712. Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (9) The Consumer Need For A New Gold Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And The Department For Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy At All Costs.

712. Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (9) The Consumer Need For A New Gold Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And The Department For Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy At All Costs .

Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign.
We believe that MoneySavingExpert's report for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform fails to address the key issues that serve to undermine consumer protection and as a result its recommendations will only worsen an already dire situation.

The Ombudsman Association's website said all correspondence should be addressed to The Secretary.

So we sent the following complaint to The Ombudsman Association:

Dear Secretary,

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign wishes to bring to your attention our concerns about Ombudsman Services:Property. Ombudsman Services:Property is a member of your Ombudsman Association.

We would appreciate the Ombudsman Association's views on this company as we believe it fails to meet the requirements your organisation stipulates for membership as set out in Governance - Principles of Good Governance: Independence, Openness and transparency, Accountability, Integrity and Clarity of Purpose.

Because these categories seem to overlap we've put our questions to the Ombudsman Association with that in mind.

Your are no doubt aware that Ombudsman Services:Property (or the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (SOS) as it was formerly known), was set up by The RICS to, "investigate" complaints brought by consumers against its Members or Regulated Firms.

The RICS have at least two of their Members that we are aware of, sitting on the Board and yet the literature this company sends to consumers and potential complainants maintains that it is, "entirely independent."

Since the 1st October 2008 The OFT gave its approval to Ombudsman Services Ltd to run a redress scheme for estate agents but not surveyors. It set out 16 criteria for the operation of the scheme run by an, "independent" ombudsman. The same ombudsman adjudicates in complaints brought by consumers against surveyors. In the interests of natural justice one would expect the ombudsman to apply the same criteria to both estate agents and surveyors.

Q1. Why do you think the OFT approved a scheme for estate agents but not surveyors, is it because the company running it was set by The RICS, the surveyors professional body?

Q2 Does that mean that the ombudsman could possibly view complaints brought by consumers against estate agents differently than those brought by consumers against estate agents?

Q3. If the ombudsman did apply different criteria to the two categories of complaint wouldn't that go against the principles of natural justice?

Q4 How can it be correct for the company to claim it is entirely independent when at least two representatives of the organisation that set up this company - The RICS - sit on its board?

Q5 Wouldn't it have been more accurate to have told the consumer that apart from The RICS representatives, they were entirely independent?

Q6 Is this not misleading?

Q7 Aren't potential complainants being led into believing this company is entirely independent when the truth of the matter is it isn't?

Q8 As far as the consumer is concerned, how can this arrangement be, "good governance?

Q9 Is this not a form of mis-selling?

Q10 Isn't Ombudsman Services:Property being less than completely honest fro the start as far as the consumer is concerned  and how does the Ombudsman Association view this somewhat misleading statement made by its member company?

In the booklet we received from the SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services:Property) - "Resolving complaints fairly" - it tells the enquirer: 'If you'd like to know who is on the Council please visit our website or ring us.'

And,

'If you'd like to know who is on the Member Board, please visit our website or ring us.'

Q11 When we checked on the 25/11/2012 that information was not there. Why is the company booklet saying one thing but their website something else?

Q12 How does that satisfy the Ombudsman Association's Governance requirements of a member's scheme to show: Accountability, Integrity, Openness and Transparency, Effectiveness and Clarity of purpose?

Q13 Why are RICS representatives on the Board of this less than independent company?

Q14 What is their role?

Q15 Doesn't the Ombudsman Association believe along with us, that the consumer has a right to know?

Q16 What does the Ombudsman Association understand, "independence" to mean?

If the Property Ombudsman is indeed wearing the same hat when, "investigating" both categories of complaint - those brought against estate agents and those brought against RICS surveyors - the OFT's Criterion 1 must apply equally to both groups too. The OFT Criterion 1: The Ombudsman must be independent.

Ombudsman Services:Property's booklet - "Resolving complaints fairly" under, "Member Board" tells the consumer: 'The Member Board has an independent chairman, an equal number of RICS members and an independent people and an independent representative from the council. If you would like to know who is on the Member Board, please visit our website or contact us.'

When we checked the company's website this information was not there.

Q17 Why is what is in the company's booklet not on its website?

Q18  Why has the OFT stipulation that at least one member of the reporting body should be from an organisation representing consumers, not been complied with and if the company have complied with it how will the consumer because the information isn't on the website?

Q19 Why is the person from an organisation representing consumers not named in the company's literature and on its website along with the name of the organisation they represent?

Since the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign first complained to Ombudsman Services the names of Board members are no longer available on the company's website.

Q20 Why does the Ombudsman Association think they were removed?

Q21 Isn't this misleading consumers by saying one thing and doing something different?

Q22 Why aren't an equal number of former complainants as there RICS members sitting n the Board?

Q23 Wouldn't that help to ensure; independence, accountability, integrity, openness and transparency, efficiency and clarity of purpose?

Q24 Or are the present arrangements yet another form of what David Cameron describes as, "cosy capitalism?"

Q25. Haven't RICS surveyors - through The RICS - organised what is in effect their company, one that will not look too forensically into their questionable practices and poor standards of service?

Consumer Focus would seem to agree with the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign when it comes to The RICS. They say, 'Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that do not work in the customer interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origin in The RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms.'

Q26 What does the Ombudsman Association believe this says about the company's professed independence when its parent organisation The RICS is apparently unable to regulate the very Members or Regulated Firms whose fees pay for the Property Ombudsman's salary?

