Ombudsman Services. Property - The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Between RICS and Ombudsman Services:Property. (651)

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign For A Public Inquiry Into The RICS, Its, "Appointed" Company - Ombudsman Services:Property And The NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.

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

For Clarity - Attempt 651.

651. Ombudsman Services. Property - The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Between RICS and Ombudsman Services:Property.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

We read that,

"RICS and OS:P will work together...to meet the agreed aims of ensuring that:

- there is regular communication to foster the effective resolution of complaints by OS:P."

The RICS is an organisation that according to the OFT has permitted its members and (un)regulated firms to, "develop practices that do not work in the customer's interests" and yet here it is working together with its appointed redress scheme to, "foster the effective resolution of complaints."

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, isn't there a blatant conflict of interests here. How can a regulator who doesn't apparently regulate its members in the first place insist on working together with what is to all intents and purposes its ombudsman, to "foster the effective resolution of complaints?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, at a time when property prices have gone up year on year, your financial awards to property complainants have gone down year on year from £1.%11.75p in 2010 to 50 quid in 2016. Is this an effective resolution of a complaint? And if so, for whom?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, TPOS manage somehow to award their property complainants £531. That's ten times more than OS:P can manage. Are TPOS ten times more effective at complaints resolution than OS:P?

What is, "effectiveness" and who determines it? Certainly not the consumer.

Even more concerning for the consumer is what is stated under,

"Provision of Information To RICS About Complaints."

Here we're told,

"OS:P will also provide RICS with management and performance data about the operation of OS:P as may reasonably be required."

DJS Research once provided an insight into the management of and performance in, resolving complex and costly property disputes at OS:P.

The conclusion they arrived at in what was to be their final Customer Satisfaction Report was that the consensus of opinion was that the Ombudsman was not an impartial arbitrator in disputes.

DJS Research exited. The Ombudsman remained. We believe consumers would have voted differently if given the choice.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does having an Ombudsman whose performance in handling complaints is not impartial, a reasonable requirement of RICS?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, how does this meet the EU requirement for ADR schemes to both fair and independent?

In a healthy, modern and fully functioning democracy surely the above situation must call into question the whole legitimacy of Ombudsmen and their schemes.

In;

"The Ombudsman Research Project: Research papers in ombudsmen."  Stuart Hyson 2006. Canadian Political Science Association. (www.cpsa-acsp.ca) tells us that;

"the ombudsman has managed in its own functional way to emerge as a cornerstone of the modern administrative state ...not only in the form of the classical (all-purpose) ombudsman but also in a number of other, more specialised ombudsman offices. As a consequence of this oversight in the literature we know little about the ombudsman's actual performance; instead its merits have largely been assumed without systematic, comparative, and empirical based analysis."

They could be modern-day snake-oil salesmen for all we know.

Q. Mr Clark, if you compare and analyse the £531 financial awards of TPOS with the 50 quid handout from Ombudsman Services:Property shouldn't you be advising consumers to take their complaints to TPOS?

Q. Mr Clark, how did government monitors of this government approved scheme permit such a disparity in performance to arise?

Q Mr Clark, you once contributed to Direct Democracy a manifesto that advocated denationalising the NHS. Doesn't the growing evidence suggest that instead we should be re-nationalising the NHS whilst at the same time deprivatising Ombudsman Services:Property?

Stuart Hyson continues,

"...we are faced with a most fascinating research topic as to why such a firmly established institution should now be experiencing strains of legitimacy and/or searching to redefine its role within the democratic administrative state.

To answer this question, we need to move beyond normative, prescriptive and legalistic commentary that  usually dominates discourse on the office of the ombudsman in order to depict and access empirically this institution's actual performance."

Lord Tim Clement Jones, that was written 11 years ago. In the time that your predecessor, Professor Finch, was Chair of Ombudsman Services, empirical evidence of the Lead Property Ombudsman's performance in effectively resolving disputes all-but disappeared.

Professor Finch is a sociologist.

One might have reasonably expected her to have insisted that the new team of researchers tirelessly gathered data and analysed and interpreted it to ensure that consumers really were getting a fair and independent investigation of their complaint. Something she had promised. 

