Anonymous Healthcare Professionals Operate Behind Closed Doors (638)

To the Health Secretary / CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd.

For Clarity - Attempt 638.

638) Anonymous Healthcare Professionals Operate Behind Closed Doors.

Dear Jeremy Hunt,

The Guardian tells us that, "Labour demands inquiry into privatisation of NHS-owned recruiter." 

Although the myth that privatisation is the cure for all ailments has long since been discredited (the hopeless state of Southern Rail / the dysfunctional energy market / the captured market in private redress) this does not appear to have deterred you from taking the absurd decision to hand over something that works perfectly well - the NHS owned recruiter, NHS Professionals - to private owners.

It's fixed so I'll break it would appear to be your guiding philosophy. Justin Madders, Labour shadow health minister, when commentating in The Guardian on your proposals said,
"This deal is being pushed through behind closed doors."

This seems to be how many of the 207 about-to-be Privatised Health Services prefer to do their "business" - behind closed doors and as far away as is possible from an acceptable degree of democratic scrutiny.

Such operating practices are profoundly undemocratic.

Mr Hunt, doesn't The Guardian's article show just how ideologically driven and unscrupulous your belief is in the supposed virtues of abandoning OUR NHS to free market capitalism, with its attendant encircling vultures greedy to feast on those big profits David Cameron's adviser Mark Britnell spoke of back in May 2011? (The Observer 15 May 2011: David Cameron's says health reform is a chance to make big profits)

Q. Mr Hunt, wouldn't the democratic way of handling this to have been a full and open debate on the floor of the House of Commons where MPs could have voiced their constituents' concerns?
Q. Mr Hunt, how many constituents have voiced their concerns about NHS nursing care decisions made by Anonymous Healthcare Professionals also behind closed doors ie like the ones at Livewell Southwest Ltd and why aren't these decisions recorded and made available for public scrutiny?

The privatisation process began with the tacit agreement of the Liberal Democrats and without any meaningful scrutiny of CCGs by Parliament. Here we are now in the 2017 summer recess and once again - without proper Parliamentary scrutiny - a successful money saving part of the NHS is to be privatised.

Already, at NHS companies such as Livewell Southwest Ltd patients don't have an automatic right to see their medical records, they are their records after all, instead they have to pay a tax - the Data Protection Act Fee - for the privilege. Similarly, decisions, often involving huge amounts of patients' money - are made behind closed doors by anonymous individuals.

Q. Mr Hunt, is it the Conservative Party's non-manifesto intention that a significant part of Mark Britnell's Big Profits are going to be made by unaccountable people operating behind closed doors and how does this satisfy Mrs May's requirement for the Conservative government to stand up, challenge vested interests and right wrongs?

Q. Mr Hunt, by choosing to conduct yourself in this way are you not siding with those very vested interests the Prime |Minister expects you to stand up to and by failing to do so are you not intentionally creating yet further wrongs?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at - www.blogspot.com and www.facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

The Department For Communities and Local Government."loads the dice." 637

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.

For Clarity - Attempt 637.

637) The Department for Communities and Local Government, "loads the dice."

Dear Mr Clark,

We've always said the housing market was rigged from its foundations to its roof but the ground rent scandal takes rigging markets into a whole new dimension.

How was this ever able to happen in the first place and how could over a 100.000 homeowners fall victim to this particular scam before anyone noticed anything was remotely wrong?

Where were the regulators? Or was it so well rigged that the regulators were simply by-passed? And who actually owns the freeholds; Vladimir Putin? Donald Trump? The Taliban?

Heidi Blake's article for the Telegraph raises a real conflict of interest:

"official records show that ministers in charge of planning laws have net senior industry figures 28 times since the general election (2010) while holding only 11 meetings with environmentalists....

Taylor Wimpey, whose planning director helped draft the regulations is preparing five projects in the countryside, including two in the green belt.

This is like the RICS regulating its., "appointed" company OS:Property and monitoring their Ombudsman to ensure what they determine to be, "the effective resolution of disputes." It's rigged.

Q. Mr Clark, isn't a building company which saddles the purchasers of its leasehold houses with a massive burden of debt - having sold the freeholds to overseas "investors" - and who fix the regulations, like asking the Kray Twins to advise the Department of Justice on policing in the East End of London?

