Ombudsman Services:Property - M Is For Monitor. (684)

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 684.

684. Ombudsman Services:Property - M Is For Monitor.

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

The Prime Minister tells us that she is now in full-listening-mode.

She told also us she was going to stand up, challenge vested interests and right wrongs.

This is a marked contrast to her government monitors of the government approved Ombudsman Services:Property alternative dispute redress scheme. Here, "monitoring" would appear to involve a lower-ranking civil servant occasionally picking up the phone to ask a contract cleaner at Ombudsman Services's Warrington Office if anything is being swept under the carpet and being huffily told, "Of course not - that's more than my job's worth."

We wrote to the OFT: RE My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OSP) - A Cover-Up. Monday 8th April.

"Dear Mr Gurowich,

You say,

'You have engaged in detailed correspondence with the OFT since that date.'(17th June 2011) Too true I have. If we'd been given straight answers to our straight questions we wouldn't have had to (engaged in detailed correspondence) would we?

- Our complaint: that in the company's literature the promise to investigate complaints, 'fairly' and, 'independently' was a form of mis-selling resulted in the OFT suggesting we take our complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Is this not a crass form of passing the buck?

Especially, when the Executive Director of the OFT, Jonathan May, had assured consumers that,

'The Surveyors Ombudsman Services (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) has successfully met the criteria applied by the OFT. Buying and selling a home is a significant complex transaction so it is good news that from October there will be access to free, easily accessible and speedy redress schemes that will ensure fairness and transparency.'

- We ask you again, why are the OFT, 'monitors' satisfied that this company is meeting OFT Criteria when a majority of consumers report high levels of dissatisfaction with the accuracy, fairness and logic of the Ombudsman's investigation of their complaints.

In light of all of this aren't Jonathan May's assurances to the consumer no longer credible?"

We didn't get a reply.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when we complained to Ombudsman Services about the Property Ombudsman we sent our complaint to the Chair, she passed it to you and you passed it to the Property Ombudsman who said she'd already answered our complaint. Is this not also a crass form of passing the buck?Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, the Executive Director of the OFT, Jonathan May, when approving this redress scheme said it would ensure, "fairness" and "transparency." Why do  you no longer ask property complainants if they think their complaint was handled, "fairly?" Where is the transparency?

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services and was advised by them on the EU Directive (EU/11/2013). How does maladministrating consumers' complaints and investigations involving high levels of consumer dissatisfaction with their accuracy, fairness and logic satisfy the EU Directives' requirements - aren't the executives' claims to the contrary no longer credible?

It would seem that taxpayers are footing the bill for civil servants to clean-up Ombudsman Services:Property's mess by sweeping it under a very big carpet.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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