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.