...managers met Bob Neil, the local government minister, in January to discuss 'the burden of regulation in planning.' They were accompanied by Finsbury. a city PR firm which recently donated £8.000 to the conservatives.

Q. Mr Clark, wasn't the Prime Minister, David Cameron, promising to end crony capitalism at the same time as all this was going on?

...Taylor Wimpey has been accused of bullying over plans to build on land in Mangotsfield near Bristol, after erecting a 6 foot fence around the plot.

...Helical Bar, whose chief executive is a conservative activist and has donated more than £300.000 to the party, has won won permission for hundreds of houses on 2 green belt sites.

...The Department for Communities and Local Government has been accused of, 'loading the dice' in favour of developers.

(Heidi Blake www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/hands-off-our-land)

Once again, private vested interests tell their government office staff what is and what isn't acceptable by way of regulation.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

Hyper-Shrinkinflation (636)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary and to the Chair, Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 636.

636) Hyper-Shrinkinflation.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Michele Hanson, in yesterday's Guardian asks the question,

"If the government takes no notice what is the point of government inspections?"

We suppose their main point is that they help to maintain the illusion that we live in a fully-functioning, modern 21st century democracy. The Chief Inspector, Peter Clarke, has certainly done his job. The Ministry of Justice hasn't done theirs.

The UK Government, "approved" and "monitors" the RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property private redress scheme.

In 2009/10 the company's Ombudsman made "financial awards" averaging £1.511.75p. By 2016 they were down to 50 quid.

We, here at the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign, believe this is an unique economic trend.

For example: Executives' pay - up. Cost of an apartment in Kensington and Chelsea - up. Cost of a Manchester City player - up. Average weekly food bills - sharply up. Financial awards made against RICS regulated surveyors by their Ombudsman - spectacularly down.

This is, "Hyper-Shrinkflation" in the opaque world of private redress.

Whereas, the Ministry of (In)Justice has a strong Chief Inspector on their case, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy - with its, "close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services:Property," hasn't.

Here, instead, we have a situation whereby a regulator, RICS, doesn't adequately regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms but does very adequately regulate its appointed redress scheme, Ombudsman Services:Property and sees nothing remotely remiss with their Ombudsman's so-called, "financial awards" plummeting from £1,511.75p to 50 quid in the space of six years..

The company's CEO and Chief Inspector, The Rev Shand Smith, describes this unique economic trend as being, "Good For Business." And he's right. Poorly regulated surveyors are laughing all the way to the bank. He also describes it as being, "Good For Consumers."

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, how is a 50 quid financial award from your Ombudsman to a property complainant, "Good For Consumers?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, doesn't this explain why there are complainants who think your, "best efforts" are simply not good enough?

Q. Mr Clark, why isn't there an independent inspector - someone like Peter Clarke - to inspect this cosy and collusive relationship between business and private redress?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogspot.com Ombudsmans61percent Campaign and www.facebook.com = Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

From, "The Great British Bake Off" to "The Great British Fob-Off" - Question 9 to the Chair of Ombudsman Services. (635)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair, Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 635.

635) From, "The Great British Bake Off" to the, "Great British Fob Off" - Question 9 To The Chair of Ombudsman Services.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

From the company minutes it is clear that chaos reigned supreme at Ombudsman Services at the time of our complaint - case 510458.

Now that the company have seen fit to remove them from their website the consumer no longer knows what goes on at this private redress scheme a place where unelected and unaccountable individuals determine what is and what isn't - "civil justice."

I asked Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair, Ombudsman Services and sociologist of the family:

"Q 9. Does this apparent state of chaos help in some way the bizarre Provisional Conclusion arrived at in our case?

Case 510458 19th November 2009.

'- After considering the evidence, my view is Monk and Partners should take certain actions to resolve your complaint. My reasons for this and the proposed remedy are set out in the attached report.'

Amazingly, by the end of the report this had all changed to one where Monk and Partners need, 'take no further action.' 

Not surprisingly I asked for for an explanation for this sudden turnaround in my and the Firm's fortunes. We were told that there had been, "an administrative error.' 

That was all I was told.

There was no explanation of, or reasons given for, this apparent, 'administrative error.'

At such a crucial time for me and my family, the fact that Ombudsman Services:Property did not consider it appropriate to offer either an apology or an explanation shows a staggering degree of insensitivity. Along with my case I was dismissed curtly and told, "You can still follow other routes to try and sort out your complaint in a way that suits you better."

