Ombudsman Services:Property 50Poundland. (657)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 657.

657. Ombudsman Services:Property 50Poundland.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

We are told by Ombudsman Services' CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Shand Smith, that the scheme he operates offers complainants an exemplary model of alternative dispute resolution.

We at the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign dispute that claim.

In 2010, DJS Research had brought to his attention the widespread complainant dissatisfaction with financial awards averaging £1.511.75p. "Awards" that in no-way compensated complainants for the losses they'd incurred due in most documented cases to poor RICS surveys and poor RICS valuations.

In a globalised world economy which has seen property prices soar in this country, Ombudsman Services were able - incredibly - to buck this global trend and somehow managed to take their financial awards not upwards (as suggested by DJS Research) but downwards.

They now languish in the Ombudsman Services' bargain basement at a less than generous 50 quid.

We wonder what odds Betfred are offering for them to drop even further.

This remarkable race to the bottom happened even though; Walter Merricks (former Financial Ombudsman) and Steve Gould (RICS Global Head of Regulation) were on the board, even though the RICS had a Memorandum of Understanding with the company and were in regular contact with the executives to ensure the effective resolution of disputes and even though government monitors were, "monitoring" the scheme on behalf of the taxpayer.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, although DJS Research reported widespread complainant dissatisfaction when financial awards were standing at £1.511.75p, BMG were able to report largely positive findings - they don't say how many - after they'd plummeted. How do you account for this unique economic phenomenon and for property complainants' delight at being handed a 50 quid award?

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman appears to be saying that imposed MAS (Mutually Acceptable Settlements) decisions which result in a tenfold decrease in financial award went down pretty positively and form a key part of his exemplary model.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, if over 90% of Mutually Acceptable Settlements (MAS) are being imposed by the Property Ombudsman, how are they in any way, "mutual" and why is this, "acceptable?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, what part of the exemplary model do Mutually Acceptable Settlements play when they aren't being mutually accepted by the overwhelming majority of property complainants?

The Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council at 25) states,

"....Furthermore, in order to ensure that ADR entities can operate effectively, those entities should have the possibility of maintaining or introducing, in accordance with the laws of the member States in which they are established, procedural rules that allow them to refuse to deal with disputes in specific circumstances, for example where a dispute is too complex and would therefore be better resolved in a court."

Q. Mr Clark, DJS Research discovered that investigating officers at Ombudsman Services:Property did not understand the nature of property cases or their complexity, that the Property Ombudsman arrived at decisions in an illogical manner, that complainants were forced to resort to the company's Further Representation Process but that none of this changed the outcome of what appeared to be pre-ordained decisions - otherwise, surely the outcomes would have been different. Clearly, these disputes were too complex for OS:Property to handle. Wouldn't they have been better resolved in a court?

Q. Mr Clark, when over 90% of property complainants refuse this scheme's Mutually Acceptable Settlements it would suggest that there continues to be widespread consumer dissatisfaction with Ombudsman Services:Property and that this particular ADR entity is still failing to resolve disputes in a manner that is fair, practical and proportionate (31 of the EU Directive). Why is this dissatisfaction no longer being documented and reported on?

Q. Mr Clark, how can government monitors of this government approved scheme be satisfied with such an unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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