Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu. (671)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 671.

671. Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and the Rev Shand Smith,

Have you taken that great stride yet and signed the petition to give protection to whistleblowers both in the public the private sectors?

It is a simple matter of Trust, Freedom and Democracy.

Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and Rev Shand Smith, do you not agree with the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, when she said,

"The public needs to know that the EU institutions (we are all Europeans whether we like it or not as are our institutions) welcome whistleblowers and protect whistleblowers." 

Q. Rev Shand Smith, your organisation, Ombudsman Services, was a member of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association, at a time when you were expected to have a whistleblowing policy but didn't. How was this possible?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, you are Chair of the Ombudsman Association which once had as a requirement for membership that all ombudsman schemes have a whistleblowing policy. Why is that no longer the case?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, why have you removed the right of all those working in ombudsman schemes to the protection a whistleblowing policy?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, Evelyn Regner MEP has said that whistleblowing policies are, "a question of political will not a question of legal basis." Why did you take the political decision to remove that right from all those who work in British and Irish ombudsman schemes?Q. Rev Shand Smith, why have the organisations you manage taken a governance journey that is diametrically opposed to the one advocated by the European Ombudsman?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, why do you have so little faith in your workforce?

Caron Lindsay's article in LibDem Voice, "Rennie calls on Justice Secretary to end, 'chilling' Police whistleblower policy" is a timely intervention, alerting us to the direction one powerful and increasingly unaccountable hierarchy is attempting to take us.

She says,

"Scottish Liberal Democract leader, Willie Rennie, has called for the intervention of the Justice Secretary and Scottish Police Authority to ensure that the police hierarchy are not free to silence internal critics after it was revealed that new guidance has been issued within Police Scotland that will crack down on whistleblowers."

(www.libdemvoice.org-rennie-calls-on-justice-secretary-to-end-chilling-police-whistleblower-policy.)

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, that is indeed chilling and reminds us of East Germany's Stasi and Russia's FSB. Why are you chairing a regime that also cracks down on internal dissidents?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why does the organisation you Chair more closely resemble that of Police Scotland's than of Emily O'Reilly's?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones. how can the British and Irish public have any trust in private redress that is policed in such a way?

The Prime Minister once promise to step up, challenge vested interests and right wrongs. However, saying she was committed to democratising business was one thing but delivering on it something entirely different.

She put the whistle to her lips but forgot to blow.

Mr Clark, in the Guardian article, "UK government defends apparent U-turn over workers on boards" (www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/29/government-defends-apparent-u-turn-over-workers-on-boards) you say,

"we're not going to make it happen."

Q. Mr Clark, if you're not going to make it happen then surely it's a U-turn because there would be workers' representatives sitting on boards but there aren't. Why the word, "apparent"?

You went on to say that instead you wanted a system that,

"included a non-executive director who has an explicit obligation to engage with the workforce."

Q. Mr Clark, doesn't this harken back to the days when the rich directors sat at their tables and the poor workers stood locked outside the gates? Is what you are proposing a shining example of a Brexit Britain where we have all taken back control ?

Company directors, the Police, private redress schemes and NHS managers are very successfully and very stealthily taking ever greater control and silencing the potential for criticism as they do so.

In response to your quite obvious U-turn Mr Clark, (otherwise things would be very different) Frances O'Grady stated,

"it is clear from the poll the TUC is publishing today, that the majority of people want the prime minister to keep her promise to have elected members on boards. That's not just because it's the right thing to do, it is better for business too."

Q. Mr Clark, why do politicians make promises they know they can't keep? Why was the prime minister unable to stand up, challenge vested interests and right the wrongs of those who, without consultation, remove workers' rights to freedom of expression and meaningful democratic representation on the boards of the companies they work for?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that a, "fair" "just" and "independent" system of alternative dispute resolution would have; workers on sitting on the company's board, consumers sitting on the company's board, a whistleblowing policy which everyone knew had an Emily O'Reilly-like legitimacy, published its minutes. asked every complainant to rate their customer journey, put every case on the internet for public scrutiny and gave complainants the right to challenge decisions - ie a system that the public could Trust.

It's still not too late to sign the petition. Yes You Can.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services - www.whistleblowwerprotection.eu (670)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 570.

670. Ombudsman Services - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Emily O'Reilly's position on whistleblowers could not be more different than that of the Ombudsman Services CEO and Chief Ombudsman's.