Q27 Does the Ombudsman Association believe, as we do, that RICS Members and regulated Firms are aware of their organisations, "apparent inability to adequately regulate" them and treat their unsuspecting clients accordingly (clients who complain to Ombudsman Services:Property in unprecedented numbers) safe in the knowledge that they won't be held to account by The RICS?

Q28. Is Ombudsman Services:Property not also a part of that, "entire market" and therefore a company also, "not working in the customer's interest?"

On their website under, "Matters RICS cannot investigate" The RICS state, 'we cannot award compensation or force Members or Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules or Regulations.'

So, apparently unable or unwilling to investigate their Members or Regulated Firms, The RICS set up a company and appointed an Ombudsman who also struggles to properly investigate the very people who pay for the, "service." How convenient for RICS Members and Regulated Firms and how inconvenient for the consumer.

Q29 Doesn't the consumer have aright to know about these important facts before they turn to The RICS' not "entirely independent" alternative dispute resolution service?

Q30 Isn't it the case that consumers are being prevented from knowing the answers to these questions by the company's actions - actions such as removing the names of The RICS representatives from its website?

Q31 What other possible reasons could there be for removing the names of the Board members?

Q32 Is it not the case that if consumers were given this information many would more than likely not turn to this company but go elsewhere to seek justice - one that is entirely independent of The RICS and its surveyors and the Rules and Regulations they apparently can't enforce?

The Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's decisions are, according to DJS Research, often, "arrived at in an illogical manner." (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report 2010-11)

The Ombudsman's often illogical decisions go overwhelmingly in favour of RICS Members and Regulated Firms.

This is strange at it is complainants who brought the complaint - one could be forgiven for thinking it was the other way around - that RICS surveyors had complained about their clients.

Q33 Is it not deeply concerning to the Ombudsman Association that the, "investigation" of a complainant's case should end in a Final Decision that is not, "arrived at in a logical manner?"

Q34. How does the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services account for his Lead Ombudsman's often illogical decisions? Is this not unjust?

Q35 Where is the integrity in promising a complainant a fair and independent investigation of their case, then arriving at an illogical Final Decision and then tell that individual they are now, "free to follow other routes to try to sort out the problems in a way that suits you better?" (letter from the Lead Ombudsman dated 17th March 2010)

Q36 Isn't it down to the Ombudsman to tried to ne more logical and to have sorted the problems - better?

Q37. Along with us, wouldn't that have suited hundreds of other complainants better too?

The company makes no effort to understand the impact of its Ombudsman's often illogical decisions on the lives of complainants. No-one from this ombudsman service apparently takes the time or the trouble to check and see if its former complainants actually did find a solution and whether it suited them better.

The consumer is promised Harrods  but finds they've been sent by their RICS surveyor to a discount dispute resolution service - one that seems to be stacking them high and selling them cheap

Q 38 How does that satisfy the Ombudsman Association's governance requirements?

Q39 How does it satisfy the OFT's Criterion 5: That the Ombudsman must proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice?

Q40 How does it satisfy the OFT Criterion 5 requirement that the Ombudsman is expected to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair in all the circumstances?

The company's very own research states that the Property Ombudsman does not make reasoned decisions and therefore cannot meet The OFT's requirement to be fair in all the circumstances.

The Ombudsman Association say, 'As the number of such schemes increases questions of governance assume particular importance.'

Q41 Does The Ombudsman Association not agree with us that the Property Ombudsman's failure to arrive at decisions in a logical manner, raises serious questions about the governance at Ombudsman Services:Property?

Your Association's guide to good governance sets out the criterion that a scheme, 'must fulfil if it is to become a full voting member of BIOA. Theses requirements underpin the key criteria of independence from those being investigated, effectiveness, fairness and public accountability.'

Clearly, the SOS (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) must have successfully met these criteria because the company's CEO and Chief Ombudsman sits on the executive board of your organisation.

On your website you say that, 'If a scheme is to be credible, all stakeholders must have confidence in it and the independence and effectiveness of the Office holder in the role of investigating and resolving consumer or public service complaints.'

Accordingly, when a majority of stakeholders - or complainants - express dissatisfaction with the way their case was, "investigated" and how their complaint was or wasn't, "resolved:"
Q42 Doesn't this render the scheme no longer credible in your terms and doesn't that make this company's claims to the contrary, incredible?
Q43 How is The Ombudsman Association able to permit the continued membership of this company when so many consumers express high levels of dissatisfaction with the Property Ombudsman's often illogical decisions?

Q44 Does it not set alarm bells ringing at The Ombudsman Association to hear that Ombudsman Services:Property not have an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in, "an illogical manner" but who manages a team who do not understand, "the complexities of property complaints?"

Q45 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association now think that, along with a host of other issues concerning this company, that this should be properly and independently investigated?

Q46 How can investigators not versed in the complexities of property complaints meaningfully investigate a complainants case?

Research carried out entirely independently for the company by DJS Research says they can't and don't

The OFT Criterion 2 states that, 'The scheme must be adequately staffed and funded in such a way that complaints can be effectively and expeditiously investigated and resolved to allow the Ombudsman to function impartially, efficiently and effectively.'

The Chief Ombudsman said in the minutes (June 2009) 'We have now developed a relationship with an outside contractor which helped us clear our stock of work.'

Q47 How is this company able to satisfy either The Ombudsman Association's or The OFT's requirements when they have to resort to an outside contractor to clear their, "stock of work."

Q48 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association agree with us that there is something fundamentally immoral about a dispute resolution service that views real people with real complaints as, ""workstock?"
Q49 Is it not offensive to think, let alone articulate, the idea that people and their problems should in some way be cleared out?

