Ombudsman Services:Property And The Role Of The OFT Monitors. (688)

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 688.

688. Ombudsman Services:Property And The Role Of The OFT's Monitors.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

At the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign we wonder was the OFT re-branded in order to cover-up its non-existent, "monitoring" of the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme? A scheme which had been approved by Jonathan May in such glowing terms.

RE: My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) - A Cover-Up.

Date Monday 8th April 2013. (continued)

"Dear Mr Gurowich,

Alarmingly, you say,

'On the basis of the enquiries made by staff in this office, I am satisfied that the OFT is properly carrying out that monitoring role in relation to the OS:P.'

- "Monitoring" by the OFT that even fails to correctly identify who, exactly, the CEO of this company is. Not Dame Janet Finch as you say, but The Rev Shand Smith.

- "Monitoring" by the OFT that, year after year, is content to see estate agents and surveyors send their dissatisfied customers to a company whose Ombudsman arrives at decisions, "in an illogical manner."

- "Monitoring" by the OFT that is satisfied that it is in the consumer's interests for the company; to remove its Minutes from its website, replace DJS Research with a research company that has so far failed to publish research on OS:P's performance for 2012, have RICS representatives sitting on its Board, that has a Memorandum of Understanding with the organisation that set it up in the first place - The RICS - and is happy for The RICS to regulate the company that it set up to investigate complaints made by consumers against its Members or Regulated Firms." 

We didn't get a reply to that either.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, the OFT monitors mistakenly believed that the new research company was asking the same questions as those asked by DJS Research. This is of course not the case. Why wasn't this mistake rectified?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, the Minutes have been removed from your company's website, there is no data published on OS:P's performance in investigating property complaints, RICS representatives sit on your company's Board, The RICS monitor your performance in resolving property complaints, in effect The RICS regulate all you do. Is that not one of the most obvious conflicts of interest this century and how on earth can they be satisfied with an Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, who, "arrives at decisions in an illogical manner?"

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, you have said that all of the above is, "an exemplary model of redress." How does having an Ombudsman arrive at decisions in an illogical manner qualify as being, "exemplary?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, doesn't the above go quite some way in explaining why some complainants - you don't say how many, are less than satisfied with what you describe as your, "best efforts?"

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services. How does any of the above meet the EU/11/2013 Directive's requirements for; trust, independence, transparency and accountability?

This is where cosy capitalism meets rigged redress. It is undoubtedly Good For Business but Bad For Consumers. And for British justice and democracy.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

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