The European Ombudsman stated,

"The public needs to know that the EU institutions welcome and protect whistleblowers against retaliation to make sure that serious misconduct or wrongdoing in the EU administration are brought to light."

Ombudsman Services do not have a whistleblowing policy and its CEO and Chief Ombudsman who is also Chair of The Ombudsman Association presides over an organisation that once insisted that to become members, ombudsman schemes were required to have a whistleblowing policy but now they don't.

Clearly, the Emily O'Reilly, the European Ombudsman, places great trust in, and has the highest expectations of, her workforce. She went on to say,

"All employees working for the EU administration have a duty to speak up if they become aware of serious irregularities in the course of their work."

The European landscape could not be more different from that of the Ombudsman Association's.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, as a matter of trust, don't the public need to know that if in the course of their work your employees become aware of serious misconduct or wrongdoing at Ombudsman Services they will also be encouraged to speak up?

Speaking on the subject of whistleblowing, MEP Evelyn Regner said,

"It is a question of political will, not a question of legal basis."

Q. Mr Clark, if the political will exists in Europe to protect whistleblowers and the public they serve when the former warn the latter of serious misconduct or wrongdoing why is it so conspicuously absent here?

Not every one has the unimpeachable integrity or unbelievable courage to whistleblow but you could take a giant step in that direction by signing the whistleblowing petition - just go to: www.whistleblowerprotection,eu. You can do it.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com - Ombudsman Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services - Trust. (669)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 669.

669. Ombudsman Services - Trust.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

"While the UK attacks whistleblowers, the EU is defending them - that is until Brexit happens." Jean Lambert's view on whistleblowers' rights are shared by many both in the UK and the rest of Europe - they need defining and defending.

It is extraordinary that workers employed by ombudsman schemes within the British and Irish remit are not trusted by those running them and as a result are denied their right to the protection that a whistleblowing policy would give them.

None of the major political parties seem to have a clear policy on the human right of workers to freedom of expression.

Once we firmly take back control it looks very much like the book (and anything else that comes to hand) will be thrown at those individuals courageous enough to put their head above the parapet, climb out of the particular trench they happen to be working in and blow the whistle.

"Since 1 January 2014, EU institutions have been obliged to introduce internal whistleblowing rules concerning the protection of whistleblowers, the provision of information to them and the procedure for handling complaints made by whistleblowers concerning the way they are treated. To ensure that the EU administration is doing all in its power to encourage individuals who become aware of serious misconduct or wrongdoing to speak up, the Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry .....responses show that much more needs to be done to demonstrate to the public and to potential whistleblowers that the EU institutions welcome whistleblowing and encourage whistleblowers to step forward, that whistleblowers will be protected against negative action by the institutions for which they work, and that reporting will lead to a proper investigation."

(www.ombudsan.europa.eu/cases/summary.faces/eu/59134)

At more or less the same time the European Ombudsman was encouraging whistleblowers,  the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) - now rebranded The Ombudsman Association (OA) was adopting the example set by Ombudsman Services and discouraging its workforce from speaking up. It did this by removing the obligation for member ombudsman schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. 

Serious misconduct and wrongdoing was now free to continue unreported. It will now take an exceptional individual to challenge that.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, if ombudsman schemes such as yours do not trust its workforce why should consumers trust its executives?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does this explain why some complainants - you don't say how many - believe that your best is simply not good enough?

Pam Bartlett Quintanilla is campaigning for,

"EU-wide legislation that would protect whistleblowers in all areas of EU competence. This is because we want citizens across Europe to be able to speak up about environmental crises, human rights violations and any other wrongdoing without fear of reprisal."

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services, isn't an ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner not a form of, "wrongdoing?"

Q. Mr Clark, haven't those complainants who received a decision that was not arrived at in an illogical manner, had their human rights violated?

Q. Mr Clark, isn't the maladministration of consumers' complaints a violation of their right to a fair and independent investigation of their complaint and how are those responsible for such instances of maladministration able to act without fear of reprisal?

Pam Bartlett Quintanilla goes on to say,

"For us, whistleblowing is an issue that goes far beyond money or budgets, its a fundamental human right. Whistleblowers exercise their freedom of expression, and by doing so they guarantee the public's right to freedom of information. It's also a question of workers' rights, which cannot be reduced to monetary arguments."

