To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
(but also to all who care about justice, transparency and accountability)
For Clarity - Attempt 534.
534) Eye-Wateringly Ludicrous Decisions.
Dear Mr Clark,
Eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions are not the sole preserve of an OS:Property ombudsman.
We wrote to the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd.
"Dear Prof Waite,
We are told that the NHS is still free at the point of delivery although there are those who claim that this is a political mirage.
The NHS is most certainly not free at the point of a Livewell Southwest Ltd Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's eye-wateringly ludicrous decision.
At this point the NHS becomes very un-free and expensive.
In our case employing the services of a highly skilled and respected advocate appears to have been no deterrent in in preventing the Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer from arriving at his/her predetermined decision.
Q. Prof Waite, is it Livewell Southwest Ltd policy to keep the identity of their Desk Top Reviewers anonymous so as to facilitate their arrival at ludicrous decisions thus saving the NHS millions of pounds each year whilst at the same time effectively transferring the cost of care onto their victims?"
Q. Mr Clark, this strategy of handing NHS patients eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions regarding the cost of their care appears to be happening on an industrial scale. When is it going to end?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 29 September 2016
The RICS OS:Property and NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping Of Complaints.. (533)
To The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
(and those running La La Land)
For Clarity - Attempt 533.
533) The RICS OS{Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping of Complaints.
Dear Mr Clark,
At Livewell Southwest Ltd complaints are handled by the simple expedient of ignoring them whereas at the RICS' "chosen scheme" - Ombudsman Services:Property - things are far more sophisticated than that.
Q. Mr Clark, if the RICS' chosen scheme is, "entirely independent" why has it installed two of its placemen at the company?
In the Ombudsman Services:Property 2015 Property sector Report (April-December) they tell us;
"complaints continue to largely involve missed defects by surveyors carrying out RICS survey products."
Strangely enough, our complaint concerning Monk and Partners was about a host of defects missed by their surveyor who promptly left the company shortly afterwards.
That was good for business but bad for the consumer.
If you look back over the years through their property reports you will see that, "surveys" and "valuations" have always topped the list of consumers' greatest cause of dissatisfaction with surveyors.
Staggering sums of money are involved.
All that seems to have changed in the time OS:Property have been supposedly, "investigating" complaints is that the figures have gone up and not down.
The RICS would appear to have effectively rigged the market in this particular sector.
They have provided their crap surveyors and their crap survey products with a platinum get out of jail free card. Its called The Ombudsman Services:Property Platinum Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free and is Good For Business.
Q. Mr Clark, clearly substandard surveys and valuations are an expensive problem for surveyors, is that why they send their dissatisfied clients to their chosen scheme - OS:Property - to be effectively resolved?
Q. Mr Clark, why has Ombudsman Services:Property been so ineffective in stemming this rising tide in substandard surveys and valuations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
(and those running La La Land)
For Clarity - Attempt 533.
533) The RICS OS{Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping of Complaints.
Dear Mr Clark,
At Livewell Southwest Ltd complaints are handled by the simple expedient of ignoring them whereas at the RICS' "chosen scheme" - Ombudsman Services:Property - things are far more sophisticated than that.
Q. Mr Clark, if the RICS' chosen scheme is, "entirely independent" why has it installed two of its placemen at the company?
In the Ombudsman Services:Property 2015 Property sector Report (April-December) they tell us;
"complaints continue to largely involve missed defects by surveyors carrying out RICS survey products."
Strangely enough, our complaint concerning Monk and Partners was about a host of defects missed by their surveyor who promptly left the company shortly afterwards.
That was good for business but bad for the consumer.
If you look back over the years through their property reports you will see that, "surveys" and "valuations" have always topped the list of consumers' greatest cause of dissatisfaction with surveyors.
Staggering sums of money are involved.
All that seems to have changed in the time OS:Property have been supposedly, "investigating" complaints is that the figures have gone up and not down.
The RICS would appear to have effectively rigged the market in this particular sector.
They have provided their crap surveyors and their crap survey products with a platinum get out of jail free card. Its called The Ombudsman Services:Property Platinum Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free and is Good For Business.
Q. Mr Clark, clearly substandard surveys and valuations are an expensive problem for surveyors, is that why they send their dissatisfied clients to their chosen scheme - OS:Property - to be effectively resolved?