The opposite appears to have happened. The financial awards made to property consumers plummeted and at the same time the data supporting just how those decisions were arrived also shrank.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why are there no longer stand alone Annual Property Reports and why are they down from 8 pages to effectively just one?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why are consumers no longer asked about their, "customer journey?" Is it because many have been left abandoned in a siding somewhere just outside of Warrington?

The EU Directive on ADR expects schemes to deliver prompt and just redress.

Redress  that is also transparent and accountable.

The chaotic make it up as we go along withdrawal from Europe by this administration comes at a time when the consumer has no idea as to the effectiveness of private redress or the fairness of its so-called civil justice.

This is because those responsible for delivering it have made the choice of a) not to gather data on their own performance in any meaningful way and b) not to present it in any meaningful way.

Q. Mr Clark, if we can employ a Canadian to run The Bank of England shouldn't we be scouring the world for tough and talented Ombudsmen to run our ombudsman schemes? Individuals who will without fear or favour can be trusted to thoroughly investigate consumers' complaints?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert  - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com

Ombudsman Services - "The Chief Executive noted that there had been some level of concern ove the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards." (650)

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign Is Seeking A Public Inquiry Into The RICS, Its, "Appointed" Company Ombudsman Services:Property And The NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.

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

For Clarity - Attempt 650.

650. Ombudsman Services - "The Chief Executive  noted that there had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards." (Minutes from 15 Dec 2009)

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

The above statement in which the Chief Executive noted some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards should be read alongside that of Roger Brown's and his insistence that the purpose of Ombudsman Services is to ensure that its members know that they - the executives - are spending their members' money wisely.

A bit like Wentworth Golf Club where its fee-paying members also want things to run smoothly.

This, "concern" - expressed by unnamed individuals - certainly reached the Lead Property Ombudsman.

In 2009/10 her average financial award to property complainants was £1.511.75p. After this expression of some concern it plunged to £900. The Lead Property Ombudsman said,

"In reviewing the last year, even though the average financial award was significantly less the range of award has not changed."

(2010/11 Annual Property Report page 5)

The fact that the range of awards - 12 categories - had remained unchanged will be of little comfort to those who DJS Research had reported were very dissatisfied with the financial redress they'd received.

On page 7 of the same report DJS Research also expressed concern on behalf of the complainant - a great deal of concern in fact.

They report,

"Overall satisfaction levels remain low. Around two in three were dissatisfied with Ombudsman Services:Property's handling of their complaint. The fact that most feel the report does not find in their favour (possibly because of the scale of the financial award) impacts on these poor levels of satisfaction."

What a damning indictment of private so-called, "civil justice."

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, independent research conducted by DJS Research found massive levels of dissatisfaction with the levels of financial award and yet Gillian Fleming, the Lead Property Ombudsman slashed them from £1.511.75p to £900. Why?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why was the Lead Property Ombudsman listening to the concerns of unnamed individuals and not to those of consumers?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, was the reason DJS Research were replaced due to the fact that they were discovering widespread levels of consumer dissatisfaction with the service Ombudsman Services:Property were providing?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, who was expressing, "some concern" and why did it have such a dramatic effect on the levels of financial award doled out by the Lead Property Ombudsman?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, isn't this a direct interference in the duty of the Ombudsman to make  fair and independent decisions?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, today the level of so-called, "financial award" stands at 50 quid. Why is the range of award no longer included in the Annual Property Report and why aren't consumers asked by the research company that replaced DJS Research if they are satisfied with the way in which their complaint has been handled?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why has transparency and accountability been all but extinguished at Ombudsman Services:Property?

In 2008 on behalf of the government the Executive Director of the OFT, Jonathan May, approved this redress scheme. He promised the consumer access to, "fair" and "independent" redress. We were also told that this scheme would be, "monitored" by the government.

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services. How have the government monitors of this government approved scheme permitted a situation to arise in which consumers are no longer consulted on whether they are satisfied - or not - with a 50 quid financial award for the resolution of a complex and costly property complaint?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that private so-called civil justice is spectacularly failing consumers. 

We also believe it is saving those operating the inadequately regulated market in surveying millions of pounds each year as it is proving far cheaper for RICS surveyors to send their dissatisfied clients to their, "appointed" Ombudsman than to resolve disputes before they escalate to that level.