Q50 Does turning people into commodities - workstock with an accompanying number - ours is 510458 - make the process of clearing easier for those without the requisite skills to, "investigate" the complaints brought before them - in effect complainant cleansing?

The Ombudsman Association requirement for Effectiveness insists upon, 'Ensuring that the scheme delivers quality outcomes.'

Q51 Where are the quality outcomes for the majority of property complainants who receive illogical Final Decisions?

Q52 Does not imply that for every recipient of an illogical Final Decision there is a happy RICS Member or Regulated Firm?

Q53 Do you not think that it is wholly unacceptable for an ADR scheme to view the people who bring their real problems to it, as commodities to be cleansed as soon as possible?

Q54 What does The Ombudsman Association believe that says about ethos and integrity of the service ie the people running it?

Q55 What does The Ombudsman Association believe this says about the care and attention this company takes when, "investigating" complaints brought by its troublesome workstock?

The Minutes of the 82nd meeting of the Council of Ombudsman Services Ltd (5b) The backlog states, 'The Chairman opened the discussion by stressing the amount of outstanding work was now presenting a serious risk to the reputation of the organisation. It was acknowledged that the problems stemmed from flaws in the budget setting exercise reaction times and our internal processes which would need to be reviewed.'

In other words almost from the start, The SOS / OS:Property did not have sufficient numbers of skilled staff to investigate property complainants' cases fairly or independently or a management with the foresight to see hat RICS surveyors would be lining up their bewildered clients and sending them to their, "appointed" company and their, "appointed" Property Ombudsman.

In the Annual Review 2009-10 they admit t this short-sightedness. They say, "In March 2009, we could never have known that the very next month would mark a torrent of unresolved complaints which were heading our way."

Q56 Given this admission of short-sightedness how were The OFT able to justify the statement that, 'The SOS submitted satisfactory information about its staffing and funding plans....has indicated that this should allow it to effectively and expeditiously resolve complaints?' 

Q57 How does this meet The Ombudsman Association's requirement for Effectiveness?

Q58 How can a dispute resolution service (ADR  scheme) investigate complaints fairly when there are insufficient staff and that the staff they do employ don't fully understand the complexity of property complaints?

Q59 By their very own admission doesn't the management of Ombudsman Services:Property fail to meet both The Ombudsman Association's governance requirements and The OFT's criteria requirements as well?

Two years and hundreds of complaints later and the Property Ombudsman highlighted this as a continuing problem in the 2011 Annual Report, 'The complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge.'

This, we believe, is Ombudsmanspeak for being a company not coping with what was coming its way - the torrent of sub-standard RICS surveys and RICS surveyors apparently unable or unwilling to resolve their clients' complaints through their Complaints Handling Procedures but choosing instead to send them to their ombudsman. It's what they pay their fees for.

Q60 Do you not agree that the shambles described above goes a long way in explaining DJS Research's findings in their 2009 Customer Satisfaction Report(6,21) that, 'most felt the outcome was against them' and 7.16 that, 'the nature of the SOS (Ombudsman Services:Property) that problems may have led to significant financial loss for complainants?'

Q61 What do you think was the reason behind the management decision to remove the company's minutes from its website?

Q62 Doesn't the Ombudsman Association agree that their removal fails to meet your requirement for; openness, transparency and accountability?

Q63 Is it not an effective way of removing a damaging insight into what is actually going on at this company? A way of preventing public scrutiny? A cover-up of what actually goes on in the day to day management of complaints?

Q64 How does this meet The Ombudsman Association's requirement for, "good internal planning and review processes?"

Q65 Or, "keeping to commitments?" Commitments to be, "fair," "independent," "open and transparent" "accountable" and to have, "integrity" "clarity of purpose" and to be, "effective?"  

There appears to be interference with the Property Ombudsman's ability to act independently. An example coming from the company minutes (6.2) The Member Board Chairman will require a rational explaining why the costs are higher in 201-11 than in 2009-10

Q66 Gas prices, electricity prices, food prices petrol prices and executive salaries all go up so why does the Member Board Chairman expect this company to buck the trend?

Q67 Didn't more clients get referred to Ombudsman Services:Property by their RICS surveyors 465 in 2010-11 compared with 280 in 2009-10?

Q68 Is it not the case that should the Property Ombudsman agree to independent resurveys, face-to-face meetings and oral hearing it would prove costly and necessitate a serious hike in The RICS Members and regulated Firms fees?

The main priority at Ombudsman Services (according to the Annual Reports) is to add real value to their members business practices and that won't happen should expensive resurveys etc be insisted upon by what we're told is supposed to be an independent ombudsman.

Q69 Why aren't the statistics for the number of resurveys, face-to-face meetings and oral hearings actually authorised by the Property Ombudsman published in the statutory Annual Report?

Q70 Isn't the biggest failing of this dispute resolution service (ADR scheme)  its continuing inability to understand the complexity of property complaints and to investigate them fairly and independently?

We were not given the Firm's submissions by the Property Ombudsman.

When we received the Property Ombudsman's Provisional Conclusion report its inaccuracies and illogical conclusions led us to request further information through the Data Protection Act. The company's booklet, Resolving complaints fairly tells the consumer, 'You will probably already have seen all the information we use to make a decision, but we will refer to all the documents o which the decision will be based in the Provisional Conclusion,' 

The reality for the complainant is likely to be very different. Decisions, according to the evidence provided by DJS Research, seem to be based on what their fee-paying members tell them and this would explain why a majority of complainants were dissatisfied with their illogical nature.  There would appear to be two categories of evidence; Complainant evidence and RICS Member  evidence. Independent evidence suggests that the latter carries far more weight when it comes to the Property Ombudsman's habit of arriving at decisions in an illogical manner.

