To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 578.
578) 98% / Ombudsman Services:Property / Gibraltar's Ombudsman.
Dear Mr Clark,
DJS Research, a truly independent organisation, were responsible for producing three remarkable Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services, an organisation whose independence is a 21st myth promulgated by its maladministrating executives.
Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of Ombudsman Services, would have us believe that;
"We aim to provide a first class service for dispute resolution for our members and their customers. In achieving our aims we shall be; accessible, consistent, honest, effective and efficient."
(Professor Dame Janet Finch)
First class? Accessible? Consistent? Honest? Effective? Efficient?
How you come to understand each of those benchmark pledges largely depends on whether you're a Member of Professor Finch's club or a dissatisfied complainant. But perhaps we should apply each of those criterion to Professor Finch herself:
House of Commons BIS Committee: Open Access: Fifth Report Of session 2013-14 -
Our Inquiry:
22) "The Finch report's conclusions and recommendations were therefore made without a detailed, up to date assessment of the existing open access policies in the UK, and worldwide, and of their success rates. Despite the fact that Green currently provides seven-eights of the 40% of the UK's research outputs that open access, the role of repositories was unequivocally demoted in the Finch Report."
A lack of detailed up to date assessment and roles unequivocally demoted.
At the same time as the merits, or otherwise, of the Finch Report were being scrutinised, the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Finch, was implementing Mutually Acceptable Settlements (MAS) at Ombudsman Services:Property - the key strategy in what was supposed to be a more efficient working practice. One that replaced the OS:Property's totally shambolic Provisional Conclusions.
In the company's 2013-14 Annual Report, 94% of complainants rejected Professor Dame Janet Finch's Mutually Acceptable Settlements, there was no financial breakdown of, "financial awards" and Property complainants were not asked if they were; satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their customer journey - as had been the case previously.
23) "We are surprised by this recommendation and the Government's acceptance of it, especially given its considerable investment in repositories in recent years...The evidence we received suggests the problem with this is that the case accepted by the Government was based on the Finch Report's incomplete evaluation of Green open access, which did not consider the available evidence."
Professor Finch did not consider the available evidence.
Evidence continues to be a problem at Ombudsman Services. In 2012-13 on page 15 of the company's Annual Report we're told that those replacing DJS Research had developed a new method of conducting Customer Satisfaction Surveys - they telephoned complainants - and in doing so somewhat amazing discovered, "positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction." This had not been the case previously.
However, whilst managing to telephone Communications complainants and Energy complainants it seems that they totally forgot to telephone Property complainants.
Professor Finch would appear to have considered that the available evidence provided by DJS Research was so damning that it needed burying and so chose to jettison DJS instead of addressing the enormous problems their research had uncovered. Property data seems to have been subsumed within that of Communications, Energy and Copyright.
The OFT were wrong. The same questions are neither being asked nor reported upon.
56) "The same economist was involved with the Government's initial pre-Finch Report analysis of open access, the Finch Report modelling, and the Government's subsequent acceptance of those recommendations. This draws the independence of the Finch report and its economic analysis into question. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT HAD THE FINCH WORKING GROUP COMMISSIONED ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED."
Figures also continued to be a problem at Ombudsman Services. As for independent analysis......
In 2012-13, 94% of complainants rejected the company's MAS , suggesting the new working practice was somewhat less than efficient. Complainants were no longer asked if they thought the Ombudsman arrived at decisions in a logical manner or whether they submitted further evidence and if that evidence was rejected.
The cover-up was under way.
In the 2013-14 Annual Report, 92% of Property complainants rejected Professor Finch's MAS and her independent researchers again forgot to telephone any of the 641 complainants to ask them if they considered her new working practices to be first class, However, if each complainant had received a maximum, "financial award" from her Ombudsman, it would have cost Professor Finch's Members £16.025.000.
57) "We conclude that the Finch Report, the Government and RCUK have failed to assess adequately the existing levels of APCs that are charged by a range of open access journals, both within the uk and worldwide, and instead formed a plan of expenditure based on payments to publishers that, compared to a range of benchmarks including APCs of the largest "pure" Gold publisher, are rather less than competitive."
A failure of assessment and competition.
Professor Dame Janet Finch has suggested that her model for efficient Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) should be the sole one in England - ie, she is proposing a monopoly of private ADR based on the Ombudsman Services, "model."
73) "A recurring theme in this inquiry has been that elements of the scholarly publishing market are dysfunctional. The systematic increase in subscription prices over inflation , the opacity of pricing due to non disclosure agreemets, and the APCs pricing differences between comparable hybrid and pure Gold open access journals have been set out earlier in this report. Together, they demonstrate a lack of transparency and competition in the market which is deeply concerning."
A dysfunctional - rigged - market, lacking in opacity, competition and transparency.
Very much like the dysfunctional - rigged - market in surveying with its attendant dysfunctional - rigged - market in private, "redress" which, for good measure, also lacks; competitiveness and transparency.
