the economic interests they have been deliberately designed to serve. They didn't happen by accident. Somebody must have thought they were a good idea.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the main function of these highly secretive organisations to serve the interests of business and how is this democratic?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Monk and Partners, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free rom RICS influence.
Please feel free to comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks, Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 513.
513) The Ombudsman Watchers' Critique of Ombudsman Schemes (1).
Dear Mr Clark,
A democracy where sections of the newly privatised state deliberately and methodically - as a matter of policy - refuses to be held to account is no longer a democracy. It has become something else - an executocracy perhaps where managers have captured and rig the economy.
"Democracy: the belief in freedom and equality between people or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.
- few of the Western democracies still have a royal family."
(www.dictionary.cambridge.org)
That would seem to rule out those of us living in the UK.
Naomi Creutzfeld and Chris Gill set out the Ombudsman Watchers' critique of Ombudsman Schemes. They say;
"Through the workshop discussions, we identified four broad themes in terms of the Ombudsman Watchers' critiques of Ombudsman Schemes:
1. Lack of accountability.
2. Procedural and practice issues.
3. Staffing and qualifications
4. The impact of the system on complainants.
(The Ombudsmans61percent believes that there are others)
1. Lack of Accountability:
Several Participants expressed the view that there was a lack of accountability, due to the absence of any effective form of appeal to challenge decisions by ombudsman schemes. Judicial review was regarded as a very limited and inaccessible form of review. Internal reviews are seen as, 'rubber stamping' exercises , which were insufficiently robust and gave very little assurance to complainants. Even where ombudsman schemes used, 'independent reviewers' these provided very little accountability because they were paid by ombudsman schemes and their remit covered administrative and service matters, rather than providing a route of appeal against the substantive decisions of ombudsmen."
(www.oxlaw.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-activists)
We believe that a fifth theme is the historical context in which ombudsman schemes have evolved and the economic interests they have been deliberately designed to serve. They didn't happen by accident. Somebody must have thought they were a good idea.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the main function of these highly secretive organisations to serve the interests of business and how is this democratic?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Monk and Partners, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free rom RICS influence.
Please feel free to comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks, Steve Gilbert.
Wednesday, 3 August 2016
OS:P As Secretive As GCHQ. (512)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity -Attempt 512.
512) OS:P As Secretive As GCHQ.
Dear Mr Clark,
The Ombudsman Services maldministrating executives would have us believe that they sit in impartial judgement and are, "fair" and "independent" in their well considered decisions. According to DJS Research this is simply not the case.
Now that DJS Research have been replaced by a firm who no longer ask the same questions, we no longer know even that. Things have gone backwards at this company.
What we do know is that Ombudsman Services Ltd. is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act which is highly convenient for its maladministrating executives but not for dissatisfied customers trying to figure out what on earth is going on at this private redress scheme.
The following is an example of the customer journey experienced by Dawn Budett:
FAO Dawn Budett:
Thank you for your FOI request that you made on 23 Feb 2013 regarding complaints against agents in 2012.
OS is a company and as such is not covered by the requirements of the FOI Act. As such we will not be providing you with the information you request.
Mark Glover,
Policy Manager."
(www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/ombudsman-services)
That was brief and to the point.
Dawn Budett's customer journey never left the station.
Q. Mr Clark, as part of your department's policy review in light of the post-Brexit voter dissatisfaction with The Establishment, shouldn't you now review your close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services maladministrators, take back control and order a public inquiry into its appalling governance, appalling decisions and appalling customer care?
Yous sincerely,
Steve Gilbert
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Mark Prisk, Norman Lamb, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, The Rev Smith, Gillian Fleming, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Monk
and Partners, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS)
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Comment is free so please feel free to comment, either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail .com Thank you. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity -Attempt 512.
512) OS:P As Secretive As GCHQ.
Dear Mr Clark,
The Ombudsman Services maldministrating executives would have us believe that they sit in impartial judgement and are, "fair" and "independent" in their well considered decisions. According to DJS Research this is simply not the case.
Now that DJS Research have been replaced by a firm who no longer ask the same questions, we no longer know even that. Things have gone backwards at this company.
What we do know is that Ombudsman Services Ltd. is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act which is highly convenient for its maladministrating executives but not for dissatisfied customers trying to figure out what on earth is going on at this private redress scheme.
The following is an example of the customer journey experienced by Dawn Budett:
FAO Dawn Budett:
Thank you for your FOI request that you made on 23 Feb 2013 regarding complaints against agents in 2012.