Their Ombudsman is in effect a platinum get-out-of-gaol free card.

An Ombudsman who listens intently to private expressions of concern over the levels of financial awards and acts accordingly.

Otherwise things would be different.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com

Ombudsman Services - Entirely Independent? We Don't Think So. (649)

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign For A public Inquiry Into The RICS, Its, "Appointed" Company - Ombudsman Services:Property And The NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.

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

For Clarity - Attempt 649.

649) Ombudsman Services - Entirely Independent? We Don't Think So.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Ombudsman Services's literature claims to be, "Good For Business" and, "Good For Consumers."

It certainly got the first bit right.

Richard Brown - oversees finance, human resources and IT for OS - provided a fascinating insight into what really drives the pro-business maladministrators at Ombudsman Services, 

In the 2009/10 Annual Report he told us that;

"Money comes from annual membership subscriptions and case fees."

And,

"We must ensure that the members know that we are spending their money wisely and that they have a well-run, efficient service which adds real quality to their own business practices."

The inconvenient fact that his members' "business practices"  have led consumers to complain seems to have completely passed Richard Brown by.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why has Richard Brown completely omitted  the consumer from his eulogy to his members and their less than quality business practices? 

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, Richard Brown appears oblivious to the fact that his members aren't the ones bringing the complaint. In the interests of balance whatever happened to the consumers' business practices as a result falling victims to your members' questionable business practices?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, is part of the, "well run efficient service" you provide to your members, to hand consumers decisions that are not arrived at in a logical manner?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, would handing a property complainant a fair, proportionate and just financial award be seen by your members as to be spending their money unwisely whilst also putting a sizeable dent into their questionable business practices and is this the reason why your awards are so derisory?

The victims of sharp, inefficient and/or incompetent business practices get no mention. What happens to them after they've received private civil justice is not recorded. They're simply forgotten. Their customer journey often ends in penury and ill-health. This is private civil justice in early 21st century England.

Q. Mr Clark, as one of the authors of, Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party you spoke of the urgent need for greater, "accountability." 

We agree. 

Your department has a close and continuing relationship with this private redress scheme which year after year has become less and less accountable. Shouldn't it now be deprivatised and taken into public ownership so as to protect the consumer from those who see maladministrating consumers' complaints as being, "Good For Business?"

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsman61percent campaign is at: www.blogspot.com and www.facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Mr Hunt asks of Professor Stephen Hawking, "Is it 2 much to ask him to look at evidence?" (648)

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign For A public Inquiry Into The RICS, Its, "Appointed" Company - Ombudsman Services:Property And The NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.

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

For Clarity - Attempt 648.

648. Mr Hunt asks of Professor Stephen Hawking, "Is it 2 much to ask him to look at evidence?"

And the simple answer Mr Hunt is no, Professor Hawking just needs to look at, "Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party. 2005"

(www.douglascarswell.com/download)

It seems that at the time you were taking your inspiration from Cromwell rather than Churchill.

On the front page under, "Douglas Carswell" we see that you're listed - along with Michael Gove, Greg Clark and several others - as one of its authors.

On page 3 you tell us that, "the word, 'accountability' was the best of the 11 words in the Tory campaign (there were only11 words?) ... Accountability must be direct, democratic and local."

Q. Mr Hunt, if you believe democracy must be direct, democratic and local, why hasn't Professor Waite told me the name of his Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer?

Q. Professor Waite, what was the name of your Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer and why haven't you provided me with a full explanation for his/her ludicrous decision in my late father's case?

Later on in Direct Democracy, you state that,

"The problem with the NHS is not one of resources. Rather, it is that the system remains a centrally run state monopoly, designed over half a century ago...We should fund patients, either through the tax system or by way of universal insurance, to purchase health care from the provider of their choice." 

Q. Mr Hunt, does that or does that not say that patients can purchase care by way of universal insurance?

Q. Mr Hunt, do you still believe that the problem with the NHS is not one of resources?

Q. Mr Hunt, isn't the real problem with the NHS - you?

We agree that it doesn't say US-style insurance but you do mention; France, Germany and Switzerland, who,

"operate insurance-based systems which cover all members of society."

Q. Mr Hunt, having looked at the evidence is it not the case that you and your co-authors were advocating an insurance-based system to overcome the state monopoly operated by the NHS as far back as 2005?