In Professor Finch's 2014-15 Annual Report, 95% rejected her MAS and once again her independent researchers failed to ask any of those 887 Property complainants if they were; satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their customer journey. If they had all received the full, "financial award" available it would have cost Professor Finch's club Members, £22.175.000. However, the average, "award" was £100. There was no breakdown of her Ombudsman's, "awards."
93) "However,almost without exception, our evidence has pointed to gaps both in the quantitative and qualitative evidence underpinning the Finch Report's conclusions an recommendations, most significantly a failure to examine the UK's Green mandates and their efficiency."
Quantitative and qualitative failures.
In Professor Finch's 2015 Annual review, 98% of Property complainants rejected her MAS and her independent research company yet again inexplicably forgot to telephone any of the 666 complainants to check on their customer journey. Had those complainants received the company's jackpot in full it would have set the Chair's Members back £16.500.000. But they didn't. The average payout for that year was 50 quid. The Customer Satisfaction Report was down to just 2 pages - DJS Research's were 13 on Property alone. Job done.
If DJS Research's services had been retained and their findings acted upon we believe things would be looking very different for complainants.
First class? Accessible? Consistent? Honest? Effective? Efficient? Only a public inquiry could say with any degree of authority or certainty.
In the meantime please contrast Professor Dame Janet Finch's 98% MAS rejection by dissatisfied Property complainants with Gibraltar's Ombudsman's 98% approval rating - no matter what the outcome.
Q. Mr Clark, at the same time as the House of Commons BIS Committee were detailing the many failings of the Finch Report, the OFT were re-approving Ombudsman Services:Property in the full knowledge that none of the questions asked by DJS Research were being asked by the organisation that replaced them,. How can OFT monitors monitor nothing and do you still assure Property complainants that their complaints will be investigated; fully, fairly and independently by the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Sunday, 26 March 2017
Friday, 24 March 2017
To build a fairer, stronger , better Britain don't we need to radically change The System, Mr Hammond? (577)
To the Business, Energy and industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 577.
577) To build a fairer, stronger, better Britain don't we need to radically change The System, Mr Hammond?
Dear Mr Clark,
At the time of writing, The System still stubbornly remains rigged in favour of those who set it up, manage it and benefit from the practices they've cunningly devised that do not work in their customers' interests. Otherwise things would be different. It stands to reason.
A perfect example of this is the rigged market in private, "civil justice" as devised by Ombudsman Services:Property.
In, "The impact of the system on complainants," Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill tell anyone interested in justice that,
"One participant noted that a particular ombudsman schemes' own customer satisfaction reports shoed significant dissatisfaction with the service being provided. This compared unfavourably to other ombudsman schemes, such as the one in Gibraltar, where the ombudsman had a 98% positive satisfaction score, regardless of outcomes. The acceptance by some ombudsman schemes of reasonably high dissatisfaction rates was seen as problematic by some participants."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/critics-of-ombudsman-system/understanding-and-engaging-onlinwe-citizen-activists. Page 7)
DJS Research's Customer satisfaction Reports were highly critical of Ombudsman Service:Property's, "outcomes." So what did the maladministrating executives do? They replaced DJS Research with an organisation that didn't ask such awkward questions. As a result of this wand-waving-exercise there are no longer any dissatisfied complainants.
Judge for yourself. Just go to www.ombudsman-services.org and look at the evisceration of information from 2010 onwards.
A Hammond-like fascination with spread-sheets and data is urgently needed at OS:Property, and with those civil servants supposedly, "monitoring" this government approved redress scheme on behalf of the taxpayer. The existing, "arrangements" are certainly Good For Business but truly Lousy For Consumers.
Q. Mr Clark, in order to build a fairer, stronger, better Britain shouldn't there now be an urgent inquiry into the maladministered and illogical Final Decisions emanating from Ombudsman Services:Property.?
Q. Mr Clark, aren't ombudsmen who maladminister private civil justice not the True Enemies Of The People?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 577.
577) To build a fairer, stronger, better Britain don't we need to radically change The System, Mr Hammond?
Dear Mr Clark,
At the time of writing, The System still stubbornly remains rigged in favour of those who set it up, manage it and benefit from the practices they've cunningly devised that do not work in their customers' interests. Otherwise things would be different. It stands to reason.
A perfect example of this is the rigged market in private, "civil justice" as devised by Ombudsman Services:Property.
In, "The impact of the system on complainants," Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill tell anyone interested in justice that,
"One participant noted that a particular ombudsman schemes' own customer satisfaction reports shoed significant dissatisfaction with the service being provided. This compared unfavourably to other ombudsman schemes, such as the one in Gibraltar, where the ombudsman had a 98% positive satisfaction score, regardless of outcomes. The acceptance by some ombudsman schemes of reasonably high dissatisfaction rates was seen as problematic by some participants."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/critics-of-ombudsman-system/understanding-and-engaging-onlinwe-citizen-activists. Page 7)
DJS Research's Customer satisfaction Reports were highly critical of Ombudsman Service:Property's, "outcomes." So what did the maladministrating executives do? They replaced DJS Research with an organisation that didn't ask such awkward questions. As a result of this wand-waving-exercise there are no longer any dissatisfied complainants.
