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.