Further evidence would seem to be provided by an Independent article entitled,

"The choice is between US-style private health-insurance under a Theresa May dystopia, and a public NHS under Jeremy Corbyn's progressive vision."

(www.independent.co.uk/news/long-reads/nhs-private-health-may-corbyn-general-election)

Here we're told,

"Accountable/integrated care is an American model of health care associated with organisations such as Kaiser Permanente. In fact, Jeremy Hunt has informed Parliament that the NHS should learn from Kaiser even though it became infamous for dumping patients on the streets of Los Angeles." 

Q. Mr Hunt, for certain homeless hospital patients in Los Angeles it seems their health-insurance wasn't permanenete. Is dumping homeless hospital patients back onto the streets of London your vision for a denationalised NHS here in the UK?

Q. Mr Hunt, under your denationalised NHS would homeless hospital patients be offered the choice of being dumped in Milton Keynes instead?

Yet more evidence, should you still need it, can be found in Alex Scott-Samuel's "Tory Plans for NHS privatisation released during Parliamentary recess." Aug 5th 2016.

This says,

"At the same time, private sector and insurance friendly, 'new models of care' (Cromwellian?) are being imposed in community settings, further undermining NHS hospitals. The ultimate intended outcomes of this massive dictatorial reorganisation process are privatisation, co-payments, charges and insurance-funded care."

It really does seem we're engaged in an uncivil war over the future of our NHS which clearly isn't safe in your hands.

Q. Mr Hunt, if you're so committed to democracy, accountability and western liberalism, why was this plan released during the Parliamentary recess when no-one could debate it?

Alex Scott-Samuel continues,

"CCGs that fail to follow Simon Steven's diktat will be disbanded and/or forced to become US-style accountable care organisations, (ACOs)..This is with the aim of promoting mergers, cuts and closures in the publicly provided NHS and introducing community based, 'integrated packages of care' which are readily amenable to private sector provision and insurance funding - as occurs in the US  ACOs on which this particular 'new model of care' is based."

Q. Mr Hunt, your new model of care would appear to be based on US ACOs which are amenable to insurance funding - were you not aware of this and should you not now be offering Professor Hawking a sincere and heartfelt apology?

On page 4 we read that you collectively,

"believe that the great challenge of our times is the need to reform those institutions which exist to serve the public interest in a way which makes them truly responsive to public demands and better fitted to advance the highest ideals of the liberal democratic West."

Q. Mr Clark we see that you too were also one of the authors of Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party. When the RICS received its Royal Charter it too was expected to promote the public interest. How is failing to adequately regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and thereby permitting their surveyors to develop practices that do not work in the customer's interests, serving the public interest?

Since 2011 we've been asking; The Rev Shand Smith, Professor Finch, Gillian Fleming, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, The Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the Government monitors of this Government approved Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme, Francis Maude, Sajid Javid, Greg Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones about the vanishing evidence at the company. A place where, in defiance of all known laws of economics, financial awards have plummeted from an average of £1.511.75p in 2010/11 to 50 quid in 2016.

Q. Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, is it 2 much to ask you to look for where the evidence of how complaints are handled at Ombudsman Services:Property has been hidden? And why?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

Ombudsman Services - The Further Representation Process. (647)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 647.

647. Ombudsman Services - The Further Representation Process.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

We were once told by independent researchers - DJS Research - that 64% of property cases went to Ombudsman Services' Further Representation Process.

It appears that this was due to a combination of factors; the Ombudsman failing to mediate in complaints, investigating officers not fully understanding the nature of the consumer's complaint and complainants being forced to submit further evidence/challenging evidence.

This is nearly two thirds of complainants.

In 2009/10, 260 forms were returned which suggests that 166 complainants were forced to resort to the company's Further Representation Process in a desperate attempt to find justice.

Q. Mr Clark, if Eton College failed two thirds of its sixth formers wouldn't there be a hue and cry throughout the length and breadth of the land?

Q. Mr Clark, why is it acceptable for this private redress scheme to fail two thirds of property complainants?

In 2016, 1166 property disputes were, "resolved" by this scheme.

We are no longer told how many complainants resorted to the Further Representation Process because the company withholds that information. 