Q. Mr Clark, why has Ombudsman Services:Property been so ineffective in stemming this rising tide in substandard surveys and valuations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 26 September 2016
Accountability 12. (532)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 532.
532) Accountability 12: The Startling Similarities Between Ombudsman Services:Property And Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Dear Mr Clark,
The following email was sent to Oliver Colvile MP and Livewell Southwest Ltd:
"Dear Oliver Colvile,
I first contacted you about Prof Waite and his leadership of Livewell Southwest Ltd on 29th July 2016 but have not yet had a reply from you.
This organisation makes truly appalling decisions free in the knowledge that they will be able to get away with it.
There is no transparency at Livewell and there would appear to be no accountability either.
This is wholly unacceptable in what passes for a modern democracy. Livewell Southwest is an affront to democracy.
I wonder just how many other Plymothians have had similar appalling decisions handed to them without explanation by anonymous functionaries of Prof Waite's organisation?
The similarities between Prof Waite's Livewell Southwest Ltd and The Rev Smith's Ombudsman Services:Property are remarkable and alarming.
Sadly, I will now be complaining to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner about your refusal to acknowledge my complaint about Prof Waite and Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Yours sincerely,
Steve G."
Q. Mr Clark, the standards of transparency and accountability at both these organisations belong in Ceausecu's Romania. Is it the UK Government's business strategy to collude with, and prop up, such appalling organisations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 532.
532) Accountability 12: The Startling Similarities Between Ombudsman Services:Property And Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Dear Mr Clark,
The following email was sent to Oliver Colvile MP and Livewell Southwest Ltd:
"Dear Oliver Colvile,
I first contacted you about Prof Waite and his leadership of Livewell Southwest Ltd on 29th July 2016 but have not yet had a reply from you.
This organisation makes truly appalling decisions free in the knowledge that they will be able to get away with it.
There is no transparency at Livewell and there would appear to be no accountability either.
This is wholly unacceptable in what passes for a modern democracy. Livewell Southwest is an affront to democracy.
I wonder just how many other Plymothians have had similar appalling decisions handed to them without explanation by anonymous functionaries of Prof Waite's organisation?
The similarities between Prof Waite's Livewell Southwest Ltd and The Rev Smith's Ombudsman Services:Property are remarkable and alarming.
Sadly, I will now be complaining to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner about your refusal to acknowledge my complaint about Prof Waite and Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Yours sincerely,
Steve G."
Q. Mr Clark, the standards of transparency and accountability at both these organisations belong in Ceausecu's Romania. Is it the UK Government's business strategy to collude with, and prop up, such appalling organisations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 22 September 2016
Accountability 11: Ombudsman Services:Property .And Its Regular Evaluation Of Quality / Livewell Southwest Ltd And Its Anonymous Decision Makers (531)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 531.
531) Accountability 11: Ombudsman Services:Property And Its Regular Evaluation Of Quality / Livewell Southwest Ltd And Its Anonymous Decision Makers.
Dear Mr Clark,
Regarding Ombudsman Services:Property, the European Directive - EU/11/2013 - clearly states that,
"ADR entities (such as OS:Property) offering dispute resolution through such procedures should be subject to regular evaluation of their compliance with the quality requirements set out in this Directive including the specific additional requirements ensuring their independence."
We've seen that the OS:Property's Annual Reports and Customer Satisfaction Reports went from a fulsome account of the company's failings to virtually nothing - a postcard from sunny Warrington.
The RICS who can't, apparently, do their job as a regulator and regulate their Firms and Regulated Members in the first place, are - amazingly - able to demand through their Memorandum of Understanding with their appointed company OS:Property, just exactly what they consider to be, "the effective resolution of disputes."
They have (or had) Steven Gould and Walter Merricks sitting on their appointed company's Board. This does not appear to us to in any way meet the EU Directive's requirement for ADRs to be independent.
Q. Mr Clark, how does any of the above meet the EU/11/2013 Directive's requirement that ADRs be independent?
Q. Mr Clark, how can the NHS justify Livewell Southwest Ltd's regime where decisions are made by anonymous functionaries - functionaries who do not support their illogical decisions with substantive evidence?
Let's be honest - the former doesn't and the latter should never be allowed to happen.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
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, Livewell Southwest Ltd's Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Prof Waite, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS). The role of the RICS. And Livewell Sothwest Ltd's anonymous and unsubstantiated decisions.
- compensation for the victims of OS:Property's illogical Final Decisions and 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 531.