Judge for yourself. Just go to www.ombudsman-services.org and look at the evisceration of information from 2010 onwards.
A Hammond-like fascination with spread-sheets and data is urgently needed at OS:Property, and with those civil servants supposedly, "monitoring" this government approved redress scheme on behalf of the taxpayer. The existing, "arrangements" are certainly Good For Business but truly Lousy For Consumers.
Q. Mr Clark, in order to build a fairer, stronger, better Britain shouldn't there now be an urgent inquiry into the maladministered and illogical Final Decisions emanating from Ombudsman Services:Property.?
Q. Mr Clark, aren't ombudsmen who maladminister private civil justice not the True Enemies Of The People?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Thursday, 9 March 2017
Philip Hammond - "To build a stronger, fairer, better Britain." (576)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
and
To the Health secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 576.
576) Philip Hammond - "To build a stronger, fairer, better Britain."
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
We thought the Philip Hammond saved his best joke for the end of his speech when he suggested his budget would help to, "build a stronger, fairer, better Britain."
Just exactly how breaking Conservative Party Manifesto pledges exemplifies; strength, fairness and betterness in post-Brexit Britain, he didn't say but today's excuse seems to be that,
"Circumstances have moved on."
Circumstances always move on but things seem to inevitably remain the same for many struggling under the Chancellor's Policies For Austerity.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't a Conservative Party Manifesto in the hands of a Chancellor like Philip Hammond very much like A Full Structural Survey in the hands of an inadequately regulated RICS surveyor - ie not worth the paper they're written on?
The Chancellor told us that,
"everyone should enjoy security and dignity in old age."
Yes they should. So why don't they?
Q. Mr Hunt, isn't the reason why the sick, the elderly and the dying do not enjoy security and dignity in old age, due in large part, to the appalling, inhumane, barbaric extortion racket that masquerades as The National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?
Philip Hammond stated that,
"we are ensuring that local authorities and the NHS work more closely together."
The information I received under the data Protection Act would suggest that that can't come quickly enough for Plymouth City Council, Livewell Southwest Ltd., the "inadequate" NEW Devon and, most importantly, the people of Devon, where it would seem that,
"of course this is only about the money."
Otherwise things would be different. Circumstances need to move on. Rapidly.
The market in social care needs to be embedded in society. It needs to be totally transparent. The healthcare professionals working in it need to be totally accountable when demonstrating their, "duty of care" to the sick, the elderly and dying. At present they hide behind a cloak of anonymity.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
and
To the Health secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 576.
576) Philip Hammond - "To build a stronger, fairer, better Britain."
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
We thought the Philip Hammond saved his best joke for the end of his speech when he suggested his budget would help to, "build a stronger, fairer, better Britain."
Just exactly how breaking Conservative Party Manifesto pledges exemplifies; strength, fairness and betterness in post-Brexit Britain, he didn't say but today's excuse seems to be that,
"Circumstances have moved on."
Circumstances always move on but things seem to inevitably remain the same for many struggling under the Chancellor's Policies For Austerity.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't a Conservative Party Manifesto in the hands of a Chancellor like Philip Hammond very much like A Full Structural Survey in the hands of an inadequately regulated RICS surveyor - ie not worth the paper they're written on?
The Chancellor told us that,
"everyone should enjoy security and dignity in old age."
Yes they should. So why don't they?
Q. Mr Hunt, isn't the reason why the sick, the elderly and the dying do not enjoy security and dignity in old age, due in large part, to the appalling, inhumane, barbaric extortion racket that masquerades as The National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?
Philip Hammond stated that,
"we are ensuring that local authorities and the NHS work more closely together."
The information I received under the data Protection Act would suggest that that can't come quickly enough for Plymouth City Council, Livewell Southwest Ltd., the "inadequate" NEW Devon and, most importantly, the people of Devon, where it would seem that,
"of course this is only about the money."
Otherwise things would be different. Circumstances need to move on. Rapidly.
The market in social care needs to be embedded in society. It needs to be totally transparent. The healthcare professionals working in it need to be totally accountable when demonstrating their, "duty of care" to the sick, the elderly and dying. At present they hide behind a cloak of anonymity.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Tuesday, 7 March 2017
Means, Motive and Opportunity. (575)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary and,
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 575.
575) Means, Motive and Opportunity.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
On the 27th February Blog 572 - OS:Property / Livewell Southwest Ltd: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Don't make me laugh? Queried why it was that,
"Although the time was clearly ripe for more transparency (and accountability) we got less, thereby creating the perfect conditions for those with the means, the motive and the opportunity to rig markets and the democracy that supposedly polices them."