We discovered that on every major point in our case the surveyor was in complete disagreement. And on every major point the Property Ombudsman accepted The RICS Member's evidence - even going to the point of, "not seeking out the photographs" we'd submitted.

Under, "What if I provide you some information to you in confidence?" the company goes on to say, 'If you believe some information should be kept confidential between you and us, you should mark the information clearly and tell us why you think we should not pass it on to the other party. We will consider your request - but we may not agree to it.'

In other words, for the complainant there is likely to be no information that ever remains confidential - because the Property Ombudsman will in all probability decide to pass them on to her fee-paying Member after deciding not to agree to it.

Q71 Is this not in contravention to of The OFT Criterion 9 which states, "There must be free exchange of information of information between all parties relating to a complaint?"

"Resolving complaints fairly" also states, "We will also usually send any significant documents on which the Provisional Conclusion refers to you, or the firm if you don't already have them. If there is any document you haven't seen, you can request a copy." 

But usually they don't.

Q72 What happens when a RICS Member requests their Property Ombudsman to information confidential and she agrees? Under this system how is a complainant ever going to be in a position to request information and documents they haven't seen?

Complainants haven't seen them and if The RICS Member requests they remain confidential, surely the complainant will never know they exist?

For example, the Property Ombudsman about The RICS Member's messages to her office.

Q73 Hasn't this company created the perfect Catch 22 situation regarding information? How can you request what you don't  know exists?

The OFT Criterion 9 continues, "The procedures must allow all parties concerned to present their viewpoint"

Q74 Under the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme how can a complainant ever fairly present their viewpoint  when they are kept by this company's practices from having access to all the available information?

Q75 Does this not explain why so many property complainants are forced to make, "further representations" after the Provisional Conclusion Report is issued?

Q76 Isn't the complainant's right to information set out in the company's Terms of Reference under (7) Provision of Information where it states 'Information passed to the Ombudsman will be will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure?'

The RICS Member sent the following information to his Property Ombudsman, 

"None of the works recommended in the survey have been carried out by the purchaser.

16-19 "to replace the leaking parapet gutter (which he finally did this year)

"with hindsight I should have responded in writing to him after each visit."

"Having started the complaints procedure at his request we have since refused to visit the property."

"Further to the above I drove by yesterday and noted the concrete tiles have been replaced."

"He has suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case."

Conspiracy - what conspiracy?

Q77 The company's Terms of Reference state, "Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party." Why  wasn't the above information disclosed to us by the Property Ombudsman?

Q78 As this information wasn't disclosed to us why didn't the Property Ombudsman set out the circumstances for, "justifying non-disclosure" as demanded by the company's by the company's Terms of Reference?

Q79 Why did we have to resort to a Data Protection Act request to access this information when it is the Ombudsman's duty to disclose information or provide reasons for not doing so?

Q80 Does this not happen to countless other complainants and does it help to explain why so many attempt to make further representations - 91% of which end in failure?

Q81 How does it satisfy the Ombudsman Association's governance requirements for this company's continued membership when its Property Ombudsman appears to ignore the company's Terms of Reference?

Along with the majority of other property complainants we thought the Property Ombudsman's Final Decision was not arrived at in a logical manner and asked for an oral hearing.

Nowhere in the company's booklet, Resolving complaints fairly does it tell the complainant that they have a right to request an oral hearing. This information along with a lot of other information including resurveys and face-to-face meetings is kept from the consumer. 

Q82 Why is the complainant not properly informed of their right to an oral hearing? Doesn't The OFT's Criterion 8 say that the scheme must also, "Ensure that complainants are provided with clear, comprehensible and accurate information on the procedures, possible outcomes, avenues for appeal or review of the decision, and whether the outcome is binding?"

The OFT Criterion 9 states, 'The SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services: Property) has produced FAQs and an information sheet (available on its website) to explain that an hearing may be requested, and what it will take into account when considering such a request.'

When we looked at this website (25/112012) we were unable to find this information. The information wasn't sent to us when we first complained either,

Our request met with the following response from the Property Ombudsman, 'The provision for an oral hearing is in relation to the determination of a complaint. If I had thought there were exceptional circumstances which made that or a site visit necessary, or had I required further information, I would have asked at the time. Broadly, your emails provide further detailed analysis which include my responsibilities, where you consider your complaint has not been properly handled or considered and your views on the service generally. There seems to be little I can usefully add to my earlier letters of which there are several. As I am not prepared to maintain an indefinite an continuous dialogue, as and when, you wish to raise or reiterate a point, I will only acknowledge future correspondence.' (Letter 7th September 2010)  

Q83 Wouldn't it have been useful if in the Property Ombudsman's several letters she had answered my our complaint about Terms of Reference 7 and her failure to disclose information or provide a reason for not doing so? She had several opportunities to answer our question but chose not to. Why?

Q84 Could The Ombudsman Association ask the Ombudsman Services CEO and Chief Ombudsman, who is also a member of your executive committee: is it or is it not the duty of the Ombudsman to disclose information to the other party or set out reasons for non-disclosure as demanded by the Terms of Reference? A simple yes or no is all that is required.
Q85 How does this satisfy The OFT Criterion 9 stipulation that, "In deciding whether there should be an hearing and if so, whether it should be public or private, the Property Ombudsman will have regard to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights?"