531) Accountability 11: Ombudsman Services:Property And Its Regular Evaluation Of Quality / Livewell Southwest Ltd And Its Anonymous Decision Makers.
Dear Mr Clark,
Regarding Ombudsman Services:Property, the European Directive - EU/11/2013 - clearly states that,
"ADR entities (such as OS:Property) offering dispute resolution through such procedures should be subject to regular evaluation of their compliance with the quality requirements set out in this Directive including the specific additional requirements ensuring their independence."
We've seen that the OS:Property's Annual Reports and Customer Satisfaction Reports went from a fulsome account of the company's failings to virtually nothing - a postcard from sunny Warrington.
The RICS who can't, apparently, do their job as a regulator and regulate their Firms and Regulated Members in the first place, are - amazingly - able to demand through their Memorandum of Understanding with their appointed company OS:Property, just exactly what they consider to be, "the effective resolution of disputes."
They have (or had) Steven Gould and Walter Merricks sitting on their appointed company's Board. This does not appear to us to in any way meet the EU Directive's requirement for ADRs to be independent.
Q. Mr Clark, how does any of the above meet the EU/11/2013 Directive's requirement that ADRs be independent?
Q. Mr Clark, how can the NHS justify Livewell Southwest Ltd's regime where decisions are made by anonymous functionaries - functionaries who do not support their illogical decisions with substantive evidence?
Let's be honest - the former doesn't and the latter should never be allowed to happen.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
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, Livewell Southwest Ltd's Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Prof Waite, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS). The role of the RICS. And Livewell Sothwest Ltd's anonymous and unsubstantiated decisions.
- compensation for the victims of OS:Property's illogical Final Decisions and 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.
Monday, 19 September 2016
Accountability 10: Grammar Schools Evidence. And Ombudsman Services:Property. (530)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 530.
530) Accountability 10: Grammar Schools. Evidence. And Ombudsman Services:Property.
(and the lack of transparency and accountability at Prof Waite's Livewell South West Ltd.)
Dear Mr Clark,
One of Enoch Powell's least controversial utterances was that, "All political careers end in failure."
We believe that some, like Theresa May's, begin in failure before invariably heading south shortly afterwards.
Failures like; her botched deportation of Abu Qatada, her failure to keep immigration within the numbers she said she would, her failure to campaign rigorously and effectively for remain (or was it Brexit?) or to accept the overwhelming evidence that grammar schools do not do what they say on the tin and liberate vast sections of the working class from the endless cycle of poverty and degradation.
For Mrs May to press ahead with the re-introduction of grammar schools, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is Govian in the extreme and demonstrates a new form of genius that we at the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign have not witnessed before.
Conclusions:
1. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the failure of grammar schools to achieve meaningful social mobility so Mrs May will reintroduce them.
2. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the failure of Ombudsman Services:Property to deliver, "fair" and "independent" redress so Mrs May turns a blind eye to their manufacturing of injustice on an industrial scale and their third world standards of governance.
3. The evidence points to Livewell South West Ltd making appalling healthcare decisions and once again politicians turn a blind eye to yet another source of injustice.
Q. Mr Clark, what is your strategy to tackle the failings of businesses such as Ombudsman Services:Property and Livewell South West Ltd? Businesses that so spectacularly fail the taxpayer on a daily basis?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Monk and Partners, Jonathan May, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Prof Waite and yourself.
- public inquiries into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company that formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing rebranding). The Role of the RICS. And Livewell South west Ltd.
- compensation for the victims of illogical Final Decisions and 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 G.
For Clarity - Attempt 530.
530) Accountability 10: Grammar Schools. Evidence. And Ombudsman Services:Property.
(and the lack of transparency and accountability at Prof Waite's Livewell South West Ltd.)
Dear Mr Clark,
One of Enoch Powell's least controversial utterances was that, "All political careers end in failure."
We believe that some, like Theresa May's, begin in failure before invariably heading south shortly afterwards.
Failures like; her botched deportation of Abu Qatada, her failure to keep immigration within the numbers she said she would, her failure to campaign rigorously and effectively for remain (or was it Brexit?) or to accept the overwhelming evidence that grammar schools do not do what they say on the tin and liberate vast sections of the working class from the endless cycle of poverty and degradation.
For Mrs May to press ahead with the re-introduction of grammar schools, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is Govian in the extreme and demonstrates a new form of genius that we at the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign have not witnessed before.