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, hundreds - if not thousands - of property complainants have been fobbed off with a curt and arrogant - "You can still follow other routes to try and sort out your complaint in a way that suits you better" from the Property Ombudsman. Does this not explain why so many complainants find your best efforts not good enough?

The route we expected was for the Property Ombudsman to sort our complaint out better - fairly and independently - that would have suited us.

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services, are you prepared to assure consumers that when they take their complex and costly property complaints to this private redress scheme that each and every one of them will be forensically investigated by a, "fair" and "entirely independent" Ombudsman?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:

- answers from Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Mark Prisk, Norman Lamb, Francis Maude, Jonathan May, Jonathan May's monitors of this government approved scheme, Sajid Javid, Greg Clark, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Steven Gould, Walter Merricks, The Independent Assessor, Professor Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor and Lord Tim Clement Jones.

- a public inquiry into the workings of the Surveyors Ombudsman Scheme (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) and the role of the RICS in its day-to-day running.

- compensation for the victims of the Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and the executives' maladministration

- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.

- A RICS that regulates its cowboy surveyors in the first place.

And Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com - Ombudsmans61percent Campaign and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Or asking the OS:Property Ombudsman to "investigate" a complaint against a fee-paying member. (633)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / Health Secretary / CEO Livewell South West Ltd.

For Clarity - Attempt 633.

"Putting the Department of Health In Charge Of The Contaminated Blood Inquiry Is Akin To Asking South Yorkshire Police To Lead Hillsborough Probe" Diana Johnson Labour MP.

633) Or asking the OS:Property Ombudsman to "investigate" a complaint against a fee-paying member.

Dear Mr Hunt, Lord Tim Clement Jones, Mr Hunt and Professor Waite,

Diana Johnson, the Labour MP for Hull North, is perfectly correct when she says, "Putting the Department of Health in charge of the contaminated blood inquiry is akin to asking South Yorkshire Police to lead Hillsborough probe."

Our world is being rigged from top to bottom by those who refuse to answer questions and who choose instead to operate behind the scenes.

Choosing not to answer questions has become standard operating practice by those who command the political and consumer landscape. From government ministers to senior executives at private redress schemes.

The Contaminated Blood Scandal is yet another example of how conflicts of interest are becoming standard operating practice in a democracy where the Conservative Party is becoming increasingly non-transparent and unaccountable whilst all the time seeking to grab, control and hold on to executive power. Hence the Henry VIII clauses in the Great Repeal Bill.

It is almost unimaginable the Hillsborough victims had to wait nearly 30 years. for justice to arrive. What an insult to them. And then there are the victims of Orgreave who thanks to Amber Rudd's need to protect Thatcher's already tarnished reputation, are left still waiting for justice.

The Conservative Party are at least united on one thing for sure - the need to conserve a system that enshrines injustice and protects the perpetrators of those injustices no matter what the cost.

Otherwise things would be different.

What must be of concern for anyone who is passionate about truth, fairness and justice in post-Brexit Britain are the day-to-day scandals of healthcare professionals, private investigating officers and ombudsmen who - with the tacit knowledge of their CEO's and regulators - are handing innocent people ludicrous decisions.

Ludicrous decisions that come with both a health and wealth cost.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, do you not agree that every recipient of an illogical Final Decision by your company's ombudsman deserves to have those decisions

reviewed at an independent inquiry?

Q. Professor Waite, do you not agree that every recipient of an eye-wateringly ludicrous decision by your Anonymous Desk Top Reviewers deserves to be compensated after a review by an independent inquiry?

Q. Mr Clark, why does government still approve the Ombudsman Services:Property private redress scheme when it no longer publishes any meaningful data on its performance - how can consumers know if it is as "fair" and "independent" as it claims?

Q. Mr hunt, how can you condone a system that employs Anonymous Desk Top Reviewers to make decisions that involve such substantial sums of money?

Where is the transparency and accountability?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

632) "Too Old To Die Young" Brother Dege.

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair, Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity Attempt 632.

632) "Too Old To Die Young"  Brother Dege.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

In the future there will be many, many more who will be made old before their time.