Just days later the means, method and opportunity were back again this time in an Andrew Rawnsley article for the Observer - "The vicar's daughter is more a gambler than she realises" (Observer 05/07/2017) - in which he uses them to structure a piece about whether Theresa May should have called an early general election or not. He believes,
"That's motive and opportunity covered. Means are trickier."
Means, most certainly are trickier.
The 2011 Fixed-terms Parliaments Act is indeed a formidable obstacle to the Prime Minister calling for a ballot on Brexit. Section 1 of the Act provides for such polling days to occur on the first Thursday in May of the 5th year after the previous general election starting with 7th May 2015. Section 2 provides two was in which a general election can be held before the end of the 5 year period. The first is a successful vote of no confidence in the government and the second arises should two-thirds of the House of Commons resolve, "That there should be an early parliamentary general election." Thus giving the people through their elected representatives the prerogative to call an election and not the Prime Minister. (Wikipedia)
In, "Early general election: Can Theresa may actually call one?" Jon Stone details the shenanigans that that would entail. He says that, "On paper it is no longer the Prime Minister's decision." Quoting Professor Robert Hazell of University College London's Constitution Unit he explains, "This (section 2 option 1) does have the potential to go embarrassingly wrong. It would only take a handful of Conservative rebels to derail an attempt to call an election." But the government doesn't need to get into such a fix. Instead they could pass legislation - a one clause bill saying, "Notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 the next election shall be on x date....this might look underhand, but it would be completely within the rules."
(www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/early-general-election-can-Theresa-May-call...)
In today's Telegraph, Lord Hague - the man who on his last day in office as Leader of the House of Commons, and aided and abetted by Michael Gove the then Chief Whip, plotted to unseat the Speaker but embarrassingly lost - has suggested the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 be scrapped as, "British law needs to amended countless times to take account of leaving the EU treaties," so that piece of legislation should be ditched as well.
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/theresa-may-should -call..)
That looks underhanded too, but apparently its all grist to the mill, and completely within the rules.
Two means, motives and opportunities within a week is also quite a coincidence. According to NCIS's Leroy Jethro Gibbs coincidences break Rule 39: There is no such thing as coincidence.
News or fake-news? Truth or post-truth? Rules? Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise would still seem to be the order of the day for those who consider themselves to be, "wise men."
Q. Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, if Lord Hague can suggest the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, due to the amending of half a century of legislation, why doesn't the government immediately repeal the 2012 Health and Social Care Act and the appallingly inhumane and degrading National Framework for Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?
That wouldn't be underhanded - it would be above board.
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 575.
575) Means, Motive and Opportunity.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
On the 27th February Blog 572 - OS:Property / Livewell Southwest Ltd: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Don't make me laugh? Queried why it was that,
"Although the time was clearly ripe for more transparency (and accountability) we got less, thereby creating the perfect conditions for those with the means, the motive and the opportunity to rig markets and the democracy that supposedly polices them."
Just days later the means, method and opportunity were back again this time in an Andrew Rawnsley article for the Observer - "The vicar's daughter is more a gambler than she realises" (Observer 05/07/2017) - in which he uses them to structure a piece about whether Theresa May should have called an early general election or not. He believes,
"That's motive and opportunity covered. Means are trickier."
Means, most certainly are trickier.
The 2011 Fixed-terms Parliaments Act is indeed a formidable obstacle to the Prime Minister calling for a ballot on Brexit. Section 1 of the Act provides for such polling days to occur on the first Thursday in May of the 5th year after the previous general election starting with 7th May 2015. Section 2 provides two was in which a general election can be held before the end of the 5 year period. The first is a successful vote of no confidence in the government and the second arises should two-thirds of the House of Commons resolve, "That there should be an early parliamentary general election." Thus giving the people through their elected representatives the prerogative to call an election and not the Prime Minister. (Wikipedia)
In, "Early general election: Can Theresa may actually call one?" Jon Stone details the shenanigans that that would entail. He says that, "On paper it is no longer the Prime Minister's decision." Quoting Professor Robert Hazell of University College London's Constitution Unit he explains, "This (section 2 option 1) does have the potential to go embarrassingly wrong. It would only take a handful of Conservative rebels to derail an attempt to call an election." But the government doesn't need to get into such a fix. Instead they could pass legislation - a one clause bill saying, "Notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 the next election shall be on x date....this might look underhand, but it would be completely within the rules."
(www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/early-general-election-can-Theresa-May-call...)
In today's Telegraph, Lord Hague - the man who on his last day in office as Leader of the House of Commons, and aided and abetted by Michael Gove the then Chief Whip, plotted to unseat the Speaker but embarrassingly lost - has suggested the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 be scrapped as, "British law needs to amended countless times to take account of leaving the EU treaties," so that piece of legislation should be ditched as well.
