98% / Ombudsman Services:Property / Gibraltar's Ombudsman. (578)

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.