To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 581.
581) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged Paying For The Cost Of Nursing Care.
Dear Mr Hunt,
Livewell Southwest's CEO, Professor Waite, told us that our late father's medical records suggested that his health suddenly deteriorated in the last two weeks of his life and that this was not predictable.
He didn't say what it was in our father's records that led his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer to this conclusion or why it was not predictable.
This is the rigged market in NHS funded nursing care in operation.
Q. Mr Hunt, hasn't Professor Waite given the game away and isn't this the fall back position for all those Anonymous Desktop Reviewers up and down the land - they simply tell the patients for whom they have a duty of care that: "His/her health suddenly deteriorated in the last two weeks of their life. This was not predictable. Here's the bill for the full cost of their nursing care minus the last two weeks of their life?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com.
Saturday, 22 April 2017
Friday, 21 April 2017
Jeremy Corbyn is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice. (580)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
And
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 580.
580) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, (both Magdalene College, Cambridge University)
Yesterday's BBC interviewers seemed completely nonplussed by the idea that the society their organisation's been reporting on since 1922 is rigged by a self-perpetuating elite which is still drawn predominately from Oxbridge graduates.
For instance, Tony Hall. Baron of Birkenhead, educated at Keble College, Oxford University and Director of the BBC, doesn't seem to have given Theresa May, St Hugh's College, Oxford University a particularly hard time of it since she totally capitulated to the Daily Mails, "Enemies of the People" rant. The Home secretary, Amber Rudd, Cheltenham Ladies College, also went AWOL as did the mouse-like Elizabeth truss, Merton College, Oxford University.
Obviously, the Daily Mail's proprietor, The 4th Viscount Rothermere, Gordonstoun, $1.3 billion (most of which is no0 doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) wields enormous power and the ability to wreck the lives and careers of others far less privileged than himself.
It seems that the flip-flopping Prime Minister believes this to be, "fair" otherwise she would have followed her own advice and; stepped up, challenged Rothermere's vested interests and righted the wrong of that sinister and deeply threatening headline.
But she didn't.
Clearly, today's Establishment is beset by internecine rivalries just like in medieval times.
Baron Ashcroft's, KCMG, PC, £865 million (most of which is no doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) thoughts on his then leader, David Cameron, Eton and then Brasenose College, Oxford University, being just one salacious example.
However, when it comes to answering our questions - or the questions of The Little People in general - The Establishment seamlessly comes together - with seven years of stonewalling silence.
Perhaps that's because the public school I went to was Plymouth Public Secondary School, perhaps it's because I don't have a title or maybe it's down to not having a million quid in the bank. The result remains the same - stonewalling silence.
Seven years of stonewalling silence - Jeremy Corbyn said yesterday;
"We will overturn the rigged system. The Conservatives will never do that. Seven years of broken promises show us that: on wages, the deficit, the NHS, our schools, our environment." And we would add - The Establishment's private civil justice schemes where The Little People pay the price for business' incompetence and inefficiency.
It's how society is rigged. Otherwise it would be very different.
Q. Mr Hunt, will you please ask Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, for the name of his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer, the one who was responsible for the horrendous decision in our late father's case?
Q. Mr Hunt, is such a total lack of transparency and accountability in the NHS, Conservative party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services' maladministrators have produced no data on their woeful performance in mismanaging property complaints since 2015. Is this total lack of transparency and accountability in Government approved private redress schemes, Conservative Party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, so-called average financial awards have plummeted from £1.522.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in the maladministrators' last report. Is this fair? Or is not a fine example of rigged private redress in a rigged society?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
And
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 580.
580) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, (both Magdalene College, Cambridge University)
Yesterday's BBC interviewers seemed completely nonplussed by the idea that the society their organisation's been reporting on since 1922 is rigged by a self-perpetuating elite which is still drawn predominately from Oxbridge graduates.