Thanks to Tory-style generosity, working life has just become nastier, more brutish and a whole year longer. Or at least it will be for those who have the genes to survive the Prime Minister's surprise for workers born in the 1970's. Theresa May isn't engineering a society, "that should work for everyone" but one where everyone should work until they drop. 

Unlike Mrs May's, "Brexit Means Brexit" this one's a Clever Plan - it'll save the treasury billions as thousands fall abandoned by the wayside.

Actual hard statistics on the life expectancy of one group of workers facing these changes - teachers who work until 60+ - are remarkably hard to come by. Those expecting others to do what they wouldn't dream of, are sadly once again, failing to work in the interests of the people.

The Prime Minister's statements to the contrary become more nauseating by the day.

No-one seems to know what the life expectancy of a teacher who retires at the age of 60 actually is.

The TES messageboard suggests it's 18 months.

Mark McCarthy made a Freedom of Information Act request - "Planning Assumption For Teacher's Pension Scheme" but got nowhere. Apparently, the information is not held at the Department for Education.(www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/planning_assumption_for_teachers)

According to www.eurofond.europa.eu/observatories/eurowork/articles/working-conditions it's 62.5 years.

As for manual workers....This government making drastic changes to the lives of the people without recourse to any meaningful information.

The information is not held.

When writing to the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Dame Janet Finch (Sociologist) we suggested that,

"It must have been an extremely stressful environment in which to come to work and difficult when there, to ensure that each case got the attention it deserved."

This was because the company's minutes spoke of the enormous pressure poorly trained staff were under coping with the unexpected torrent of complaints and DJS Research had highlighted staff who simply didn't understand the complexity of the disputes they were expected to deal with.

As a sociologist one might have expected Professor Finch to have been fascinated by such a problem. If she was she didn't say. Her solution seems to have been one of ditching information.

Question 8. Lord Tim Clement Jones, would untrained staff attempting to cope with a flood of complex property complaints and being told by unnamed individuals of their concerns about the levels of award being made not have had a dramatic impact on the way complainants' cases were handled?

This private redress scheme no longer publishes information on the way property complaints are handled or whether complainants are satisfied or dissatisfied with what the company euphemistically call their customer journey.

Q. Mr Clark, by failing to publish meaningful information on the way it resolves disputes or give the complainants who use it any say in how they are treated, how does Ombudsman Services:Property satisfy the government's criteria for approval and how do those monitoring it on behalf of he taxpayer justify it? 

No deal is better than a bad deal - no information is better than bad information.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services - Question 7 (631)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary and Chair Of Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 631,

631) Question 7.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

We know from the company's minutes that the scheme approved by Jonathan May and the OFT didn't have the staff to cope with demand by consumers for redress.

Apparently, the company's executives didn't have the foresight to predict that poorly regulated, cowboy RICS surveyors would simply find the opportune moment to pack their disgruntled clients off to their "appointed" ombudsman, which in itself is extraordinary give what those poorly regulated. cowboy RICS surveyors stood to gain from the, "No Risk Strategy."

Those highly revealing minutes have vanished from the company's website.

We know from DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports that Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, arrived at decisions in, "an illogical manner" and that the consensus of opinion was that she was not an impartial arbitrator in disputes.

It is abundantly clear that complainants - who at such a crucial time financially and emotionally - had turned to this private redress scheme for help would have been totally unaware of any of this until too late - when the illogical Final Decision dropped though their letter-box.

Question 7: Lord Tim Clement Jones, Is it because of the executives' failure to anticipate what poorly regulated, cowboy RICS surveyors would do that their complainants got such dreadful decisions?

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with this private redress scheme and therefore RICS, why are RICS surveyors so poorly regulated and incapable of resolving disputes of their own making with their clients - is it because they know their Ombudsman is not impartial? 

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

"They Think It's All Over." (630)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy / Chair, Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 630.

630) "They Think It's All Over."

(Thanks to Ben Jennings on round two of Brexit talks - cartoon. Guardian 17/07/17.)

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones.

As the Dead Woman Walking was preparing to serve underarm to stay in the match, Thick as Mince, on seeing the whites of Monsieur Barnier's negotiating papers was high-tailing it back to Blighty, Spreadsheet Phil was spreading public sector pay a little thinner, Johnson Jr was making those incoherent noises - once again - and Mike The Knife Gove was honing in - once again - on the job he'd give his right arm for.

Only he still needed it to hold his blade. There was unfinished work to be done. Only he could do it. Or so he thought.