OS is a company and as such is not covered by the requirements of the FOI Act. As such we will not be providing you with the information you request.
Mark Glover,
Policy Manager."
(www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/ombudsman-services)
That was brief and to the point.
Dawn Budett's customer journey never left the station.
Q. Mr Clark, as part of your department's policy review in light of the post-Brexit voter dissatisfaction with The Establishment, shouldn't you now review your close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services maladministrators, take back control and order a public inquiry into its appalling governance, appalling decisions and appalling customer care?
Yous sincerely,
Steve Gilbert
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Mark Prisk, Norman Lamb, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, The Rev Smith, Gillian Fleming, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Monk
and Partners, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS)
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Comment is free so please feel free to comment, either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail .com Thank you. Steve Gilbert.
Tuesday, 2 August 2016
David Blanchflower - Criticism But No Advice.
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 511.
511) David Blanchflower - Criticism But No Advice,
Dear Mr Clark,
Having read David Blanchflower's self-promoting article, "I advised Corbyn's economics team to learn fast. They didn't" in today's Guardian (www.theguardian.com/commentisfree?2016/Aug02) we almost found ourselves agreeing with Mr Gove and his belief that experts are not to be trusted. Mr Blanchflower is apparently an economics expert although you wouldn't know it from reading his piece for the Guardian. We did learn that Mr Blanchflower is a remarkably important person but very little else.
Where was the economics masterclass and where was the brilliant advice?
Instead of that we're told, "they (Mr Corbyn and his team) will have to accept the realities of capitalism and modern markets, like it or not" but nowhere are we told in detail what the realities of capitalism and modern markets actually are. We didn't like that.
For Mr Blanchflower, don't mention the war seems now to have become don't mention the nature of capitalism and the modern markets it thrives upon.
From Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Pikkety and Steven A Ramirez we know that markets are rigged ie have become highly organised criminal enterprises and that those who exploit them act to ensure that no laws are passed to regulate their criminality, that the profits generated from this criminality are filtered through offshore bank accounts to reappear as bought property in the world's leading property hotspots. If Mr Blanchflower thinks otherwise he doesn't say.
We did learn that,
"The bond and equity markets would eat him (Mr Corbyn) for lunch."
So, in Thomas Piketty's terminology, not only has capitalism been, "captured" it's also become cannibalistic too. Mr Blanchflower again offers no analysis of this penetrating insight into modern markets. Only that they're modern, they cover a multitude of sins and they don't like being messed with so we just need to get on with it.
What we get from Mr Blanchflower are a series of assertions:
- austerity was a disaster.
- it led to the biggest fall in real wages ever recorded.
(Doesn't capitalism exist to exploit labour, drive down wages and thereby increase margins and profits?)
- this explains Brexit.
- the people are hurting, "but the hurt was little to do with EU regulations or migration."
(that's not what a lot of people down here believe - is this Blanchflowerian false consciousness? He offers no explanation for the way people think the way they do.)
- there's overcrowding in schools and the NHS due to George Osborne's love of austerity.
(wasn't austerity promoted by Christine Lagarde, the European Central Bank and the IMF as the right pill for the patient? Mr Blanchflower doesn't say.
and finally,
- make taxes and spending fairer.
That's it? Theresa May would have been of more help.
His less than dazzling conclusion is;
"The country needs an opposition with a credible set of worked out and carefully funded policies" but he gives no indication as to what they might be.
The juggernaut is hurtling out of control but it's all ok because it'll have a fresh lick of paint, retreds and be taxed for the next six months.
His conclusion appears to be that Mr Corbyn needs to change but that rigged market capitalism doesn't. Anyone trying to change the system will be eaten. No doubt by those sections of the press that are owned by non domiciled, tax-avoiding proprietors who champion self-regulation - ie no regulation.
Q. Mr Clark, are poorly regulated and exploitative markets like the ones in surveying and adult care an essential part of your industrial strategy for post-Brexit Britain?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon,. Nick Clegg, Dame Julie Mellor, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS influence.
Comment is free so please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Print That Guardian!
For Clarity - Attempt 511.
511) David Blanchflower - Criticism But No Advice,
Dear Mr Clark,
Having read David Blanchflower's self-promoting article, "I advised Corbyn's economics team to learn fast. They didn't" in today's Guardian (www.theguardian.com/commentisfree?2016/Aug02) we almost found ourselves agreeing with Mr Gove and his belief that experts are not to be trusted. Mr Blanchflower is apparently an economics expert although you wouldn't know it from reading his piece for the Guardian. We did learn that Mr Blanchflower is a remarkably important person but very little else.