For instance, Tony Hall. Baron of Birkenhead, educated at Keble College, Oxford University and Director of the BBC, doesn't seem to have given Theresa May, St Hugh's College, Oxford University a particularly hard time of it since she totally capitulated to the Daily Mails, "Enemies of the People" rant. The Home secretary, Amber Rudd, Cheltenham Ladies College, also went AWOL as did the mouse-like Elizabeth truss, Merton College, Oxford University.
Obviously, the Daily Mail's proprietor, The 4th Viscount Rothermere, Gordonstoun, $1.3 billion (most of which is no0 doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) wields enormous power and the ability to wreck the lives and careers of others far less privileged than himself.
It seems that the flip-flopping Prime Minister believes this to be, "fair" otherwise she would have followed her own advice and; stepped up, challenged Rothermere's vested interests and righted the wrong of that sinister and deeply threatening headline.
But she didn't.
Clearly, today's Establishment is beset by internecine rivalries just like in medieval times.
Baron Ashcroft's, KCMG, PC, £865 million (most of which is no doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) thoughts on his then leader, David Cameron, Eton and then Brasenose College, Oxford University, being just one salacious example.
However, when it comes to answering our questions - or the questions of The Little People in general - The Establishment seamlessly comes together - with seven years of stonewalling silence.
Perhaps that's because the public school I went to was Plymouth Public Secondary School, perhaps it's because I don't have a title or maybe it's down to not having a million quid in the bank. The result remains the same - stonewalling silence.
Seven years of stonewalling silence - Jeremy Corbyn said yesterday;
"We will overturn the rigged system. The Conservatives will never do that. Seven years of broken promises show us that: on wages, the deficit, the NHS, our schools, our environment." And we would add - The Establishment's private civil justice schemes where The Little People pay the price for business' incompetence and inefficiency.
It's how society is rigged. Otherwise it would be very different.
Q. Mr Hunt, will you please ask Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, for the name of his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer, the one who was responsible for the horrendous decision in our late father's case?
Q. Mr Hunt, is such a total lack of transparency and accountability in the NHS, Conservative party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services' maladministrators have produced no data on their woeful performance in mismanaging property complaints since 2015. Is this total lack of transparency and accountability in Government approved private redress schemes, Conservative Party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, so-called average financial awards have plummeted from £1.522.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in the maladministrators' last report. Is this fair? Or is not a fine example of rigged private redress in a rigged society?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Monday, 17 April 2017
Ombudsman Services: A Spreadsheet For Phil, Greg, Theresa And The Rest Of The Team. (579)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 579.
579) Ombudsman Services: A Spreadsheet For Phil, Greg, Theresa And The Rest Of The Team.
Dear Mr Clark,
The maladministrators at Ombudsman Services have more front than Harrods.
In their 2010-11 Annual Report they tell us;
"The Regulators look closely at our satisfaction levels when renewing and approving our schemes."
The Regulators certainly approve and renew the maladministrators' schemes - but as for looking closely at what they're approving and renewing - well, see for yourself Mr Clark.
2008-9:
No data is available! DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports appear to have disappeared - airbrushed out of history.
2009-10:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
260 £1.511.76p 2 in 3 £375 59%
2010-11:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
428 £900 overall sat. levels £366.493 59%
low. Majority diss.
with logic of its
recommendations.
2011-12:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
525 ? ? £1.112.132 57%
2012-13:
Forms Ave Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
589 ? ? £73.030 60%
2013-14:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
697 £100 MAS 8% £1.412.624 41% + other 20%
("satisfaction is higher among those experiencing mutually acceptable settlement" BMG Research p.12. But with property complaints that was a paltry 8%. So 92% had an Ombudsman's decisions forced on them. BMG seem to have overlooked this fact. Why?)
2014-15:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
934 £100 MAS 5% £4.069.107 Top 3: 43%
2015:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
680 £50 MAS 2% ? ?
2016-17:
There would appear to be no data for the whole of 2016 up till April 2017, whatsoever, for the Regulators or Government Monitors to monitor, approve or renew.