We believe that this company's actions have violated our Human Rights along with the Human Rights of the 61%

(According to MoneySavingsExperts' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform this figure now stands at a staggering 80% plus) MoneySavingExpert offer no explanation for that appalling statistic.

We don't expect the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services will oblige us with an answer any time soon because to date he hasn't answered any of questions. Perhaps a Parliamentary Committee will succeed where we have failed. Or that you, as the organisation responsible for monitoring your member schemes' compliance with the requirements for membership, will take firm and decisive action to protect consumers.

In the 2011 Ombudsman Services Annual Review the Chair stated, ' We have set new standards for ourselves and have put in place processes to monitor them. In just a few months we have achieved enormous progress.'

Q87 Doesn't that imply that what was in place before - the old standards the pre gold standards - were wholly inadequate?

Q88 Weren't the previous standards inadequate because DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports provided the data to show, as far as the consumer was concerned, that they were?

Q89 How does what existed before the era of new golden standards satisfy The Ombudsman Association's Principles of good governance requirement for, "Effectiveness" and "Clarity of purpose?"

The Ombudsman Services' CEO and Chief Ombudsman stated in the same report, 'This year we successfully managed a significant increase in property complaints.' Yet in the same report DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report seriously question this, "success." They report, 'When asked about the Provisional Conclusion Report, satisfaction levels were low. The majority were dissatisfied with the logic of its recommendations, accuracy of content, use of evidence and extent to which they were fair and reasonable. Two thirds were dissatisfied with the reports recommendations, with more than a half very dissatisfied.'

And,

'There was active dissatisfaction with the efficiency and speed of the process with around a half or more dissatisfied. The majority expected their cases to last for 2 months but most cases lasted 3 or 4 months: around one in four lasted seven months or longer.'

And,

'OS:Property is different to OS:Energy or OS:Communications in that the financial implications are often much larger as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. There remains a key issue with complainants' perceptions of what recompense to expect. (ie the scale of financial award to expect from the complaint and what can actually be delivered) This should be looked at.'

Q90 Does The Ombudsman Association agree with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman's belief that when a majority of property complainants are dissatisfied with the, "service" his company provides, that this is a, "success?"

Q91 Doesn't the Chairman's expression of, "concern over the levels of recent awards" not go a long way to explain why there is so much complainant dissatisfaction? 

The OFT Criterion 5 states, 'The Ombudsman must proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.'

Requirements to meet this criterion:

- The Ombudsman is required to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair in all the circumstances.'

Q92 How has this requirement been met when year after year a majority of property complainants express deep dissatisfaction with the logic of the Property Ombudsman's recommendations? Hasn't the evidence for this lack of credibility been carefully amassed, year on year, by DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports and the Chair's demand for new standards?

Not only has the executive not acted on DJS Research's findings and taken decisive action to ensure that future, "investigations" would have been, "fair" and "effective" (otherwise wouldn't DJS Research's statistics been entirely different)

But,

Q93 Hasn't the Ombudsman Association also ignored these findings when sanctioning the continued membership of Ombudsman Services:Property?

Q94 Why hasn't The Ombudsman Association a process for terminating the membership of a company that is quite clearly unable to satisfy the requirements of, "A Guide to principles of good governance?'

Q95 Is membership of The Ombudsman Association, membership for life?

Q96 How can the consumer have any faith in The Ombudsman Association when it appears to have no process to expel members and accepts the continued membership of private companies such as Ombudsman Services:Property, when DJS Research showed that complainants' dissatisfaction rose year on year? (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports 2008-2011)

Q97 Do you not agree with us that The RICS Members and Regulated Firms are dispatching consumers to what is all intents and purposes their company and their ombudsman. One that simply isn't up to the job of resolving consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently?"

Under the heading, "Independence" on your website it states, 'Ensuring and demonstrating the freedom of the office holder from interference in decision making.' 

We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services questions regarding the independence or otherwise of the, "office holder" when that, "office holder" was reported in the company's minutes in the following way, '5.8 The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards.'

We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services questions regarding the independence or otherwise of the Property Ombudsman,

- Surely, aren't awards made on the merits of the case?

- If awards aren't based on the merits of the case how are awards determined at Ombudsman Services:Propety?

- As Chair, why do you think there is, "some concern" over the recent levels of awards?

- Wouldn't the complainant have a greater reason for trusting the services' ability to deliver on its promise to be, "fair" and "independent" had the Chairman expressed concerns over the pitifully low levels of awards being handed to property complainants?

Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Report - Report and Accounts 2010 says, 'Likewise some complainants consider the redress awarded by the Ombudsman is insufficient because it does not provide incentive for the firm to improve its performance. In other words a complainant wants to see a company penalised when a financial award is made. It is quite clear however from the Terms of Reference that any financial award made by the ombudsman is intended to compensate the complainant and is not intended to be, and may not be, a penalty.'

Q 98 Can The Ombudsman Association tell us just where, exactly, is the incentive for RICS Members and Regulated Firms to improve their performance?

When their own professional body - The RICS - is apparently powerless to enforce its own Rules and Regulations, we doubt very much whether surveyors are going to spend too much time agonising over what their ombudsmen tells them.

Q99 It is not perfectly clear from DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports' recommendations and the company's response to them, that the consumer's concerns always come second to  those of their fee-paying Members?
Q100. Is this not another example of what Consumer Focus has all but described as a rigged market in redress?

The Ombudsman Association Secretary told us he was unable to help us with our complaint.