Conclusions:
1. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the failure of grammar schools to achieve meaningful social mobility so Mrs May will reintroduce them.
2. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the failure of Ombudsman Services:Property to deliver, "fair" and "independent" redress so Mrs May turns a blind eye to their manufacturing of injustice on an industrial scale and their third world standards of governance.
3. The evidence points to Livewell South West Ltd making appalling healthcare decisions and once again politicians turn a blind eye to yet another source of injustice.
Q. Mr Clark, what is your strategy to tackle the failings of businesses such as Ombudsman Services:Property and Livewell South West Ltd? Businesses that so spectacularly fail the taxpayer on a daily basis?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Monk and Partners, Jonathan May, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Prof Waite and yourself.
- public inquiries into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company that formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing rebranding). The Role of the RICS. And Livewell South west Ltd.
- compensation for the victims of illogical Final Decisions and 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 G.
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
Accountability 9: David Cameron 2010 - 15 And The Monitoring Of Ombudsman Services:Property By His Government.. (529)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 529.
529) Accountability 9: David Cameron 2010 - 2015 And The Monitoring Of Ombudsman Services:Poperty By His Government.
Dear Mr Clark,
David Cameron's Cabinet Minister, Francis Maude, once told us all that,
"Transparency is at the heart of the UK government's reforming agenda."
(Speech 15th June 2013)
If that was indeed the case - and why should he lie about such a matter - where is it?
Certainly not with Jonathan May's OFT who wrote to tell us that not only would the same questions be asked by the new team conducting Customer Satisfaction Reports at Ombudsman Services, but that additional ones would be asked too.
It that was the case - and why should they lie about such a natter - where are they?
Any citizen with a concern for; transparency, accountability, democracy and justice can still - but for how long? - go to www.ombudsman-services.org click on, "Information" and judge for themselves.
What happened at Ombudsman Services between 2010 - 2015 seems to have mirrored what happened in government - less transparency not more. Less democracy not more.
The Head of the ERCE at the OFT wrote to us on the 8th Feb 2013,
"I have investigated this matter and understand that OS:P (Ombudsman Services:Property) has informed that the new company will ask the same questions as those on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OS:P website."
This, "investigation" would seem to mirror the OS:P's, "investigations" of property complaints both being, "very unsatisfactory." It's a complete nonsense to claim that the same questions, plus a few extras for good measure, are being asked by the new company - just look for yourselves. They aren't.
So no transparency there Mr Maude.
Q. Mr Clark, why did the OFT reapprove the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme when it knew that this redress scheme was deliberately hiding data on its woeful performance by NOT asking the same questions in its Customer Satisfaction Reports?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, The Rev Smith, Gillian Fleming, Nick Clegg, Dame Julie Mellor, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, OFT monitors, 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 rebranding) 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 just write to the blog or email: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 529.
529) Accountability 9: David Cameron 2010 - 2015 And The Monitoring Of Ombudsman Services:Poperty By His Government.
Dear Mr Clark,
David Cameron's Cabinet Minister, Francis Maude, once told us all that,
"Transparency is at the heart of the UK government's reforming agenda."
(Speech 15th June 2013)
If that was indeed the case - and why should he lie about such a matter - where is it?
Certainly not with Jonathan May's OFT who wrote to tell us that not only would the same questions be asked by the new team conducting Customer Satisfaction Reports at Ombudsman Services, but that additional ones would be asked too.
It that was the case - and why should they lie about such a natter - where are they?
Any citizen with a concern for; transparency, accountability, democracy and justice can still - but for how long? - go to www.ombudsman-services.org click on, "Information" and judge for themselves.
What happened at Ombudsman Services between 2010 - 2015 seems to have mirrored what happened in government - less transparency not more. Less democracy not more.
The Head of the ERCE at the OFT wrote to us on the 8th Feb 2013,
"I have investigated this matter and understand that OS:P (Ombudsman Services:Property) has informed that the new company will ask the same questions as those on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OS:P website."
This, "investigation" would seem to mirror the OS:P's, "investigations" of property complaints both being, "very unsatisfactory." It's a complete nonsense to claim that the same questions, plus a few extras for good measure, are being asked by the new company - just look for yourselves. They aren't.
So no transparency there Mr Maude.
