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.