The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating. (556)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 556.

556) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (3).

Dear Mr Clark,

Gillian Fleming's letter continued,
"You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note, saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered suspect. While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now. As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues. There was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript and its relevance.

You make other statements about, collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
(Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, letter 20th July 2010)


Where to begin?

This was supposed to be a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a complex and expensive property complaint. We sent Gillian Fleming our complaint and when we got nowhere we sent further evidence in the form of photographs and the transcript of a telephone conversation. 

Regarding the photographs - the ombudsman, "did not seek them out." 
Q. Why didn't the ombudsman seek them out? It was her duty as an ombudsman to do so after all.

As for the transcript - "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
Q. Why was there no opportunity for the ombudsman to consider our transcript or its relevance? She should have made one - it's her job.

How convenient all this was for Gillian Fleming's fee-paying Member and how inconvenient and expensive for her Member's client, us.

The Curious Conclusions To Investigations At The RICS Appointed Ombudsman Services:Property:

1) "You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered as suspect."
- "You now supply".... the ombudsman's tone could hardly be less welcoming, it's as if we've put her to a great inconvenience. The inconvenience of having to look at evidence.
- Strange to say but the Firm's little memos to their ombudsman (which we obtained through the Data Protection Act) seem to have been accepted unquestioningly.
- There was no, "you now supply memos" from the ombudsman to her fee-paying Member. That can't be right.
- Why didn't we get a copy of them too?
- The evidence contained in the transcript directly contradicted what was said in the Firm's file note.
- Had the ombudsman done her job as set out in the company's Terms of Reference and actually looked at the evidence she would have had to conclude that the Firm's evidence was indeed suspect and been forced to rule accordingly.
- Instead, and to get around the problem of actually looking at the evidence, she dreamt up the bizarre excuse that, "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."

2) "While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now."
- Why? You're supposed to take a complainant's complaint seriously and not be surprised when they hand you evidence.
- There were no dates in the Firm's file notes as to when the Firm revisited our home. We asked the ombudsman to take that into consideration too. 
- There was nothing put in writing in the Firm's file notes regarding what had been agreed with them regarding works to be carried out to our home - hence our complaint about being kept waiting 226 days for repairs that in the end were never carried out.
- We provided the ombudsman with evidence in the form of a transcript and she didn't look at it.

Q. Mr Clark, where is the ombudsman's systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts?
Q. Mr Clark, why didn't the ombudsman make inquiries as to the character, activities and background of her fee-paying Member?

3) "As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues."
- Our complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and being kept waiting 226 days for essential work to be carried out to our home. Work that was not confirmed in writing, not put into the Firm's File notes and never completed. 
- Why? Because it would seem that the Firm never had any intention of carrying out the work, otherwise things would have been very different.
- A significant issue was the water cascading down the walls and the refusal of the Firm to come to our home. The ombudsman having, "considered" this last point made no comment.

4) "You make other statements about collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."  
- Apart from being homo sapiens we share very little in common with this ombudsman. Although some could be forgiven for thinking that ombudsmen have evolved into another life form altogether.
- When the majority of complainants have their cases mishandled in this way, then it's hard not to conclude that this company is failing the public on an industrial scale.
- DJS Research are no longer conducting Customer Satisfaction Reports for this RICS appointed company. Try finding any meaningful data on its performance in handling complex property disputes. They no longer bother to ask the complainant if they're satisfied or not with their consumer journey.

Q. Mr Clark, when are you going step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.