The anarchy of deregulated, free market capitalism has returned to its spiritual home in the Conservative Cabinet where the one-time party of law and order is, day by day, descending ever deeper into lawless disorder and anarchy.

Regulatory anarchy - self regulation - has become standard operating practice from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Great George Street, London all the way to Livewell Southwest Ltd in Mount Gould Plymouth

One of self-regulation's cheerleaders, Eve Salomon was Chair of the Regulatory Board of RICS at a very interesting time indeed. At the Leveson Inquiry she claimed, "I am a regulatory anorak" which could well be true - only she appears to have been wearing it back-to-front and inside out.

Her first message to the inquiry was, "If the press feels coerced into regulation it doesn't want, it will rebel."

It was an interesting choice of word - coerce. She could have said, "The press has been politely invited to join the rest of us in civilised society when regulating its behaviour but won't because it's far too self important to be concerned with such trivia."

In other words, in The Big Society, we - the press - are the Very Biggest. By implication the same could be said of surveyors - if coerced into regulation they too will rebel. Surveyors are, however, happy to be RICS regulated because that gives a certain cache and aura of respectability to what are all too often highly disreputable practices.

These then are the, "Rebels With A Cause" and their cause is as always; power and money. Strong and Steady - Power and Money.

Ms Salomon's second message was about the sight of blood and led, somewhat unsettlingly, to her implied third message: don't mess with us or else.....

So there we have it in a nutshell, The Rough Guide To Self-Regulatory Rebellion - rules don't apply to the rich and powerful but they do to the Little People.

Elsewhere on the subject of regulation, RICS state;

"We regulate and promote the profession, maintain the highest educational and professional standards, protect clients and consumers via a strict code of ethics and provide impartial advice and guidance."

Really? But then as standard bearers for self-regulation they would say that wouldn't they.

In the Ombudsman Services Annual Property Report January - December 2016 it states otherwise;

"Often poor record keeping alongside a lack of holistic thinking - not following the trail and incorrect assumptions drives survey reports not to accurately reflect the condition of the property on the date of inspection."

(www.ombudsman-services.org - for consumers - complaints data - Annual reports - annual report - Annual report 2016 - Annual report 2009/10 Property)

The data - what data there is - is well hidden these days at Ombudsman Services.

The RICS - far from maintaining , "the highest educational and professional standards" are in fact doing the exact opposite and maintaining the lowest educational and professional standards.

How do we know? Look at the evidence relating to their performance in delivering high quality surveys and evaluations.

One only has to look at Ombudsman Services Annual Property Reports to see what is really happening:

Annual Property Report 2009/10: No 1 Complaint - homebuyer survey/valuation

Annual Property Report 2016: No 1 Complaint - homebuyer survey/valuation.

It seems that for nearly a decade now, RICS regulated cowboy surveyors (with the connivance of their, "appointed" company) have been fleecing the consumer with impunity.

If cake-bakers baked flat cakes they'd quickly go out of business. The same laws of economics do not apply to surveyors and their, "lack of holistic thinking." They've found a platinum get out of jail free card for their dud surveys - Ombudsman Services:Property. And its all paid for by their fees so no conflict of interest there.

As for Eve Salomon-like self-regulation? The report goes on to say;

"Regulation and Enforcement - The agency sectors continue to operate largely, in an unregulated environment."

How very convenient for the, "agency sectors."

Where huge amounts of money are involved it seems that the least amount of regulation, transparency and accountability is to be found - or, as we see it at the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign: The First Law of Corruption.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, you best efforts appear to be woeful. Year after year substandard surveys by RICS regulated surveyors are costing consumers untold harm in terms of their health and financial wellbeing. When are you going to step up to the mark, apply some holistic thinking, and do something to protect consumers from these cowboy operators?

Q. Mr Clark, hasn't your department's close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services not directly contributed to the injustice of consumers paying the price for RICS regulated surveyors', "lack of holistic thinking?"

They think it's all over do those poor, conned property complainants who put their trust in Ombudsman Services:Property only to get instead an illogical Final Decision or 50 quid hand-out from the surveyors' Ombudsman.

This private redress scheme no longer even bothers to ask property complainants what thought of their customer journey as they're efficiently being shuttled into oblivion.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com and www.facebook.com ombudsmans sixtyone-percent.