The trends are obvious for all to see, that's if they can be bothered to look. Quite clearly the Regulators and Government Monitors were happy to look at nothing. It's what Regulators in this country seem to excel at especially the ones approving and renewing Ombudsman Services' schemes. Schemes being the operative word.
What Ombudsman Services maladministrators like to call, "financial awards" plummeted from £1.511.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in in 2014-15 for Property complaints. This is despite DJS Research's warning to the company's executives that this was a major source of dissatisfaction - along with an Ombudsman who contrived to, "arrive at decisions in an illogical manner."
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the logic behind the Property Ombudsman's strange ability for, "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" not one of getting her fee-paying Members off the hook and in doing so saving them thousands of pounds and isn't this corrupt?
Shehan Sladin, Head of Enquiries and Reporting Centre, (OFT) told us;
9 January:
"Your email of 9Jan raises concerns relating to the findings of customer satisfaction surveys conducted by DJS Research Ltd. These surveys indicate that a majority of those questioned were dissatisfied with OSP's final decision You have suggested in your various emails that these findings bring into question the suitability of the OSP redress scheme...
While I note your concerns on this point, the research goes onto suggest that this dissatisfaction may be due to customers' expectations about the levels of financial awards rather than the level of service provided. In view of this, it is not clear that the surveys alone suggest that the scheme is unsatisfactory. I can assure you, however, that the OFT receives copies of the surveys in question and will take into account their findings as part of our ongoing monitoring of OSP's redress scheme."
Where to begin?
This is complacency of the highest calibre.
Mr Clark, we're told by a Government civil servant that,
"these surveys indicate that a majority of those questioned were dissatisfied with OSP's final decision " and yet the civil servant goes on to speculate that, "this may be due to customers' expectations about the level of financial awards rather than the level of service provided."
Q. Mr Clark, why the speculation - the "may" - shouldn't the monitor know exactly what it is they are monitoring on behalf of the taxpayer?
Q. Mr Clark, if customers of OSP were dissatisfied with an average, "financial award" of £1.511.76p back in 2009-10, what must their dissatisfaction levels be now that they've plunged to 50 quid and why don't we know?
Q. Mr Clark, why are Regulators, civil servants and politicians approving and renewing the OSP redress scheme when its maladministrating executives steadfastly refuse to gather data on their customers' satisfaction levels?
Unlike the Government civil servant, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Surveys were quite specific in what they say. "May" does not come into it.
Page 7 of their 2009-10 Survey states;
"When asked about the provisional conclusion satisfaction levels were lower. Nearly half were very dissatisfied with the logic of its recommendations, use of evidence and the extent to which they were reasonable."
An Ombudsman's so-called "investigation" into a customer's complaint about what, in essence, amounts to a massive investment of their money - an investment which is largely based on a RICS survey - that is; lacking in logic, lacking in the use of evidence and lacking in reasonableness is an outrage and an affront to any remaining notions of British justice.
Yet it would seem Government reproved this scheme on a nod and a wink.
Your civil servant, somewhat amazingly, didn't consider any of the above to be a customer dissatisfaction with the level of service provided.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't this corrupt and why are Government civil servants and politicians colluding with maladministrators who for the past 17 months haven't published any data on their woeful performance, whatsoever?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 579.
579) Ombudsman Services: A Spreadsheet For Phil, Greg, Theresa And The Rest Of The Team.
Dear Mr Clark,
The maladministrators at Ombudsman Services have more front than Harrods.
In their 2010-11 Annual Report they tell us;
"The Regulators look closely at our satisfaction levels when renewing and approving our schemes."
The Regulators certainly approve and renew the maladministrators' schemes - but as for looking closely at what they're approving and renewing - well, see for yourself Mr Clark.
2008-9:
No data is available! DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports appear to have disappeared - airbrushed out of history.
2009-10:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
260 £1.511.76p 2 in 3 £375 59%
2010-11:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
428 £900 overall sat. levels £366.493 59%
low. Majority diss.
with logic of its
recommendations.
