Ombudsman Services:Property - The OFT's "Monitoring" Of This Government Approved Scheme. (678)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 678.

678. Ombudsman Services:Property - The OFT's, "Monitoring" Of  This Government Approved Scheme.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Monitor: A person who observes a process or activity to check that it is carried out fairly or correctly especially in an official capacity.

(www.en.oxforddictionaries.com)

A government that cannot monitor effectively surely cannot ensure economic

and social justice for all the people. It doesn't deserve title, "government."

This government, on behalf of the taxpayer, is expected to, "monitor" the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme. We believe that instead of monitoring this private scheme it colludes with it permitting the Ombudsman to hand consumers illogical Final Decisions and occasional 50 quid so-called financial awards.

Otherwise things would be different.

The Ombudsman would hand complainants fair and just decisions. Financial awards would mirror the losses complainants had incurred. Decisions would be logged and made available for public scrutiny and complainants would be asked to comment on the way their was handled.

Paul Gurowich sent us the following;

"...raising further issues by way of listing 100 questions about OS:P, and its Chief Executive Officer and its Ombudsman who dealt with your complaint."

We saw in Attempt 677 that The Independent had said that tellingly the fifth most common complaint from consumers was about the way in which complaints themselves are handled.

(Sam Dunn www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/mis-sold/)

Clearly, there is a tried and tested approach adopted by those in positions of power which deliberately avoids answering complaints made by members of the public. It is very effective.

Q. Mr Clark, both Paul Gurowich and The Rev Shand Smith stated we had asked 100 questions but then didn't answer any of them. That certainly is, "dealing" with a complaint but how does it satisfy the EU Directive and how does it instil consumer trust in private ADR?

Repeating to a complainant the question they've just been asked to answer has been allowed to become standard operating practice. It is rude, offensive, profoundly un-democratic and highly effective. We hope that when in power the Labour Party will put an end to it.

Paul Gurowich,"... You have engaged in detailed correspondence with the OFT since that date."

Q. Mr Clark, the reason we engaged in detailed correspondence with the OFT is because they avoided answering any of our questions. Are they not colluding with the company they are supposed to be monitoring?

 

   The complainant is not only castigated for having the cheek to complain - but to complain in a detailed way. How inconvenient.

Paul Gurowich,"....You also asked the OFT to re-open and/or review ombudsman decisions made by OS:P."

Q. Mr Clark, shouldn't any Ombudsman's decisions which have been arrived at in an illogical manner, of course be reviewed otherwise where is the justice?

The logic in not reviewing them, surely, is that the monitor is colluding with those whom they are supposed to be monitoring. Otherwise things would be different. But they aren't.

Paul Gurowich,".... 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."

Q. Mr Clark, this appears to be saying that the OFT considered it reasonable not to investigate our complaint because it was so detailed and would not therefore be a proper use of resources. Where is the justice in that?

Paul Gurowich,"....I understand you have now received a response to that request (in a letter dated 18 Feb 2013) and an apology for the error in dealing with it."

Q. Mr Clark, our detailed complaint was passed backwards and forwards between your department and the OFT. Why is government so incompetent and is it any wonder that European negotiators are running rings around you ?

Paul Gurowich,

"In relation to your request for a public inquiry, as you have been previously been advised, the OFT's powers under the Estate Agent's Act in relation to such schemes are limited to approval and (where appropriate) withdrawal of approval."

Q. Mr Clark, why when an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner, who on the concern of unnamed others reduces financial awards significantly and  who is then replaced by an Ombudsman who shouldn't be a member of the organisation he is investigating but is aren't these sufficient grounds for the withdrawal of government approval? 

Paul Gurowich,"Similarly, the OFT does not have the power to re-open or review the individual decisions made by the estate agency redress schemes it has approved."

We didn't ask Paul Gurowich to re-open or review an individual decision. We asked him to investigate all those complaints that had had decisions that had been arrived at in an illogical manner.

Q. Mr Clark, if the government doesn't monitor ombudsmen's decisions, what are the grounds for government withdrawing that approval? 

Paul Gurowich,

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

Q. Mr Clark, how can government monitors be satisfied when an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner?

Paul Gurowich,

"The Estate Agents Act does not give the OFT power to state publicly whether it is minded to withdraw approval from a redress scheme."

This is British law that operates behind the scenes and is neither transparent nor accountable to the British people but just to a handful of politicians and civil servants. And this is British justice pre-Brexit.

Q. Mr Clark, why doesn't the British taxpayer have the right to know

whether government monitors no longer have confidence in redress schemes?

Paul Gurowich,

"This is a matter of administrative fairness and in order to avoid undermining the effectiveness of redress schemes."

What an extraordinary statement.

Q. Mr Clark, shouldn't fairness to the British taxpayer always come before administrative fairness?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, isn't the effectiveness of the OS:P redress scheme undermined by; an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner, an Ombudsman who reduces financial awards significantly due to difficult financial conditions but who doesn't raise them when they are no longer, "difficult, an Ombudsman who shouldn't be a member of the professional body to which complaints are being made, but is, who no longer gathers or publishes data on the way complaints are handled and who no longer asks property complainants whether they are satisfied with the way in which their complaint was handled?

Sometimes an entire market in monitoring develops practices that do not work in the taxpayers' interests.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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