We told The Ombudsman Association Secretary we hadn't expected he would.(TO BE CONTINUED)

Conclusions so far:

1. The Ombudsman Association ignore consumer's complaints.

2. Just like The RICS with its unenforced Rules and Regulations, The Ombudsman Association also refuse to enforce their requirements for membership.

3. The OFT does not enforce its Criteria for approval of The Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme

4. The OFT in failing to enforce its Criteria seriously undermine consumer protection.

5. The Ombudsman Association in failing to enforce its membership requirements also seriously undermine consumer protection.

6. The Ombudsman Association's Board members have a conflict of interest which seriously undermines consumer protection.

7. MoneySavingExperts' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform recommendation that The Ombudsman Association should determine a gold standard for ombudsman would be a disaster for consumer protection.

8. Pre-Brexit standards of consumer protection are "farcical."

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

  

Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (9) The Consumer Need For A New Gold Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And Department For Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy At All Costs. (712)

 712. Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (9) The Consumer Need For A New Gold Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And Department For Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy At All Costs .

The Ombudsman Association's website said all correspondence should be addressed to The Secretary.

So we sent the following complaint to The Ombudsman Association:

Dear Secretary,

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign wishes to bring to your attention our concerns about Ombudsman Services:Property. Ombudsman Services:Property is a member of your Ombudsman Association.

We would appreciate the Ombudsman Association's views on this company as we believe it fails to meet the requirements your organisation stipulates for membership as set out in Governance - Principles of Good Governance: Independence, Openness and transparency, Accountability, Integrity and Clarity of Purpose.

Because these categories seem to overlap we've put our questions to the Ombudsman Association with that in mind.

Your are no doubt aware that Ombudsman Services:Property (or the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (SOS) as it was formerly known), was set up by The RICS to, "investigate" complaints brought by consumers against its Members or Regulated Firms.

The RICS have at least two of their Members that we are aware of, sitting on the Board and yet the literature this company sends to consumers and potential complainants maintains that it is, "entirely independent."

Since the 1st October 2008 The OFT gave its approval to Ombudsman Services Ltd to run a redress scheme for estate agents but not surveyors. It set out 16 criteria for the operation of the scheme run by an, "independent" ombudsman. The same ombudsman adjudicates in complaints brought by consumers against surveyors. In the interests of natural justice one would expect the ombudsman to apply the same criteria to both estate agents and surveyors.

Q1. Why do you think the OFT approved a scheme for estate agents but not surveyors, is it because the company running it was set by The RICS, the surveyors professional body?

Q2 Does that mean that the ombudsman could possibly view complaints brought by consumers against estate agents differently than those brought by consumers against estate agents?

Q3. If the ombudsman did apply different criteria to the two categories of complaint wouldn't that go against the principles of natural justice?

Q4 How can it be correct for the company to claim it is entirely independent when at least two representatives of the organisation that set up this company - The RICS - sit on its board?

Q5 Wouldn't it have been more accurate to have told the consumer that apart from The RICS representatives, they were entirely independent?

Q6 Is this not misleading?

Q7 Aren't potential complainants being led into believing this company is entirely independent when the truth of the matter is it isn't?

Q8 As far as the consumer is concerned, how can this arrangement be, "good governance?

Q9 Is this not a form of mis-selling?

Q10 Isn't Ombudsman Services:Property being less than completely honest fro the start as far as the consumer is concerned  and how does the Ombudsman Association view this somewhat misleading statement made by its member company?

In the booklet we received from the SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services:Property) - "Resolving complaints fairly" - it tells the enquirer:

'If you'd like to know who is on the Council please visit our website or ring us.'

And,

'If you'd like to know who is on the Member Board, please visit our website or ring us.'

Q11 When we checked on the 25/11/2012 that information was not there. Why is the company booklet saying one thing but their website something else?

Q12 How does that satisfy the Ombudsman Association's Governance requirements of a member's scheme to show: Accountability, Integrity, Openness and Transparency, Effectiveness and Clarity of purpose?

Q13 Why are RICS representatives on the Board of this less than independent company?

Q14 What is their role?

Q15 Doesn't the Ombudsman Association believe along with us, that the consumer has a right to know?

Q16 What does the Ombudsman Association understand, "independence" to mean?

If the Property Ombudsman is indeed wearing the same hat when, "investigating" both categories of complaint - those brought against estate agents and those brought against RICS surveyors - the OFT's Criterion 1 must apply equally to both groups too. The OFT Criterion 1: The Ombudsman must be independent.

 

Ombudsman Services:Property's booklet - "Resolving complaints fairly" under, "Member Board" tells the consumer:

'The Member Board has an independent chairman, an equal number of RICS members and an independent people and an independent representative from the council. If you would like to know who is on the Member Board, please visit our website or contact us.'

When we checked the company's website this information was not there.

Q17 Why is what is in the company's booklet not on its website?

Q18  Why has the OFT stipulation that at least one member of the reporting body should be from an organisation representing consumers, not been complied with and if the company have complied with it how will the consumer because the information isn't on the website?

Q19 Why is the person from an organisation representing consumers not named in the company's literature and on its website along with the name of the organisation they represent?

Since the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign first complained to Ombudsman Services the names of Board members are no longer available on the company's website.

Q20 Why does the Ombudsman Association think they were removed?

Q21 Isn't this misleading consumers by saying one thing and doing something different?

Q22 Why aren't an equal number of former complainants as there RICS members sitting n the Board?

Q23 Wouldn't that help to ensure; independence, accountability, integrity, openness and transparency, efficiency and clarity of purpose?