(www.whistleblowerprotection.eu)

If like us, you believe in workers' rights, freedom and justice please go to Pam Bartlett Quintanilla's website and sign her petition.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services Refuse To Employ A Whistleblowing Policy (668)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 668.

668. Ombudsman Services Refuse To Employ A Whistleblowing Policy.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

For the Ombudsman Services, CEO and Chief Ombudsman's model of alternative consumer redress to begin to look exemplary it first needs to have a Whistleblowing Policy.

It is extraordinary that this private redress scheme - which mass produces decisions on consumers' complaints - should not only have no Whistleblowing Policy but should choose not ask those property complainants for their thoughts on how their complaint had been handled.

As consumers, it seems we unquestioningly accept what ombudsmen tell us is,"civil justice." Our views are not sought. It's taken on trust.

Yet at Ombudsman Services:Property decisions have either been arrived in an illogical manner or have been determined in over 90% of cases by someone with a direct link to those being complained about which seems to be a clear conflict of interest and in direct contravention of the company's Terms of Reference..

The 1998 Public Interest Disclosure Act was passed to protect whistleblowers from bullying and harassment. That employees in the private market in alternative dispute resolution are not afforded the protection of such a policy only serves to underline just how unfit - rigged - these schemes really are.

Hardly an acceptable 21st century standard of transparency and accountability for what is supposed to be a modern democracy. One that has apparently just voted to take back control.

Whilst not protecting employees it does seem however to protect those making the decisions and the Members whose fees pay for the service. They most certainly don't protect the consumer - the very people who are bringing their complaints to ombudsmen.

Catherine Hobby has said that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) "provides workers with a right to freedom of expression and so has relevance for whistleblowers"  and that, "It can be argued that the statutory rights in PIDA can be enhanced by having regard to the human rights incorporated by the HRA 1998 and specifically the right to freedom of expression." 

(www.ier.org.uk/blog/article-10-right-freedom-expresasion-whistleblowing)

It seems ludicrous that in an organisation devoted to civil justice that that justice does not extend to its workforce.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto - Our Plan - page 69, it says, "we will strengthen the UK's commitment to international human rights law." If that is indeed the case, why doesn't the company you chair strengthen the rights of your employees by having a Whistleblowing Policy?" 

Prior to the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services becoming Chair of the Ombudsman Association all member ombudsman schemes had to have a Whistleblowing Policy. Now they don't. Employees' rights have been eroded.

Q. Mr Clark, removing the requirement for ombudsman schemes to have a Whistleblowing Policy was we believe a retrograde step. How does this decision satisfy the EU Directive EU/11/2013's requirement for independence, fairness and integrity?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services. The Ombudsman Association. The Rules? What Rules? (667)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 667.

667) Ombudsman Services. The Ombudsman Association. The Rules? What Rules?

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

It would appear that the executives at Ombudsman Services have failed their own unimpeachable integrity test when it comes to the rules.

The company's Terms of Reference preclude them from appointing a surveyor to the post of Ombudsman so they unprecluded themselves and appointed one who just happens to be a surveyor anyway - "What you going to do about it?" would seem to be their attitude.

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with this government approved and monitored scheme, what are you going to do about it? 

The Ombudsman Services Annual Report says that they have successfully met all the criteria for membership to the Ombudsman Association. But is this true?

In, "Guide to Principles of Good Governance" they state;

"BIOA's Criteria (for the recognition of ombudsman offices) set out the requirements that a scheme must fulfil if it is to become a full voting member of BIOA. These requirements underpin the key criteria of independence...."

We tried talking to the secretary of the BIOA / Ombudsman Association about the Property Ombudsman's independence and failure to arrive at decisions in a logical manner (secretary@ombudsmanassociation.org) but he wasn't answering questions on that particular day.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, your company has appointed a surveyor to the post of Property Ombudsman when your Terms of Reference state otherwise. how does that satisfy the BIOA/OA's requirement for independence?

The BIOA/OA believe that,

"Questions of governance assume particular importance"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, When your Independent Assessor stated in her First and Last Report that she was surprised by the extent and degree of maladministration in this particular ombudsman service how did that meet the BIOA/OA's requirement for good governance?

Quite obviously there can't be good governance when the executives are engaged in and/or condoning maladministration. Who regulates the regulators?

They continue,

"If a scheme is to be credible, all stakeholders must have confidence in it and in the independence and effectiveness of the Office holder in the role of investigating and resolving consumer or public service complaints."

