Ombudsman Services: Mass Rejection Of Mutually Agreed Settlements (MAS). (660)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 660.

660 Ombudsman Services: Mass Rejection Of Mutually Agreed Settlements (MAS)

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Before Mutually Agreed Settlements (MAS) were devised by the executive team at Ombudsman Services there existed a system of Provisional Conclusions.

These were sent out to property complainants who then promptly submitted further evidence (the Further Representation Process) in a desperate attempt to combat the woeful inability of staff to understand the nature of complaints or the complexity of property disputes and who often arrived at decisions in an illogical manner.

In over 90% of cases the Further Representation Process did not change the outcome of the case for complainants. 

We know this because of DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports.

MAS started in the 2011/12 season.

Year         Researcher    Informally    Formally      Biggest Area of Complaint

                                       Resolved     Resolved

                                       Complaints  Complaints

2011/12       BMG               5%              95%          Surveys/valuations 67%

2012/13       BMG               6%              94%          Surveys/valuations 60%

2013/14       BMG               8%              92%          Surveys/valuations 41%

2014/15       BMG               4%              95%          Surveys/valuations 42%

2015/16       BMG               2%              98%           1. Homebuyer survey /

                                                                                     valuation 9%

                                                                                 2. Other complaint 5%

                                                                                 3. Property management 4%

We're told by the researchers that where mutually agreed settlements are reached there is greater complainant satisfaction. Nothing else. One might wonder what the satisfaction levels were when they aren't reached. We aren't told.

Clearly, Mutually Agreed Settlements (Informally Resolved Complaints) have not been a roaring success. They are not an exemplary model of dispute resolution and the Property Ombudsman still "investigates" complaints and imposes a decision in the overwhelming number of cases.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, if this were indeed, "an exemplary model of dispute resolution" shouldn't the figures be reversed? Shouldn't over 90% of disputes be being resolved informally?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, complaints concerning homebuyer surveys and valuations dropped from 42% in 2014/15 to 9% 2015/16. How do you account for this this?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, the three largest areas of consumer property complaint totalled 18%. How do you account for the other 82%?

Whereas before the MAS approach to ADR was introduced - and thanks largely to DJS Research's highly revealing Customer Satisfaction Reports - the consumer was able to discover why they had been let down by the system, now they're left in the dark. 

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why aren't the same questions being asked of the investigation process?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why aren't property complainants being asked if they are; very satisfied / satisfied / dissatisfied / very dissatisfied with the way in which their complaint has been investigated?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why aren't those property complainants being handed a 50 quid financial award asked if they are satisfied with it or not? 

Criterion 8 of the OFT's approval of this scheme states:

"The scheme's operation and its procedures must be transparent.

The scheme must publicise:

- The decision making arrangements.

- The rules serving as a basis for decisions.

- The provision for expert advice to assist with an investigation.

The scheme must also:

- Ensure that complainants are provided with clear, comprehensible and accurate information on the procedures possible outcomes, avenues for appeal or review of the decision, and whether the outcome is binding."

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services. It would appear that property complainants are no longer being asked if they are satisfied with the way in which their complaint has been dealt with. How does this satisfy the OFT's Criterion 8?

It would appear that along with DJS Research's departure went transparency and accountability.

Q. Mr Clark, how does the lack of transparency and accountability at Ombudsman Services satisfy the requirements of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European parliament and of the Council 21 May 2013 at: 30) 31) and 32?

  

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

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