Where was the economics masterclass and where was the brilliant advice?
Instead of that we're told, "they (Mr Corbyn and his team) will have to accept the realities of capitalism and modern markets, like it or not" but nowhere are we told in detail what the realities of capitalism and modern markets actually are. We didn't like that.
For Mr Blanchflower, don't mention the war seems now to have become don't mention the nature of capitalism and the modern markets it thrives upon.
From Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Pikkety and Steven A Ramirez we know that markets are rigged ie have become highly organised criminal enterprises and that those who exploit them act to ensure that no laws are passed to regulate their criminality, that the profits generated from this criminality are filtered through offshore bank accounts to reappear as bought property in the world's leading property hotspots. If Mr Blanchflower thinks otherwise he doesn't say.
We did learn that,
"The bond and equity markets would eat him (Mr Corbyn) for lunch."
So, in Thomas Piketty's terminology, not only has capitalism been, "captured" it's also become cannibalistic too. Mr Blanchflower again offers no analysis of this penetrating insight into modern markets. Only that they're modern, they cover a multitude of sins and they don't like being messed with so we just need to get on with it.
What we get from Mr Blanchflower are a series of assertions:
- austerity was a disaster.
- it led to the biggest fall in real wages ever recorded.
(Doesn't capitalism exist to exploit labour, drive down wages and thereby increase margins and profits?)
- this explains Brexit.
- the people are hurting, "but the hurt was little to do with EU regulations or migration."
(that's not what a lot of people down here believe - is this Blanchflowerian false consciousness? He offers no explanation for the way people think the way they do.)
- there's overcrowding in schools and the NHS due to George Osborne's love of austerity.
(wasn't austerity promoted by Christine Lagarde, the European Central Bank and the IMF as the right pill for the patient? Mr Blanchflower doesn't say.
and finally,
- make taxes and spending fairer.
That's it? Theresa May would have been of more help.
His less than dazzling conclusion is;
"The country needs an opposition with a credible set of worked out and carefully funded policies" but he gives no indication as to what they might be.
The juggernaut is hurtling out of control but it's all ok because it'll have a fresh lick of paint, retreds and be taxed for the next six months.
His conclusion appears to be that Mr Corbyn needs to change but that rigged market capitalism doesn't. Anyone trying to change the system will be eaten. No doubt by those sections of the press that are owned by non domiciled, tax-avoiding proprietors who champion self-regulation - ie no regulation.
Q. Mr Clark, are poorly regulated and exploitative markets like the ones in surveying and adult care an essential part of your industrial strategy for post-Brexit Britain?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon,. Nick Clegg, Dame Julie Mellor, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS influence.
Comment is free so please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Print That Guardian!
Monday, 1 August 2016
The Privatisation Of Justice In Rigged Market Capitalism. (510)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 510
.
510) The Privatisation Of Justice In Rigged Market Capitalism.
Dear Mr Clark,
We see that David Cameron has reneged on yet another of his strongly held principles - the one where he vowed to combat capitalist cronyism. Instead he has been handing out gongs like confetti at a fat gypsy wedding. We were mortified to learn that we've been passed over once again. Surely, a painfully long, dogged and bulldog-spirited campaign to highlight; injustice, cronyism, corruption and the dangers that privatised, "civil justice" pose to our fragile democracy, trumps Samantha Cameron's stylist? Apparently not.
Once again the spoils continue to go to the victors (or in David Cameron's case the loser) within The Elite. And in The Golden Age of the Ombudsman, ombudsmen are now knocking loudly and eagerly at its door.
Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill explain the purpose behind their project;
"From an academic perspective, the project aimed to shed light on a new and rapidly developing phenomenon at a time when ombudsman schemes are taking on an increasingly important role within the justice system and, therefore, coming under more intense scrutiny. As a spotlight is increasingly directed towards ombudsman schemes, it is important to begin to understand and examine those voices that are critical of the system."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaing-online-citizen-activists)
We agree with the two researchers - ombudsman schemes are beginning to dominate the justice system and are now in urgent need of meaningful scrutiny and control.
In short, ombudsman schemes are effectively colonising the justice system and compliantly serve the interests of badly regulated businesses and not - as they would have us believe - those of, "civil justice."