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, when a RICS Ombudsman working to a RICS Memorandum of Understanding and who is in frequent contact with RICS to provide performance data on the effective management of property complaints takes average financial awards down to 50 quid after there'd been an expression of some concern over the recent rise in the levels of award, can consumers really have confidence in the independence of the Office holder as required by the BIOA/OA?

They then require,

"Those involved in the governance of the scheme conduct themselves in the best interests of the scheme."

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, when the executives maladminister consumer complaints how can they possibly be conducting themselves in the best interests of the scheme?

Regarding, "Accountability" the BIOA/OA criterion for membership requires,

"that all members of the scheme, including the office holder and staff members of any governing body are seen to be responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions,

- subject to appropriate public or external scrutiny,

- robust mechanisms for review of service quality,

- clear whistleblowing policy."

Q Lord Tim Clement Jones, your company no longer publishes the range of levels of award as required by the OFT or Customer Satisfaction Reports on the effectiveness of OS:Property in handling consumer complaints so how does it satisfy the BIOA?OA requirement for appropriate public or external scrutiny?

We phoned the BIOA/OA secretary to say that Ombudsman Services does not have a whistleblowing policy - clear or otherwise - but that it did have its CEO and Chief Ombudsman sitting on the BIOA/OA Board. How could this be?

We were never told.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why doesn't your company have a clear whistleblowing policy?

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services who happens also to be Chair of The British and Irish Ombudsman Association/Ombudsman Association, has described this as, "an exemplary model of dispute resolution" - we disagree.

It seems that in The Golden Age of the Ombudsman there are those who make and break the rules as when they please - and the rest of us who suffer as a consequence.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services:Property - The Surveyors' Very Own Magic Money Tree. (666)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 666

666. Ombudsman Services:Property - The Surveyors' Very Own Magic Money Tree.

Sadly, once again Theresa May has got it wrong.

In the time of The Great Tory Austerity there are those with privileged access to Magic Money Trees. Underperforming company executives have captured theirs and guard it fiercely, foreign despots, oligarchs, drugs barons and no doubt terrorists (who's checking?) have found theirs in the London Property Market - we're pleased to see that Sir Vince Cable has been reading our emails and will do something about it when he becomes Prime Minister..

 

And then there's the one in Warrington which has been, "appointed" by RICS and carefully nurtured by its, "appointed" Ombudsman. This particular Magic Money Tree defies logic as well as all the known laws of economics.

Here, some unnamed individual instead of uttering, "abracadabra" only had to express the magic words, "some concern about the levels of recent awards" for the then Property Ombudsman to reduce them significantly - from £1.511.75p in 2009/10 to £900 a year later. Her justification for waving her axe was her concern that for her fee-paying members to have to pay out £25K at such a strained economic time could have significant consequences for them. Hey presto and in an instant her independence vanished into thin air.

But what about the complainant who had actually brought the complaint?

The Ombudsman's justification for the unjustifiable most certainly had significant consequences for them - though the executives at Ombudsman Services are careful to avoid asking them what they are. For many property complainants it's become a Tragic No Money Tree with a bitter crop of heavy financial loss and severe health issues .

It's as if surveyors were the ones bringing the complaint and not their clients.

2010 was the turning point. DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report uncovered widespread dissatisfaction with the levels of financial award and yet they still went down dramatically.

In 2010, 260 cases were, "resolved" by the Property Ombudsman. A £25K payout could have potentially cost the surveying industry £6.5 million. A fraction of that was actually paid by surveyors to their clients. Ombudsman Services don't say how much.

The present Property Ombudsman - who the company's Terms of Reference preclude from being a surveyor but who is a MRICS - has dutifully continued the downward march of so-called financial awards.

2011/12 - 464 cases   - No Average - Possible Payout - £11.6 million

2012/13 - 589 cases   - No Average - Possible Payout - £14.7 million

2013/14 - 697 cases   - Ave. £100    - Possible Payout - £17.4 million

2014/15 - 936 cases   - Ave. £100    - Possible Payout - £23.3 million

2015/16 - 1166 cases - Ave. £50      - Possible Payout - £29.1 million

Or £96.1 million over 5 years.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why was there no average financial award recorded from 2011-2013?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, was it an attempt by the executives to disguise the dramatic downward plunge in so-called, "financial awards" made by the Property Ombudsman to property complainants?