Q24 Or are the present arrangements yet another form of what David Cameron describes as, "cosy capitalism?"

Q25. Haven't RICS surveyors - through The RICS - organised what is in effect their company, one that will not look too forensically into their questionable practices and poor standards of service?

Consumer Focus would seem to agree with the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign when it comes to The RICS. They say,

'Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that do not work in the customer interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origin in The RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms.'

Q26 What does the Ombudsman Association believe this says about the company's professed independence when its parent organisation The RICS is apparently unable to regulate the very Members or Regulated Firms whose fees pay for the Property Ombudsman's salary?

Q27 Does the Ombudsman Association believe, as we do, that RICS Members and regulated Firms are aware of their organisations, "apparent inability to adequately regulate" them and treat their unsuspecting clients accordingly (clients who complain to Ombudsman Services:Property in unprecedented numbers) safe in the knowledge that they won't be held to account by The RICS?

Q28. Is Ombudsman Services:Property not also a part of that, "entire market" and therefore a company also, "not working in the customer's interest?"

On their website under, "Matters RICS cannot investigate" The RICS state,

'we cannot award compensation or force Members or Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules or Regulations.'

So, apparently unable or unwilling to investigate their Members or Regulated Firms, The RICS set up a company and appointed an Ombudsman who also struggles to properly investigate the very people who pay for the, "service." How convenient for RICS Members and Regulated Firms and how inconvenient for the consumer.

Q29 Doesn't the consumer have aright to know about these important facts before they turn to The RICS' not "entirely independent" alternative dispute resolution service?

Q30 Isn't it the case that consumers are being prevented from knowing the answers to these questions by the company's actions - actions such as removing the names of The RICS representatives from its website?

Q31 What other possible reasons could there be for removing the names of the Board members?

Q32 Is it not the case that if consumers were given this information many would more than likely not turn to this company but go elsewhere to seek justice - one that is entirely independent of The RICS and its surveyors and the Rules and Regulations they apparently can't enforce?

The Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's decisions are, according to DJS Research, often, "arrived at in an illogical manner." (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report 2010-11)

The Ombudsman's often illogical decisions go overwhelmingly in favour of RICS Members and Regulated Firms.

This is strange at it is complainants who brought the complaint - one could be forgiven for thinking it was the other way around - that RICS surveyors had complained about their clients.

Q33 Is it not deeply concerning to the Ombudsman Association that the, "investigation" of a complainant's case should end in a Final Decision that is not, "arrived at in a logical manner?"

Q34. How does the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services account for his Lead Ombudsman's often illogical decisions? Is this not unjust?

Q35 Where is the integrity in promising a complainant a fair and independent investigation of their case, then arriving at an illogical Final Decision and then tell that individual they are now, "free to follow other routes to try to sort out the problems in a way that suits you better?" (letter from the Lead Ombudsman dated 17th March 2010)

Q36 Isn't it down to the Ombudsman to tried to ne more logical and to have sorted the problems - better?

Q37. Along with us, wouldn't that have suited hundreds of other complainants better too?

The company makes no effort to understand the impact of its Ombudsman's often illogical decisions on the lives of complainants. No-one from this ombudsman service apparently takes the time or the trouble to check and see if its former complainants actually did find a solution and whether it suited them better.

The consumer is promised Harrods  but finds they've been sent by their RICS surveyor to a discount dispute resolution service - one that seems to be stacking them high and selling them cheap

Q 38 How does that satisfy the Ombudsman Association's governance requirements?

Q39 How does it satisfy the OFT's Criterion 5: That the Ombudsman must proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice?

Q40 How does it satisfy the OFT Criterion 5 requirement that the Ombudsman is expected to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair in all the circumstances?

The company's very own research states that the Property Ombudsman does not make reasoned decisions and therefore cannot meet The OFT's requirement to be fair in all the circumstances.

The Ombudsman Association says,

'As the number of such schemes increases questions of governance assume particular importance.'

Q41 Does The Ombudsman Association not agree with us that the Property Ombudsman's failure to arrive at decisions in a logical manner, raises serious questions about the governance at Ombudsman Services:Property?

Your Association's guide to good governance sets out the criterion that a scheme, 'must fulfil if it is to become a full voting member of BIOA. Theses requirements underpin the key criteria of independence from those being investigated, effectiveness, fairness and public accountability.'

Clearly, the SOS (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) must have successfully met these criteria because the company's CEO and Chief Ombudsman sits on the executive board of your organisation.

On your website you say that,

'If a scheme is to be credible, all stakeholders must have confidence in it and the independence and effectiveness of the Office holder in the role of investigating and resolving consumer or public service complaints.'

Accordingly, when a majority of stakeholders - or complainants - express dissatisfaction with the way their case was, "investigated" and how their complaint was or wasn't, "resolved."

Q42 Doesn't this render the scheme no longer credible in your terms and doesn't that make this company's claims to the contrary, incredible?

Q43 How is The Ombudsman Association able to permit the continued membership of this company when so many consumers express high levels of dissatisfaction with the Property Ombudsman's often illogical decisions?

Q44 Does it not set alarm bells ringing at The Ombudsman Association to hear that Ombudsman Services:Property not have an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in, "an illogical manner" but who manages a team who do not understand, "the complexities of property complaints?"

Q45 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association now think that, along with a host of other issues concerning this company, that this should be properly and independently investigated?

Q46 How can investigators not versed in the complexities of property complaints meaningfully investigate a complainants case?