Unelected and unaccountable, self styled "ombudsmen" are - with the help of RICS in the case of OS:Property - making up the rules up as they go along. There is no meaningful scrutiny of what they do.
In, "Lawless Capitalism: The Sub Prime Crisis and the Case for the Economic Rule of Law" Steven A Ramirez tells us that,
"In the end, if elites hold power to change law in their favour then all others lose by being forced to compete in a rigged market. The sub prime debacle constitutes a preview of the costs of a pervasively rigged economy."
He could have been describing the RICS and its use of Ombudsman Services:Property to mete out what it determines to be, "civil justice." A civil justice that's brokered behind the scenes and away from any meaningful scrutiny by the people's elected representatives in Parliament.
He could also have describing Livewell South West and the way it arrives at DST (Diagnostic Support Tool) Decisions without bothering to explain to the sick, the elderly and the dying residents of Plymouth just exactly how they arrived at those decisions. Some residents have been waiting years for justice.
He goes on to say,
"Law needs to curb power, and a modern economy needs an economic rule of law ... corporate and financial incumbents subvert the law and entrench their power."
(Steven A Ramirez page 212)
We were told by the company's Independent Assessor that the OS:Property ombudsman's decision was final. There was no right of appeal. They have entrenched their power - totally.
Q. Mr Clark, when maladministrators at Ombudsman Services:Property are left free - with RICS approval - to determine what is or isn't civil justice aren't they cynically subverting the law and entrenching their power?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property ( a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
Please comment or share your story either by using the blog or emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com . Thank you.
For Clarity - Attempt 510
.
510) The Privatisation Of Justice In Rigged Market Capitalism.
Dear Mr Clark,
We see that David Cameron has reneged on yet another of his strongly held principles - the one where he vowed to combat capitalist cronyism. Instead he has been handing out gongs like confetti at a fat gypsy wedding. We were mortified to learn that we've been passed over once again. Surely, a painfully long, dogged and bulldog-spirited campaign to highlight; injustice, cronyism, corruption and the dangers that privatised, "civil justice" pose to our fragile democracy, trumps Samantha Cameron's stylist? Apparently not.
Once again the spoils continue to go to the victors (or in David Cameron's case the loser) within The Elite. And in The Golden Age of the Ombudsman, ombudsmen are now knocking loudly and eagerly at its door.
Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill explain the purpose behind their project;
"From an academic perspective, the project aimed to shed light on a new and rapidly developing phenomenon at a time when ombudsman schemes are taking on an increasingly important role within the justice system and, therefore, coming under more intense scrutiny. As a spotlight is increasingly directed towards ombudsman schemes, it is important to begin to understand and examine those voices that are critical of the system."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaing-online-citizen-activists)
We agree with the two researchers - ombudsman schemes are beginning to dominate the justice system and are now in urgent need of meaningful scrutiny and control.
In short, ombudsman schemes are effectively colonising the justice system and compliantly serve the interests of badly regulated businesses and not - as they would have us believe - those of, "civil justice."
Unelected and unaccountable, self styled "ombudsmen" are - with the help of RICS in the case of OS:Property - making up the rules up as they go along. There is no meaningful scrutiny of what they do.
In, "Lawless Capitalism: The Sub Prime Crisis and the Case for the Economic Rule of Law" Steven A Ramirez tells us that,
"In the end, if elites hold power to change law in their favour then all others lose by being forced to compete in a rigged market. The sub prime debacle constitutes a preview of the costs of a pervasively rigged economy."
He could have been describing the RICS and its use of Ombudsman Services:Property to mete out what it determines to be, "civil justice." A civil justice that's brokered behind the scenes and away from any meaningful scrutiny by the people's elected representatives in Parliament.
He could also have describing Livewell South West and the way it arrives at DST (Diagnostic Support Tool) Decisions without bothering to explain to the sick, the elderly and the dying residents of Plymouth just exactly how they arrived at those decisions. Some residents have been waiting years for justice.
He goes on to say,
"Law needs to curb power, and a modern economy needs an economic rule of law ... corporate and financial incumbents subvert the law and entrench their power."
(Steven A Ramirez page 212)
We were told by the company's Independent Assessor that the OS:Property ombudsman's decision was final. There was no right of appeal. They have entrenched their power - totally.
Q. Mr Clark, when maladministrators at Ombudsman Services:Property are left free - with RICS approval - to determine what is or isn't civil justice aren't they cynically subverting the law and entrenching their power?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property ( a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.
Please comment or share your story either by using the blog or emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com . Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)