The European Directive - EU/11/2013 at 33) states,

"The natural person in charge of ADR should only be considered impartial if they cannot be subject to pressure that potentially influences their attitude towards a dispute."

(www.eur-lex.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT)

The tragic-magic of Ombudsman Services is that when house prices go up their financial awards go down.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, how does a RICS appointed Ombudsman who is himself a member of RICS and who takes average financial awards from £900 to 50 quid satisfy the European Directive's stipulation for the natural person - the Ombudsman - to be both impartial and free from pressure and thus able to arrive at decisions, independently?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why do the company no longer provide consumers with a breakdown of the range of awards made by the Property Ombudsman as is required by the OFT Criterion 10?

Transparency and accountability regarding financial wards and customer satisfaction have magically disappeared from the Ombudsman Service Annual Reports.

Q. Mr Clark, since Sir Vince Cable's time at the BIS, your department has a close and continuing relationship with this private redress scheme, how does its failure to adequately account for the occasional awards it makes to property complainants satisfy the requirements of the EU Directive for independence, impartiality and integrity or that of British Justice? 

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes it is now time to magic up a public inquiry into the rigged market in private redress in this country.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

 

 

 

Ombudsman Services:Property - RICS, Rules and Terms of Reference. (665)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 665.

665. Ombudsman Services:Property - RICS, Rules and Terms of Reference.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

The consumer is told that Ombudsman Services:Property was, "appointed" by RICS. That RICS funds the service. And that the service funded by RICS, "is entirely independent."

They'd have us believe that,

"RICS provides funding for the operational work of SOS (now rebranded as OS:Property) but the Ombudsman is completely independent from RICS"

The Ombudsman is completely independent from RICS.

The consumer is not told that the present Ombudsman is a member of RICS or that the company's Terms of Reference preclude such an arrangement.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, when your company's Terms of Reference preclude the Ombudsman from being a member of RICS, why is your Ombudsman a member of RICS?

In the Terms of Reference 2 "Governance of the Service" it states;

"The Ombudsman is appointed by and responsible to the council. The Council shall, as necessary, convene a group to recommend the appointment of an Ombudsman, which shall include such independent lay representatives of RICS as agreed by the Council." 

In short, independent members of RICS appointed a member of RICS to be the independent Ombudsman even though he was a member of RICS and therefore not independent of RICS.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why have the Council members broken their own rules?

The European Directive EU/11/2013 at 32 states;

"The natural person or collegial body in charge of ADR should be independent of all those who might have an interests in the outcome and should have no conflict of interests which could impede an Ombudsman or it from reaching a decision in a fair, impartial and independent manner."

(Eur - Lex Access to European Law)

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, how is having an Ombudsman who is a member of RICS investigating complaints about RICS members whose fees fund the service and pay for his salary not a conflict of interest?

Way back in 2010/11, DJS Research came to the conclusion that the consensus of opinion was that the Ombudsman was not fair, impartial or independent.

Since then this information has not been gathered and with nothing gathered there has been nothing to publish.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why are you hiding the Property Ombudsman's performance in resolving property disputes from property complainants?

At a time when we're told Brexit means Brexit and that there's no Magic Money Tree we should be learning from the standards being set in Brussels regarding the independence and integrity of ADR schemes.

Q. Mr Clark, your department under Jo Swinson, and Sajid Javid and now yourself  had - and has - a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services. Why has government allowed a RICS Ombudsman to take average property awards from £900 to just 50 quid in less than 4 years?

Q. Mr Clark, where is the government scrutiny of this government approved scheme? 

 

How this demonstrates independence and integrity remains a mystery to us.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

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

Ombudsman Services:Property: Independent Means Independent No, "Buts" About It. (664)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 664.

664. Ombudsman Services:Property: Independent Means Independent No, "Buts" About It.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Once upon a time the average financial award made by the Property Ombudsman stood at £1.511.75p and DJS Research reported widespread complainant dissatisfaction, saying these, "awards" were insufficient to cover the financial losses incurred as a result of RICS surveyors failings when it came to surveys and/or valuations.

Thanks to DJS Research, the peoples' voice had spoken. Unfortunately, it wasn't heard.

Within a year these so-called, "financial awards" were down to £900. A drop of £611.75p. The justification for this remarkable fall in complainants' fortunes was equally staggering. We're told,

"We always need to ensure the resolution we offer is the right one but during a strained economic climate our outcomes are looked at more closely. The stakes are not only high for the consumer - because their home is important to them - but our decisions have important ramifications for property professionals. It can be of great consequence for them to pay out to a complainant, especially as the maximum award is £25.000."