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/theresa-may-should -call..)
That looks underhanded too, but apparently its all grist to the mill, and completely within the rules.
Two means, motives and opportunities within a week is also quite a coincidence. According to NCIS's Leroy Jethro Gibbs coincidences break Rule 39: There is no such thing as coincidence.
News or fake-news? Truth or post-truth? Rules? Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise would still seem to be the order of the day for those who consider themselves to be, "wise men."
Q. Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, if Lord Hague can suggest the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, due to the amending of half a century of legislation, why doesn't the government immediately repeal the 2012 Health and Social Care Act and the appallingly inhumane and degrading National Framework for Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?
That wouldn't be underhanded - it would be above board.
Friday, 3 March 2017
NHS - Do Not Reply. (574)
To the Health Secretary:
574) Do Not Reply.
Dear Mr Hunt,
I attempted to raise a number of issues with you regarding the governance, transparency, accountability and illogical decision making emanating from NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd. It seems, without success.
I did however receive the following response - at the bottom of which I was told: Do Not Reply, so I am replying clearly, there is a Culture of Silence in the NHS and its origins can be traced back to you and your Department - Our ref: DE 1071730;
Dear Mr Gilbert,
Thank you for your correspondence of 26 January to Greg Clark about NHS continuing healthcare (CHC). As your email relates to social care, it has been passed to the Department of Health and I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in doing so.
I was sorry to read of your concerns about the responses you received to your Freedom of Information requests.
As you are aware, NHS continuing CHC is a package of ongoing care that is arranged and funded solely by the NHS where the individual has been found to have a, "primary health need" as set out in the national Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS - funded Nursing Care. Eligibility for NHS CHC is based on individual assessed needs and the diagnosis of a particular disease or condition is not in itself a determinant of eligibility.
As clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) are responsible for the assessment of individuals and delivering this eligibility for NHS CHC based on professional clinical judgement, a multidisciplinary approach and local knowledge of the individual's needs, it is not possible for the Department to provide the information you requested.
I realise this may be disappointing, but I hope it clarifies the Department's position.
Yours sincerely,
Tracy Sutton,
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Inquiries,
Department of Health.
I should like to thank Tracy Sutton for taking the time to respond to my email and I am not disappointed with their contents as they are expected. On the plus side Tracy Sutton's was quicker in her response than Professor Waite's, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, was with his.
Although they both said very little.
Before going any further I should like to say that I believe, having experienced it at first hand, that the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care, is an affront to civilised society, a humanitarian disaster and an extortion racket that would have shamed even Ceausescu's Romania. It turns healthcare professionals into functionaries whose duty of care has switched from their patients to anonymous, and to all intents and purposes, unaccountable, shadowy organisations.
It typifies the broken market in social care.
There would appear to be some confusion as to what my email was seeking to ask but the Health Department's response does raise further concerns.
It mentions, "professional judgement."
I did ask Professor Waite what, in his professional judgement, was contained in my late father's medical records that led his Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer to the extraordinary conclusion that the NHS would fund the cost of my father's care, "for the last two weeks of his life." But I did not get an answer.
Q. Mr Hunt, if the NHS is to persist with these absurd so-called "assessments" why don't NHS patients have the automatic right to a full clinical explanation sa to how such decisions are arrived at?
Q. Mr Hunt, why does a dead person need a Desk Top Review - they're dead after all - is it not a degrading and inhumane practice?
Q. Mr Hunt, not only does the NHS have a Culture of Silence but it has a Culture of Anonymity too. These cultures seem to be multiplying. How can an Anonymous desk Top Reviewer claim to have a duty of care to their patient when they won't even tell them their name?
Q. Mr Hunt, as Health Secretary why don't you act today to put an end to the Cultures of Silence and Anonymity that infest our health service?
Q. Mr Hunt, when NHS patients successfully challenge these anonymous decisions doesn't it imply that the original decisions were unsafe and those arriving at them, at the very least, unprofessional?
Q. Mr Hunt, having been forced to challenge an abusive and inhumane system why aren't NHS patients automatically entitled to the full costs of the legal fees they've incurred in retrieving what was rightfully theirs in the first place?
Tracy Sutton's email suggests that it was not possible for your department to provide the information I requested. This is concerning as it suggests transparency and accountability no longer matter at Governmental level. If you are going to persist with this abusive and inhumane system at least have the decency to collect and publish the data on the performance of local CCGs and those healthcare professionals making such hugely important decisions.
Not only does Devon have a demoralised police force it also has two of the worst performing CCGs in the country: NEW Devon CCG and South Devon and Torbay CCG both of whom have been rated as, "inadequate."
Q. Mr Hunt, is it not an inadequate failure of your Department not to collect and publish nationwide data on CCGs' decisions regarding NHS CHC Assessments - ie how many NHS patients were granted in full NHS funded nursing care - how many weren't and how many NHS patients were successful in appealing those decisions?