We were told by a government civil servant that the same questions would be asked by the research company that replaced DJS. There were even to be additional questions about the company's website.

It would appear that the government civil servant had been misinformed.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why does your company no longer inform consumers of the numbers of complainants resorting to the Further Representation Process?

We estimate that 64% of 1166 is 746 which would be a staggering number of dissatisfied complainants.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, 746 dissatisfied property complainants would suggest that your best simply isn't good enough. Shouldn't you now do the honourable thing and resign?

2009/10   Ave. Financial Award    £25.000 Payout

260                 £1.511.75p                   2

2016        Ave. Financial Award     £25.000 Payout

1166                  50 quid                       ?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, has your remuneration as Chair of this private redress scheme fallen as dramatically as the financial awards, "awarded" to property complainants and if not why not?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, if the same information is being collated by the researchers who succeeded DJS, why aren't consumers being told just how many lucky punters hit your company's £25.000 jackpot?

If 260 complainants had all received £25K it would have cost the poorly regulated surveying market £6.5 million. in 2009/10

If 1166 complainants had all received £25K it would have cost the poorly regulated surveying market £29.150 million in 2016.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, aren't you presiding over one of the biggest miscarriages of civil justice in history - a miscarriage that sees an inefficient and poorly regulated market in surveying very effectively and efficiently passing the costs of its failings on to the unsuspecting consumer? 

Otherwise things would be very different.

Q. Mr Clark, your department has fixed the lettings market for the RICS and been advised on the EU Directive on ADR by Ombudsman Services and yet one of the company's Independent Assessors criticised it for maladministration. How is the maladministration of private redress in the public interest?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services: Question 13 To The Chair. (646)

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign For A public Inquiry Into The RICS, Its, "Appointed" Company Ombudsman Services:Property And The NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.

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

For Clarity - Attempt 646.

646. Ombudsman Services - Question 13 To The Chair.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

We attempted to complain to the Chair of Ombudsman Services about the way in which our case - 510458 - was mishandled by the then Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming. The then Chair, Prof Dame Janet Finch handed the complaint to the CEO and Chief Ombudsman, the Rev Shand Smith. He's still there.

The Rev Shand Smith eventually handed our complaint back to the then Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming who told us she already answered most of our questions and not to waste her time as there were plenty others to whom she wished to hand out decisions, "not arrived at in a logical manner." (DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Reports 2009-2011)

She did tell us that she did not routinely ask questions.

This is beyond bonkers.

Q. Mr Clark, government approved and supposedly monitors this private redress scheme. How can an ombudsman carry out a, "fair" and "independent" investigation of a consumer's complaint if they don't routinely ask questions?

This is akin to going into your bank and asking to withdraw some of your hard earned cash only to be told, "We don't routinely give customers back their money once it's deposited. Now go away and stop mithering us. " We wouldn't tolerate that sort of nonsense so why do we accept a world in which ombudsmen don't routinely answer questions?

Q. Mr Clark, is the reason that Monk and Partners didn't answer our questions due to the fact that they knew that once they'd passed us over to their appointed ombudsman she wouldn't dream of troubling them with any questions - job done as it were? 

We wrote to Prof Finch saying;

"DJS Research found that 61% felt the outcome was against them. In its, "Further Representation" section - 6.23 it provides these alarming statistics:

- 64% of cases went to the, "further representation process."

- 61% felt the investigator had not understood the nature of their complaint.

- 47% felt there were errors in the report.

Of those who challenged the decision 91% felt this did not change the conclusion.

Prof Finch did apply to be Head of the National Statistics Office. These statistics didn't seem to interest her. She didn't reply.

Q 13. Lord Tim Clement Jones, how can this in any way be described as being an independent investigation of a consumer's complaint?

These figures are a national disgrace and show private redress and so-called, "civil justice" up for what it really is - a fraudulent con on the English consumer.

It's rigged redress which favours its Member Firms and adds real value to their business practices. Otherwise things would be different

If this company had been a state school it would have been put into special measures years ago. But it isn't. And so the injustice is left to go on and on. Business as usual.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com ombudsmans61percent and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

 

Mr Cable tells us, "The consequences were very serious." (645)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / Leader of the Liberal Democrats / CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd and to the Health Secretary.

For Clarity - Attempt 645.