Q. Mr Clark, why did the OFT reapprove the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme when it knew that this redress scheme was deliberately hiding data on its woeful performance by NOT asking the same questions in its Customer Satisfaction Reports?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, The Rev Smith, Gillian Fleming, Nick Clegg, Dame Julie Mellor, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, OFT monitors, 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 rebranding) 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 just write to the blog or email: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Monday, 12 September 2016
Accountability 8 (528)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 528.
528) Accountability 8: "Our Decisions Are Our Product."
Dear Mr Clark,
The Ombudsman Services Chief Ombudsman and CEO tells us that,
"Our decisions are our product."
The Rev Smith went on to say,
"The resolutions we offer are soundly based and efficiently produced. We have since rolled out a three-stage investigation process on getting our resolutions (our reports on complaints) right first time, using the experience and knowledge of the ombudsman team at an earlier stage . We also introduced measures to not only access the quality of our work but report on it."
(The Rev Smith OS Annual Report 2011)
So their resolutions are sound and efficiently produced and they will access the quality of their work and report on it.
When?
Where?
And how did terminating DJS Research's contract to do just that - to report on the quality of OS' work - help to achieve his stated objective? Look for yourself - it didn't.
Soundly based decisions? Efficiently produced? How do we know?
2In 2015, 2% of 680 complainants accepted The Rev Smith's soundly based decisions 98% didn't. The Rev Smith didn't ask the 666 who didn't accept his soundly based decisions whether they thought they were quality or not, so what happened to the measures he introduced to report on them?
Q. Mr Clark, where are The Rev Smith's mysterious measures and as 98% of property complainants didn't mutually accept his decisions isn't his product crap?
For Clarity - Attempt 528.
528) Accountability 8: "Our Decisions Are Our Product."
Dear Mr Clark,
The Ombudsman Services Chief Ombudsman and CEO tells us that,
"Our decisions are our product."
The Rev Smith went on to say,
"The resolutions we offer are soundly based and efficiently produced. We have since rolled out a three-stage investigation process on getting our resolutions (our reports on complaints) right first time, using the experience and knowledge of the ombudsman team at an earlier stage . We also introduced measures to not only access the quality of our work but report on it."
(The Rev Smith OS Annual Report 2011)
So their resolutions are sound and efficiently produced and they will access the quality of their work and report on it.
When?
Where?
And how did terminating DJS Research's contract to do just that - to report on the quality of OS' work - help to achieve his stated objective? Look for yourself - it didn't.
Soundly based decisions? Efficiently produced? How do we know?
2In 2015, 2% of 680 complainants accepted The Rev Smith's soundly based decisions 98% didn't. The Rev Smith didn't ask the 666 who didn't accept his soundly based decisions whether they thought they were quality or not, so what happened to the measures he introduced to report on them?
Q. Mr Clark, where are The Rev Smith's mysterious measures and as 98% of property complainants didn't mutually accept his decisions isn't his product crap?
Saturday, 10 September 2016
Accountability 7: Mutually Acceptable Settlements. (527)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 527.
527) Accountability 7: Mutually Acceptable Settlements.
Dear Mr Clark,
Ombudsman Services puts great store by its Mutually Acceptable Settlements. Tracey Newman believes that;
"The two pillars of successful complaint handling are time lines and quality. A big initiative at OS was to increase the number of mutually acceptable settlements (MAS) ... The process benefits all parties. Complaints are resolved more quickly, which means that consumers are likely to be more satisfied."
(Tracey Newman, p13 201/12 Annual Report)
Time lines and quality are the mark of successful complaint handling and, apparently, MAS is a fundamental part of the process.
So just how successful was Tracey Newman's big Initiative?
There were no Property Reports for the next two years but in 2013/14 the figures were:
Mutually Acceptable Settlements - 8% Ombudsman Decision 92%
For 2014/15 the figures were:
Mutually Acceptable Settlements - 4% Ombudsman Decision 95%
And for 2015:
Mutually Acceptable Settlements - 2% Ombudsman Decision 98%.
This has been a MAS con. And how many satisfied customers were there? At its high point, 8% but now down to a dismal 2%
In other words the Big Initiative was a Big Disaster for complainants. The RICS, however, clearly see this as an effective outcome for a property dispute otherwise, as sector regulators, they would have acted to put matters right. Perhaps for the RICS, 2% is effective?
Q. Mr Clark, these figures are a damning indictment of rigged redress, when are you going to act to protect citizens from OS' MAS?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 527.
