Accountability 5. (525)

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?