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.