645) Mr Cable tells us, "The consequences were very serious."

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones, Mr Cable, Prof Waite and Mr Hunt,

The consequences of the growing lack of transparency and accountability in the business of government and the government of business, are indeed, "very serious."

Mr Cable, your quote in Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason and Jamie Grierson's report for The Guardian should be read alongside The Guardian's, "NHS accused of keeping secret its plans to cut services" and our Blog on Francis Maude's astonshing claim to be Cabinet Secretary in a government where transparency was to be at the beating heart of everything you lot did.

This of course never happened. The heart had simply been by-passed.

These two articles seem to confirm what we've been saying since 2010 - that we live in a post-Brexit-red-bus-alternative-truth-and-lottery-democracy where, "phony numbers" and, "totally unacceptable secrecy" are the new normal.

It is becoming abundantly clear that as taxpayers we now paying politicians and civil servants not to answer our questions but instead to patronise us by telling us that to do so - to answer our questions - would, "not be in the public interest."

Behind the scenes, a public interest is being created in which the public are to be excluded from having any interest. Otherwise things would be different.

The Guardian journalists say,

"New data from the Office for National Statistics showed just 4.600 overstayed their visa last year. Estimates for previous years had been close to 100.000."

Mr Cable, you bemoan the fact that the prime minister still hasn't got her listening ears on and that government ministers chose to avoid factual evidence, instead preferring to make up policy on a whim, a fancy and a deeply held prejudice.

Mr Cable, we too spent at least 5 years trying to persuade you that, "fixing" the lettings market for the RICS but not the surveying market for consumers was a bad idea, but instead you chose to ignore us.

Your colleague, Jo Swinson stood up in Parliament and told the nation that regulating lettings agents would automatically drive up standards whilst apparently ignoring the evidence to the contrary gathered by the OFT - that rogue-RICS-regulated surveyors, "were developing practices that were not working in the customer's interests."

Q. Mr Cable, was this highly selective approach to regulation due to your department's close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services and its Chair, Professor Dame Janet Finch?

his is the same Professor Dame Janet Finch who withdrew her candidacy to be head of the UK Statistics Authority after MPs in committee had questioned her independence.

We see that the Cabinet Office, (Secretary - Francis Maude) "slipped out the announcement of Dame Janet's decision to withdraw her application for the post late on Wednesday evening as the furore over the News of the World phone-hacking intensified."

(www.ft.com/content/e525adc-a874-11e0-8a97-00144feabdc0.)

So much for Mr Maude's transparent government.

Q. Mr Cable, if Professor Dame Janet Finch was forced to withdraw her candidacy for the post of Head of the UK Statistics Office because MPs questioned her independence, why was she Chair of Ombudsman Services which claims to be, "totally independent" when handling consumers' complaints?

Q. Mr Cable, aren't the consequences of this seeming lack of independence very serious for those complainants using Ombudsman Services?

Professor Dame Janet Finch was responsible for - The Finch Report: Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications.

This report was funded by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Your department.

It talks about; accessibility, excellence and expanding access to research.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, DJS Research once conducted Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services and their figures complemented the company's Annual Property Report. Under Professor Dame Janet Finch's chairmanship DJS Research's contract was terminated and the Annual Property Report went from 8 pages to 1. Why has accessibility to data all but vanished at Ombudsman Services?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, what is, "excellent" about a one page report?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why is there less transparency and accountability now than there was in 2009/10?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, what is, "excellent" about reducing average financial awards to property claimants from £1.511.76p in 2010 to 50 quid in 2016?

The doctors' union the BMA is having its Freedom of Information requests ignored by government and the Ombudsman Services:Property RICS, "appointed" private redress scheme has eviscerated data on its performance in resolving disputes.

Q. Professor Waite, is that why your organisation failed to provide with the name of the person who phoned me at home to tell me my father was not entitled to a full DST when in actual fact he was?

Q. Professor Waite, why have you still refused to tell me the name of your organisation's Anonymous Desktop Reviewer - the person who was responsible for the ludicrous one-sentence judgement in my late father's case?

Q. Professor Waite, why can't those who use the service you provide see data on the number of Plymothians who are told they are not entitled to full DST Assessments (when in fact they are) and as a consequence thereby forced at significant personal and financial cost to challenge those appalling decisions?