This is an Ombudsman who is independent in name only and once her, "outcomes" were looked at more closely by unnamed individuals that independence instantly evaporated.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, doesn't an independent ombudsman always need to ensure that the resolution she/he offers is the right one no matter what the climate is?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why has this independence been qualified with the word, "but?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why has."a strained economic climate" interfered with this ombudsman's independence to ensure the right resolution in every case?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, during a strained economic climate, do gas and electricity bills go down? do bus fares go down? do rents or mortgages go down? why are average financial awards at OS:Property treated so very differently?  

Q. Lord Tm Clement Jones, who is looking at your outcomes more closely?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, haven't those who looked more closely at your outcomes and who caused your average financial awards to be reduced by £611.75p directly interfered in the independence of the ombudsman to make the right resolution in every case?

This extraordinary statement by the Property Ombudsman which suggests that, "it can be of great consequence for them (surveyors) to pay out to a complainant" implies that as a consequence of this great consequence, this particular Ombudsman will abandon the need to ensure that the resolution offered to complainants will be the right one.

Instead, this Ombudsman will offer the complainant the wrong resolution - the excuse being that there's, "a strained economic climate."

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with this private redress scheme, is it not extraordinary how a strained economic climate gave us austerity but passed RICS surveyors by?

Q. Mr Clark, how does this clear bias on the part of the Property Ombudsman satisfy the requirements of the European Directive - EU/11/2013 - to be independent and have the integrity to crucial in gaining citizens' trust that ADR mechanisms will offer them fair and independent outcomes?

Tim Wallace, of The Telegraph tells us that growth is accelerating as the economy bounces back. The strained economic climate has changed.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, although the financial climate has changed and the economy has bounced back, average financial awards made by your RICS Ombudsman haven't, they remain at 50 quid an all-time low. Why? 

The Property Ombudsman's decisions defy logic and independence but still politicians and government monitors do nothing about it. Scandalous.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services:Property And The Terms Of Reference. (663)

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign For A Public Inquiry Into The RICS And Its, "Appointed" Company Ombudsman Services:Property.

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

For Clarity - Attempt 633.

663. Ombudsman Services:Property And The Terms of Reference.

Dear Mr Hunt and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

The Ombudsman, who shouldn't have been a RICS surveyor but was, who replaced the ombudsman, who should have resolved disputes through negotiation and mediation but didn't, continued the trend she began and has taken average financial awards down to 50 quid.

The company state,

"Our Terms of Reference preclude any Ombudsman from being a surveyor, decisions are taken by a lay person whose expertise is in dispute resolution, not in the profession or service about which complaints are. It is for the Ombudsman to decide when third party expertise would be helpful in reaching fair and appropriate resolution."

(Ombudsman Services Annual Report 2009)

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why is this report no longer on the company's website?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, is it because it states in black and white that an ombudsman is not to be from the profession or service about which complaints are and yet yours is?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, is this not an irreconcilable conflict of interest?

This unacceptable arrangement clearly contravenes the European Directive (EU/11/2013) where at 32) it stresses that,

""the independence and integrity of ADR entities is crucial to gain citizens' trust that ADR mechanisms ill offer them a fair and independent outcome. The natural person or collegial body in charge of ADR should be independent of all those who might have an interest in the outcome and should have no conflict of interest which could impede him or it from reaching a decision in a fair, impartial and independent manner." 

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, how can consumers trust Ombudsman Services:Property to be both, "fair" and "independent" when its Ombudsman belongs to the profession to which complaints are being made?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, the Ombudsman is not independent of his colleagues - surveyors who stand to lose £25K. Is this not an obvious and wholly unacceptable conflict of interest?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, the present Ombudsman has taken average financial awards from £900 to 50 quid. (there once were £1,511.75p) Why do you no longer ask property complainants if they are satisfied with their customer journey?

The 2009 Annual Report goes on to say,

"SOS (subsequently rebranded as OS:Property) is a member of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) (now rebranded as the OA). In order to enjoy full membership we have shown that we meet the published criteria for recognition attached to the BIOS's rules, which are essentially independence of the ombudsman from those whom the Ombudsman has the power to investigate, effectiveness, fairness and public accountability."