2011-12:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
525 ? ? £1.112.132 57%
2012-13:
Forms Ave Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
589 ? ? £73.030 60%
2013-14:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
697 £100 MAS 8% £1.412.624 41% + other 20%
("satisfaction is higher among those experiencing mutually acceptable settlement" BMG Research p.12. But with property complaints that was a paltry 8%. So 92% had an Ombudsman's decisions forced on them. BMG seem to have overlooked this fact. Why?)
2014-15:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
934 £100 MAS 5% £4.069.107 Top 3: 43%
2015:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
680 £50 MAS 2% ? ?
2016-17:
There would appear to be no data for the whole of 2016 up till April 2017, whatsoever, for the Regulators or Government Monitors to monitor, approve or renew.
The trends are obvious for all to see, that's if they can be bothered to look. Quite clearly the Regulators and Government Monitors were happy to look at nothing. It's what Regulators in this country seem to excel at especially the ones approving and renewing Ombudsman Services' schemes. Schemes being the operative word.
What Ombudsman Services maladministrators like to call, "financial awards" plummeted from £1.511.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in in 2014-15 for Property complaints. This is despite DJS Research's warning to the company's executives that this was a major source of dissatisfaction - along with an Ombudsman who contrived to, "arrive at decisions in an illogical manner."
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the logic behind the Property Ombudsman's strange ability for, "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" not one of getting her fee-paying Members off the hook and in doing so saving them thousands of pounds and isn't this corrupt?
Shehan Sladin, Head of Enquiries and Reporting Centre, (OFT) told us;
9 January:
"Your email of 9Jan raises concerns relating to the findings of customer satisfaction surveys conducted by DJS Research Ltd. These surveys indicate that a majority of those questioned were dissatisfied with OSP's final decision You have suggested in your various emails that these findings bring into question the suitability of the OSP redress scheme...
While I note your concerns on this point, the research goes onto suggest that this dissatisfaction may be due to customers' expectations about the levels of financial awards rather than the level of service provided. In view of this, it is not clear that the surveys alone suggest that the scheme is unsatisfactory. I can assure you, however, that the OFT receives copies of the surveys in question and will take into account their findings as part of our ongoing monitoring of OSP's redress scheme."
Where to begin?
This is complacency of the highest calibre.
Mr Clark, we're told by a Government civil servant that,
"these surveys indicate that a majority of those questioned were dissatisfied with OSP's final decision " and yet the civil servant goes on to speculate that, "this may be due to customers' expectations about the level of financial awards rather than the level of service provided."
Q. Mr Clark, why the speculation - the "may" - shouldn't the monitor know exactly what it is they are monitoring on behalf of the taxpayer?
Q. Mr Clark, if customers of OSP were dissatisfied with an average, "financial award" of £1.511.76p back in 2009-10, what must their dissatisfaction levels be now that they've plunged to 50 quid and why don't we know?
Q. Mr Clark, why are Regulators, civil servants and politicians approving and renewing the OSP redress scheme when its maladministrating executives steadfastly refuse to gather data on their customers' satisfaction levels?
Unlike the Government civil servant, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Surveys were quite specific in what they say. "May" does not come into it.
Page 7 of their 2009-10 Survey states;
"When asked about the provisional conclusion satisfaction levels were lower. Nearly half were very dissatisfied with the logic of its recommendations, use of evidence and the extent to which they were reasonable."
An Ombudsman's so-called "investigation" into a customer's complaint about what, in essence, amounts to a massive investment of their money - an investment which is largely based on a RICS survey - that is; lacking in logic, lacking in the use of evidence and lacking in reasonableness is an outrage and an affront to any remaining notions of British justice.
Yet it would seem Government reproved this scheme on a nod and a wink.
Your civil servant, somewhat amazingly, didn't consider any of the above to be a customer dissatisfaction with the level of service provided.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't this corrupt and why are Government civil servants and politicians colluding with maladministrators who for the past 17 months haven't published any data on their woeful performance, whatsoever?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)