To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.
For Clarity - Attempt 686.
686. Ombudsman Services and the OFT - "R" Is For Reasonable.
Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,
Reasonable:
- Having sound judgement; fair and sensible
'no reasonable person could have objected.'
- Based on good sense.
'It seemed a reasonable enough request.'
Having been assured by the OFT's Executive Director, Jonathan May that the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme would ensure consumers a; "fair," "speedy" and "independent" investigation of their complaint we thought it only reasonable to ask them why this wasn't happening.
Independent research carried out by DJS found that property investigations conducted by Gillian Fleming were not; fair or speedy and the consensus of opinion was that she wasn't impartial in her decision making. She was not independent.
RE: My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OSP - A Cover-Up. Date Monday 8th April 2013. (continued from Attempt 685)
Dear Mr Gurowich,
Next you say,
'I consider that it was reasonable for the OFT to take this approach, having regard to its duty to use resources properly and its Published Priorities Principles.'
- Is what you're saying, that: having decided that the SOS scheme (rebranded as OS:P) satisfactorily meets the OFT's criteria the OFT's monitors are happy when DJS Research report high levels of consumer dissatisfaction with the accuracy of reports' contents, with their fairness, with the time it takes to arrive at illogical decisions and the fact that the Ombudsman's decisions are indeed - illogical?
- How is this approach taken by the OFT monitors, "reasonable" in the light of so much consumer dissatisfaction?
Mr Gurowich didn't answer the question. We believe that to be unreasonable.
Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services who advised you on the EU Directive on ADR. Do you consider it reasonable for a civil servant not to answer a member of the public's enquiry?
Q. The Rev Shand Smith, as CEO and Chief Ombudsman why did you permit your Ombudsman to go on handing out decisions that weren't arrived at in a logical manner when this was brought to your attention by DJS Research?
Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, as a Liberal Democrat Member of the House of Lords why haven't you taken firm and decisive action to ensure that all those victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical decisions have their cases independently reviewed and are compensated for the pain and misery this has caused them?
Where is the justice hiding - why weren't DJS Research's findings acted upon by both the OFT monitors and Ombudsman Services executives?
We're being told here that the OFT didn't reply to our questions because we asked them far too many and that they were just too difficult to answer.
The OFT considered this approach to be, "reasonable." We believe fair minded people wouldn't.
This was after having our complaint passed backwards and forwards between government departments and then not being told of this because it wasn't government policy to inform taxpayers that they were having their urine extracted without their knowledge.
Q, Mr Clark, Francis Maude said the Coalition Government was going to revolutionise transparency. That it would be at the heart of all you did. Where is the transparency in OFT monitors refusing to answer our questions on the grounds that to do so would not be a good use of taxpayers' money?
No comments:
Post a Comment