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with this private company, aren't the rules immediately broken by having an Ombudsman who is a member of RICS sitting in judgement on complaints brought about his colleagues by members of the public?

Q. Mr Clark, is a 50 quid financial award fair and proportionate?

Q. Mr Clark, is a 50 quid financial award an effective resolution of a complex and costly property dispute?

One of the BIOA/OA's rules was for its members to have a whistleblowing policy. Ombudsman Services:Property does not have one.

Q. Mr Clark, surely that precluded OS:Property from being a member of the BIOA/OA?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why doesn't an organisation that professes to handle consumer disputes', "fairly" and "independently" have something as basic as a whistleblowing policy?

We believe that the cavalier approach adopted by this company to Rules and Terms of Reference has carried over to the way in which it, "investigates" property complaints.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services:Property And The Ricsification Of Consumer Redress. (662)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 622.

662. Ombudsman Services:Property And The Ricsification Of Consumer Redress.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

By the time those few unfortunate property complainants get their derisory financial award from the RICS's Property Ombudsman they will have completed the ricsification process.

Apparently, the Ombudsman's decision is sacrosanct and final. There is no right of appeal.

We were told to go elsewhere and find a solution that suits us better. It would have suited us to have had a better solution from the Ombudsman. It would have suited hundreds of others to have got a better solution too if DJS Research's findings are anything to go by.

We suggest that, "what an exemplary model of alternative dispute resolution" will not be the first thought to enter their mind at that time.

In our last attempt at clarity - 621 - we saw that although Ombudsman Services:Property must display the range of awards they can potentially make and their justification for making them, they don't.

In the company's 2009 Annual Report it states;

"Our Terms of Reference preclude any Ombudsman from being a surveyor, decisions are taken by a lay person whose expertise is in dispute resolution, not in the profession or service about which complaints are. It is for the Ombudsman to decide when third party expertise would be helpful in reaching fair and appropriate resolution."

That's pretty clear. An Ombudsman can't be a surveyor. Their expertise is in dispute resolution.

DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report states;

"6.19 Dissatisfaction with the overall level of service is perhaps informed by the great level of dissatisfaction with the perceived extent to which the Ombudsman attempted to solve a complaint through mediation and negotiation. Less than a third (32%) were satisfied with this aspect ... and almost a half (48%) were very dissatisfied."

This is almost unbelievable.

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with this private redress scheme, why didn't it - along with the OFT monitors of this government approved scheme - intervene to protect the consumer from this Ombudsman's failure to mediate or negotiate on behalf of complainants?

Q. Mr Clark, didn't this failure on the part of the Ombudsman to mediate or negotiate directly benefit those to whom the complaint was brought - surveyors?

Q. Mr Clark, how did this satisfy the requirement for the Ombudsman to be independent and shouldn't those complainants who suffered accordingly not have their cases independently reviewed?

Although, apparently unable to mediate and negotiate on behalf of consumers, the ombudsman did significantly reduce the level of financial awards from £1.511.75p to £900 even though DJS Research had suggested they be increased to be more in line with the financial losses suffered by property complainants.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports suggested that disputes had not been resolved on the basis of an objective assessment of the evidence why have they been removed from the company's website and why don't the new researchers ask the same questions?

Ombudsman Services:Property's Terms of Reference preclude an Ombudsman from being a surveyor or being in the profession about which the complaints are made and yet the new Ombudsman, John Baguley (MRICS) is a surveyor who tells us that,

"not only have I worked in the field as a surveyor, but I am employed by the surveying arm of a large financial institution to manage complaint investigations."

(Ombudsman Services - Property Annual Report 2009/10)

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, if the company's Terms of Reference preclude an Ombudsman from being a surveyor or in the profession about which complaints are made, why is the new Ombudsman a surveyor and member of RICS? 

Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament of the Council 21 May 2013 at 32) states that ;

"The natural person or collegial body in charge of ADR should be independent of all those who might have an interest in the outcome and should have no conflict of interest which could impede him or it from reaching a decision in a fair, impartial and independent manner."

That's pretty clear too.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, how does having a RICS surveyor as Ombudsman satisfy the EU Directive's requirement for independence and the avoidance of any conflicts of interest when reaching fair and impartial decisions?

This company has ignored its own Terms of Reference and plays fast and loose with the rules.

Q. Mr Clark, the government approved and monitors this scheme, why haven't you intervened to protect the consumer from this private redress scheme - a scheme which pays such scant regard to the rules?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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