Many could be forgiven for thinking you run a National Stealth Services - one that has successfully devised a racket for parting NHS patients from all they've ever worked for.
I look forward to you reply.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
574) Do Not Reply.
Dear Mr Hunt,
I attempted to raise a number of issues with you regarding the governance, transparency, accountability and illogical decision making emanating from NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd. It seems, without success.
I did however receive the following response - at the bottom of which I was told: Do Not Reply, so I am replying clearly, there is a Culture of Silence in the NHS and its origins can be traced back to you and your Department - Our ref: DE 1071730;
Dear Mr Gilbert,
Thank you for your correspondence of 26 January to Greg Clark about NHS continuing healthcare (CHC). As your email relates to social care, it has been passed to the Department of Health and I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in doing so.
I was sorry to read of your concerns about the responses you received to your Freedom of Information requests.
As you are aware, NHS continuing CHC is a package of ongoing care that is arranged and funded solely by the NHS where the individual has been found to have a, "primary health need" as set out in the national Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS - funded Nursing Care. Eligibility for NHS CHC is based on individual assessed needs and the diagnosis of a particular disease or condition is not in itself a determinant of eligibility.
As clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) are responsible for the assessment of individuals and delivering this eligibility for NHS CHC based on professional clinical judgement, a multidisciplinary approach and local knowledge of the individual's needs, it is not possible for the Department to provide the information you requested.
I realise this may be disappointing, but I hope it clarifies the Department's position.
Yours sincerely,
Tracy Sutton,
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Inquiries,
Department of Health.
I should like to thank Tracy Sutton for taking the time to respond to my email and I am not disappointed with their contents as they are expected. On the plus side Tracy Sutton's was quicker in her response than Professor Waite's, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, was with his.
Although they both said very little.
Before going any further I should like to say that I believe, having experienced it at first hand, that the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care, is an affront to civilised society, a humanitarian disaster and an extortion racket that would have shamed even Ceausescu's Romania. It turns healthcare professionals into functionaries whose duty of care has switched from their patients to anonymous, and to all intents and purposes, unaccountable, shadowy organisations.
It typifies the broken market in social care.
There would appear to be some confusion as to what my email was seeking to ask but the Health Department's response does raise further concerns.
It mentions, "professional judgement."
I did ask Professor Waite what, in his professional judgement, was contained in my late father's medical records that led his Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer to the extraordinary conclusion that the NHS would fund the cost of my father's care, "for the last two weeks of his life." But I did not get an answer.
Q. Mr Hunt, if the NHS is to persist with these absurd so-called "assessments" why don't NHS patients have the automatic right to a full clinical explanation sa to how such decisions are arrived at?
Q. Mr Hunt, why does a dead person need a Desk Top Review - they're dead after all - is it not a degrading and inhumane practice?
Q. Mr Hunt, not only does the NHS have a Culture of Silence but it has a Culture of Anonymity too. These cultures seem to be multiplying. How can an Anonymous desk Top Reviewer claim to have a duty of care to their patient when they won't even tell them their name?
Q. Mr Hunt, as Health Secretary why don't you act today to put an end to the Cultures of Silence and Anonymity that infest our health service?
Q. Mr Hunt, when NHS patients successfully challenge these anonymous decisions doesn't it imply that the original decisions were unsafe and those arriving at them, at the very least, unprofessional?
Q. Mr Hunt, having been forced to challenge an abusive and inhumane system why aren't NHS patients automatically entitled to the full costs of the legal fees they've incurred in retrieving what was rightfully theirs in the first place?
Tracy Sutton's email suggests that it was not possible for your department to provide the information I requested. This is concerning as it suggests transparency and accountability no longer matter at Governmental level. If you are going to persist with this abusive and inhumane system at least have the decency to collect and publish the data on the performance of local CCGs and those healthcare professionals making such hugely important decisions.
Not only does Devon have a demoralised police force it also has two of the worst performing CCGs in the country: NEW Devon CCG and South Devon and Torbay CCG both of whom have been rated as, "inadequate."
Q. Mr Hunt, is it not an inadequate failure of your Department not to collect and publish nationwide data on CCGs' decisions regarding NHS CHC Assessments - ie how many NHS patients were granted in full NHS funded nursing care - how many weren't and how many NHS patients were successful in appealing those decisions?
Many could be forgiven for thinking you run a National Stealth Services - one that has successfully devised a racket for parting NHS patients from all they've ever worked for.
I look forward to you reply.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Thursday, 2 March 2017
Ombudsman Services:Property - Campaign For A Public Inquiry. (573)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 573.
573) "Before the Deluge" - Jackson Browne.
Dear Mr Clark,
There has been a disastrous collective moral malfunction.
It is to be found in The Establishment's attitude towards property. Theirs is a policy and regulatory failure that is having a devastating impact upon the lives of many of those who've mis-sold the notion that if only they worked hard they could afford to own their own home.