527) Accountability 7: Mutually Acceptable Settlements.
Dear Mr Clark,
Ombudsman Services puts great store by its Mutually Acceptable Settlements. Tracey Newman believes that;
"The two pillars of successful complaint handling are time lines and quality. A big initiative at OS was to increase the number of mutually acceptable settlements (MAS) ... The process benefits all parties. Complaints are resolved more quickly, which means that consumers are likely to be more satisfied."
(Tracey Newman, p13 201/12 Annual Report)
Time lines and quality are the mark of successful complaint handling and, apparently, MAS is a fundamental part of the process.
So just how successful was Tracey Newman's big Initiative?
There were no Property Reports for the next two years but in 2013/14 the figures were:
Mutually Acceptable Settlements - 8% Ombudsman Decision 92%
For 2014/15 the figures were:
Mutually Acceptable Settlements - 4% Ombudsman Decision 95%
And for 2015:
Mutually Acceptable Settlements - 2% Ombudsman Decision 98%.
This has been a MAS con. And how many satisfied customers were there? At its high point, 8% but now down to a dismal 2%
In other words the Big Initiative was a Big Disaster for complainants. The RICS, however, clearly see this as an effective outcome for a property dispute otherwise, as sector regulators, they would have acted to put matters right. Perhaps for the RICS, 2% is effective?
Q. Mr Clark, these figures are a damning indictment of rigged redress, when are you going to act to protect citizens from OS' MAS?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 3 September 2016
Accountability 6: The Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Report 2015 - "This Isn't Bloody Funny . (526)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 526.
526) Accountability 6: The Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Report 2015 - "This Isn't Bloody Funny."
Dear Mr Clark,
J.K. Rowling was right this isn't bloody funny.
The OS:Property Annual Report for 2015 which consists of a few lonely statistics would outrage any self-respecting sociologist but apparently not Professor Finch. However, a couple of numbers do stand out.
The first is 680 which is the number of property complaints that were, "resolved" by OS:Property ombudsman. The second is £50 which is the average, "financial award" those complainants lucky enough not to handed an illogical decision get these days. Down from £100 a couple of years ago.
98% of complainants - 666 - had an ombudsman's decision forced on them.
2% of complainants - 13 or so - opted for a, "mutually acceptable" outcome.
We're not told by Professor Finch why 666 or so complainants didn't opt for a mutually acceptable outcome but it does seem to imply an awful lot of dissatisfied customers.
The complainant is also no longer told by The Rev Smith that they stand to receive a £25K maximum award either and the so-called awards are no longer broken down like they once were. But:
680 @ £25K = £17M
680 @ £50 = £3.400
Last year, Ombudsman Services:Property could possibly have saved their fee-paying Members £16.996.400. Over a decade that's a staggering £169M.
Ombudsman Services:Property is very successful at saving their members money. This isn't bloody funny.
Q. Mr Clark, rigged redress is saving this industry millions. When are you going to act to protect the consumer?
For Clarity - Attempt 526.
526) Accountability 6: The Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Report 2015 - "This Isn't Bloody Funny."
Dear Mr Clark,
J.K. Rowling was right this isn't bloody funny.
The OS:Property Annual Report for 2015 which consists of a few lonely statistics would outrage any self-respecting sociologist but apparently not Professor Finch. However, a couple of numbers do stand out.
The first is 680 which is the number of property complaints that were, "resolved" by OS:Property ombudsman. The second is £50 which is the average, "financial award" those complainants lucky enough not to handed an illogical decision get these days. Down from £100 a couple of years ago.
98% of complainants - 666 - had an ombudsman's decision forced on them.
2% of complainants - 13 or so - opted for a, "mutually acceptable" outcome.
We're not told by Professor Finch why 666 or so complainants didn't opt for a mutually acceptable outcome but it does seem to imply an awful lot of dissatisfied customers.
The complainant is also no longer told by The Rev Smith that they stand to receive a £25K maximum award either and the so-called awards are no longer broken down like they once were. But:
680 @ £25K = £17M
680 @ £50 = £3.400
Last year, Ombudsman Services:Property could possibly have saved their fee-paying Members £16.996.400. Over a decade that's a staggering £169M.
Ombudsman Services:Property is very successful at saving their members money. This isn't bloody funny.
Q. Mr Clark, rigged redress is saving this industry millions. When are you going to act to protect the consumer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)