Mr Cable, we did write to you at your department to say that the RICS's Ombudsman Services:Property would - if unchecked - provide a blueprint for the future. A future with vanishing transparency and accountability but one where failed politicians still feel compelled to tell us how hard they tried but how cruelly misunderstood they were. That it's all down to unstoppable globalisation.

Q. Mr Clark, when consumers take their complex and costly complaints to Ombudsman Services:Property will each and everyone of them receive a, "fair" and, "independent" investigation of their case?

Q. Mr Hunt, is the removal of acceptable standards of 21st century accountability, transparency and governance a prerequisite for the privatisation of our NHS?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

Lord Maude. Transparency. Open Markets. Private Redress. (644)

To Francis Maude and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.

For Clarity - Attempt 644.

644. Lord Maude. Transparency. Open Markets. Private Redress.

Dear Lord Maude and Mr Clark,

Lord Maude, in your article for today's Telegraph,

"Tories must embrace capitalism to prepare Britain for Brexit and reconnect with the young"

you don't say how the entrepreneurial young (who are predominantly Remainers) will embrace your vision of transparent and open capitalism.

Mr Maude, what are, "open" markets? How do they differ from dysfunctional markets? Or captured markets? Or rigged markets? And what happened to the revolution in transparency you once promised?

You once stated that,

"not releasing data is a last resort." 

(www.gov.uk/government/speeches/francis-maude-open-data-and-government-transparency-speech-in-sao-paulo)

Transparency was to be at the very heart of your reforming agenda.

What happened to derail it?

Ombudsman Services:Property really is a last resort for the consumer. They release very little data and their so-called, "financial awards" are derisory.

A redress scheme that doesn't release much in the way of data is like a Bible with only a couple of commandments or capitalism without effective regulation - a sinner's paradise.

Shouldn't the market in private redress and private civil justice be a beacon - world class, a gold standard of probity and excellence with free-flowing data on its performance, readily available to the consumer?

How is it then possible that one such scheme, TPOS is able to award complainants on average £531 and yet another - Ombudsman Services:Property (appointed by the regulator RICS) only a miserly 50 quid?

Q. Lord Maude, where was the transparency  and openness you promised when we asked the government monitors of this government approved scheme what had happened to its Customer Satisfaction Reports and were told - incorrectly - that the same questions would be asked by the new research company monitoring OS:Property's performance?

   Q. Lord Maude, where is that data and why is it being withheld?

To reduce financial awards from £1.511.76p in 2010 o 50 quid by 2016, to us, appears to be incredibly enterprising on the part of the OS:Property  and seems to create a lot of wealth for their inefficient fee-paying surveyors.

 

It must be saving inefficient and inept surveyors millions - in classic economics aren't weak and inefficient firms supposed to go the wall to be replaced by those who are efficient?

This is a classic win-win situation for poorly regulated surveyors who, according to the OFT, have created practices that do not work in the customer's interest. Those practices would now appear to have extended to the less than open market in private redress because there was no effective regulatory oversight to prevent it from happening.

Let's be open about this, this is a dysfunctional, poorly regulated rigged market that has captured the, "redress" end of it and very effectively brought pay-outs down to 50 quid. It must save the industry millions whilst at the same time protecting inept and incompetent surveyors who would have otherwise reformed or gone to the wall.

  
   In short, RICS regulated surveyors' inefficiencies have very efficiently been dumped on     to their dissatisfied and, now newly impoverished and very stressed clients, who in    good faith paid   a  service, didn't receive it and subsequently became the victims of          
   private civil justice.

This is capitalism at its very worst. Otherwise things would be very different.

   As Christopher Hamer the former TPOS Ombudsman once said, "Why don' regulators get
   it right in the first place?"

Q. Lord Maude, why doesn't RICS - for the public good - get it right in the first

   place is it to protect their inefficient Members who would otherwise go bust?
   Q. Lord Maude, what place has such practices in open market capitalism?

Q. Lord Maude, isn't time politicians were open about the rigged market in private redress?

Q. Mr Clark, why is there such a wide variation in private redress between the schemes operating it? Why are TPOS average financial awards - £531 when Ombudsman Services:Property's only 50 quid?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstocknumber - 510458.

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