It began with Mrs Thatcher's bargain basement sale of council housing stock at discounted prices.
The Guardian did publish one of our letters around the time of blog 50 but for reasons best known to them, omitted the sentence in which we suggested that it was somewhat hypocritical of the Prime Minister sell off the nation's public housing stock at knock-down prices but not her own home in Flood Street. We thought it showed a lack of intestinal fortitude and leadership.
We didn't once mention the word gerrymandering. Or Dame Shirley Porter and how she cleaned up in Westminster.
Margaret Thatcher, Dame Shirley Porte and now Theresa May.
In her forward to Sajid Javid's, "Fixing our broken property market" Theresa May states,
"The Government is determined to build a stronger, fairer Britain where people who work hard are able to get on in life."
But people already work hard and still don't get on in life.
And what about people with disabilities who find working hard even harder. Don't they deserve to get on in life too?
What about the people working hard in your department not to answer my questions - do they deserve to get on in life?
Jackson Browne's song invites us to,
"let the music keep our spirits high,
And let the buildings keep our children dry."
As a citizen of the world and thus in Theresa May's opinion, citizen of nowhere, and someone who has had 36 "homes" to date, the knowledge that many of our poorer children are building a similar property portfolio due to the tyranny of short term tenancy agreements, is a daily bleak reminder of the , "broken British property market."
Nowhere, has become home for more and more young citizens in our fake-news, post-truth and post-Brexit world. However, for Amber Rudd's false-news refugee children, thoughts of a six month tenancy agreement must sound like heaven on earth as they sleep in the open en route to a country that is willing to help them find a dry building to live in.
One wonders just how many of those children will find a welcoming home in Westminster.
Perhaps at this very moment the present Home Secretary is following in her leader's footsteps and re-commissioning the Go Home Lorries as part of Sajid Javid's strategy to fix the broken, some might say shattered, housing market.. This time the lorries could carry a warning to those who don't know what the property ladder looks like or who find the first rung to be always just out of reach.to, "Find A Home Outside Of Westminster," if this 2013 headline is anything to go by,
"London council accused of social cleansing over plans to deposit lowest paid tenants on edge of city." (www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/social-cleansing)
This would suggest that that the housing market isn't so much, "broken" - as if someone accidentally dropped it - as deliberately rigged. Rigged so that Westminster's lowest paid tenants are forced to the periphery.
Mr Clark, so far we've attempted to bring our concerns regarding the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property's role in the broken market in surveying and broken market in alternative dispute redress, to three Business Secretaries; Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and now yourself but it would seem that the Culture of Silence that pervades the NHS has spread throughout government reaching as far afield as Livewell Southwest Ltd, NEW Devon and Plymouth City Council.
You ask a public employee a straightforward question and you're automatically put on the long finger.
The RICS sits atop the British Housing Market and from its vantage point - 12 George Street, Parliament Square, Westminster has ready access to Ministers, civil servants and MPs - their office staff. They have a Parliamentary Affairs Manager. The Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Dame Janet Finch, who also oversees the RICS appointed Ombudsman Service:Property, has, "a close and continuing relationship" with your department.
RICS' ready access to government and their "political influencing" and "engagement work" much of it "behind the scenes" enabled them to have Vince Cable "fix" the lettings market.
Yet another, "broken" market.
Today, lettings disputes are handled by the maladministrators at the RICS' appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property.
Whilst the RICS are building a monopoly in property dispute, "resolution" they reain unable to explain why it is they have developed practices that do not work in the customer's interests - practices which stem from their apparent inability to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms.
This isn't a broken market it's a rigged market.
Cowboy surveyors hand their bewildered clients over to their ombudsman who dutifully hands them an illogical Final Decision. Job done. As Chris Hamer, the former Property Ombudsman observed, why don't regulators get it right in the first place?
A broken property market or a highly efficient rigged property market?
Joseph Stiglitz argues that,
"If markets are fundamentally efficient and fair, there is little even the best of governments could do to improve matters. But if markets are based on exploitation, the rationale laissez-faire disappears,. Instead, in that case, the battle against entrenched power is not only a battle for democracy it is also a battle for efficiency and shared prosperity."
(Joseph Stiglitz: Are Markets efficient or do they tend towards monopoly? The verdict is in)
Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of maladministration at Ombudsman Services has announced in one of the company's annual reports that would like to see a single ombudsman for dispute resolution in England based on the one in Scotland. In other words she wants to see a monopoly in so-called civil justice which is the exact opposite to what Joseph Stiglitz says is good for democracy and shared prosperity.
If Professor Dame Janet Finch gets her way, complainants will need to start singing to keep their spirits high.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the entrenched power of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of its ombudsman's illogical final decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 573.
573) "Before the Deluge" - Jackson Browne.
Dear Mr Clark,
There has been a disastrous collective moral malfunction.
It is to be found in The Establishment's attitude towards property. Theirs is a policy and regulatory failure that is having a devastating impact upon the lives of many of those who've mis-sold the notion that if only they worked hard they could afford to own their own home.
It began with Mrs Thatcher's bargain basement sale of council housing stock at discounted prices.
The Guardian did publish one of our letters around the time of blog 50 but for reasons best known to them, omitted the sentence in which we suggested that it was somewhat hypocritical of the Prime Minister sell off the nation's public housing stock at knock-down prices but not her own home in Flood Street. We thought it showed a lack of intestinal fortitude and leadership.
We didn't once mention the word gerrymandering. Or Dame Shirley Porter and how she cleaned up in Westminster.
Margaret Thatcher, Dame Shirley Porte and now Theresa May.
In her forward to Sajid Javid's, "Fixing our broken property market" Theresa May states,
"The Government is determined to build a stronger, fairer Britain where people who work hard are able to get on in life."
But people already work hard and still don't get on in life.
And what about people with disabilities who find working hard even harder. Don't they deserve to get on in life too?
What about the people working hard in your department not to answer my questions - do they deserve to get on in life?
Jackson Browne's song invites us to,
"let the music keep our spirits high,
And let the buildings keep our children dry."
As a citizen of the world and thus in Theresa May's opinion, citizen of nowhere, and someone who has had 36 "homes" to date, the knowledge that many of our poorer children are building a similar property portfolio due to the tyranny of short term tenancy agreements, is a daily bleak reminder of the , "broken British property market."
Nowhere, has become home for more and more young citizens in our fake-news, post-truth and post-Brexit world. However, for Amber Rudd's false-news refugee children, thoughts of a six month tenancy agreement must sound like heaven on earth as they sleep in the open en route to a country that is willing to help them find a dry building to live in.
One wonders just how many of those children will find a welcoming home in Westminster.
Perhaps at this very moment the present Home Secretary is following in her leader's footsteps and re-commissioning the Go Home Lorries as part of Sajid Javid's strategy to fix the broken, some might say shattered, housing market.. This time the lorries could carry a warning to those who don't know what the property ladder looks like or who find the first rung to be always just out of reach.to, "Find A Home Outside Of Westminster," if this 2013 headline is anything to go by,
"London council accused of social cleansing over plans to deposit lowest paid tenants on edge of city." (www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/social-cleansing)
This would suggest that that the housing market isn't so much, "broken" - as if someone accidentally dropped it - as deliberately rigged. Rigged so that Westminster's lowest paid tenants are forced to the periphery.
Mr Clark, so far we've attempted to bring our concerns regarding the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property's role in the broken market in surveying and broken market in alternative dispute redress, to three Business Secretaries; Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and now yourself but it would seem that the Culture of Silence that pervades the NHS has spread throughout government reaching as far afield as Livewell Southwest Ltd, NEW Devon and Plymouth City Council.
You ask a public employee a straightforward question and you're automatically put on the long finger.
The RICS sits atop the British Housing Market and from its vantage point - 12 George Street, Parliament Square, Westminster has ready access to Ministers, civil servants and MPs - their office staff. They have a Parliamentary Affairs Manager. The Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Dame Janet Finch, who also oversees the RICS appointed Ombudsman Service:Property, has, "a close and continuing relationship" with your department.
RICS' ready access to government and their "political influencing" and "engagement work" much of it "behind the scenes" enabled them to have Vince Cable "fix" the lettings market.
Yet another, "broken" market.
Today, lettings disputes are handled by the maladministrators at the RICS' appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property.
Whilst the RICS are building a monopoly in property dispute, "resolution" they reain unable to explain why it is they have developed practices that do not work in the customer's interests - practices which stem from their apparent inability to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms.
This isn't a broken market it's a rigged market.
Cowboy surveyors hand their bewildered clients over to their ombudsman who dutifully hands them an illogical Final Decision. Job done. As Chris Hamer, the former Property Ombudsman observed, why don't regulators get it right in the first place?
A broken property market or a highly efficient rigged property market?
Joseph Stiglitz argues that,
"If markets are fundamentally efficient and fair, there is little even the best of governments could do to improve matters. But if markets are based on exploitation, the rationale laissez-faire disappears,. Instead, in that case, the battle against entrenched power is not only a battle for democracy it is also a battle for efficiency and shared prosperity."
(Joseph Stiglitz: Are Markets efficient or do they tend towards monopoly? The verdict is in)
Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of maladministration at Ombudsman Services has announced in one of the company's annual reports that would like to see a single ombudsman for dispute resolution in England based on the one in Scotland. In other words she wants to see a monopoly in so-called civil justice which is the exact opposite to what Joseph Stiglitz says is good for democracy and shared prosperity.
If Professor Dame Janet Finch gets her way, complainants will need to start singing to keep their spirits high.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the entrenched power of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of its ombudsman's illogical final decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)