Research carried out entirely independently for the company by DJS Research says they can't and don't

The OFT Criterion 2 states that, 'The scheme must be adequately staffed and funded in such a way that complaints can be effectively and expeditiously investigated and resolved to allow the Ombudsman to function impartially, efficiently and effectively.'

The Chief Ombudsman said in the minutes (June 2009)

'We have now developed a relationship with an outside contractor which helped us clear our stock of work.'

Q47 How is this company able to satisfy either The Ombudsman Association's or The OFT's requirements when they have to resort to an outside contractor to clear their, "stock of work."

Q48 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association agree with us that there is something fundamentally immoral about a dispute resolution service that views real people with real complaints as, ""workstock?"

Q49 Is it not offensive to think, let alone articulate, the idea that people and their problems should in some way be cleared out?

Q50 Does turning people into commodities - workstock with an accompanying number - ours is 510458 - make the process of clearing easier for those without the requisite skills to, "investigate" the complaints brought before them - in effect complainant cleansing?

The Ombudsman Association requirement for Effectiveness insists upon,

'Ensuring that the scheme delivers quality outcomes.'

Q51 Where are the quality outcomes for the majority of property complainants who receive illogical Final Decisions?

Q52 Does not imply that for every recipient of an illogical Final Decision there is a happy RICS Member or Regulated Firm?

Q53 Do you not think that it is wholly unacceptable for an ADR scheme to view the people who bring their real problems to it, as commodities to be cleansed as soon as possible?

Q54 What does The Ombudsman Association believe that says about ethos and integrity of the service ie the people running it?

Q55 What does The Ombudsman Association believe this says about the care and attention this company takes when, "investigating" complaints brought by its troublesome workstock?

The Minutes of the 82nd meeting of the Council of Ombudsman Services Ltd (5b) The backlog states,

'The Chairman opened the discussion by stressing the amount of outstanding work was now presenting a serious risk to the reputation of the organisation. It was acknowledged that the problems stemmed from flaws in the budget setting exercise reaction times and our internal processes which would need to be reviewed.'

In other words almost from the start, The SOS / OS:Property did not have sufficient numbers of skilled staff to investigate property complainants' cases fairly or independently or a management with the foresight to see hat RICS surveyors would be lining up their bewildered clients and sending them to their, "appointed" company and their, "appointed" Property Ombudsman.

In the Annual Review 2009-10 they admit t this short-sightedness. They say,

"In March 2009, we could never have known that the very next month would mark a torrent of unresolved complaints which were heading our way."

Q56 Given this admission of short-sightedness how were The OFT able to justify the statement that, 'The SOS submitted satisfactory information about its staffing and funding plans....has indicated that this should allow it to effectively and expeditiously resolve complaints?' 

Q57 How does this meet The Ombudsman Association's requirement for Effectiveness?

Q58 How can a dispute resolution service (ADR  scheme) investigate complaints fairly when there are insufficient staff and that the staff they do employ don't fully understand the complexity of property complaints?

Q59 By their very own admission doesn't the management of Ombudsman Services:Property fail to meet both The Ombudsman Association's governance requirements and The OFT's criteria requirements as well?

Two years and hundreds of complaints later and the Property Ombudsman highlighted this as a continuing problem in the 2011 Annual Report,

'The complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge.'

This, we believe, is Ombudsmanspeak for being a company not coping with what was coming its way - the torrent of sub-standard RICS surveys and RICS surveyors apparently unable or unwilling to resolve their clients' complaints through their Complaints Handling Procedures but choosing instead to send them to their ombudsman. It's what they pay their fees for.

Q60 Do you not agree that the shambles described above goes a long way in explaining DJS Research's findings in their 2009 Customer Satisfaction Report

(6,21) that, 'most felt the outcome was against them' and 7.16 that, 'the nature of the SOS (Ombudsman Services:Property) that problems may have led to significant financial loss for complainants?'

Q61 What do you think was the reason behind the management decision to remove the company's minutes from its website?

Q62 Doesn't the Ombudsman Association agree that their removal fails to meet your requirement for; openness, transparency and accountability?

Q63 Is it not an effective way of removing a damaging insight into what is actually going on at this company? A way of preventing public scrutiny? A cover-up of what actually goes on in the day to day management of complaints?

Q64 How does this meet The Ombudsman Association's requirement for, "good internal planning and review processes?"

Q65 Or, "keeping to commitments?" Commitments to be, "fair," "independent," "open and transparent" "accountable" and to have, "integrity" "clarity of purpose" and to be,"effective?"  

There appears to be interference with the Property Ombudsman's ability to act independenty. An example coming from the company minutes (6.2) The Member Board Chairman will require a rational explaining why the costs are higher in 201-11 than in 2009-10

Q66 Gas prices, electricity prices, food prices petrol prices and executive salaries all go up so why does the Member Board Chairman expect this company to buck the trend?

Q67 Didn't more clients get referred to Ombudsman Services:Property by their RICS surveyors 465 in 2010-11 compared with 280 in 2009-10?

Q68 Is it not the case that should the Property Ombudsman agree to independent resurveys, face-to-face meetings and oral hearing it would prove costly and necessitate a serious hike in The RICS Members and regulated Firms fees?

The main priority at Ombudsman Services (according to the Annual Reports) is to add real value to their members business practices and that won't happen should expensive resurveys etc be insisted upon by what we're told is supposed to be an independent ombudsman.

Q69 Why aren't the statistics for the number of resurveys, face-to-face meetings and oral hearings actually authorised by the Property Ombudsman published in the statutory Annual Report?

Q70 Isn't the biggest failing of this dispute resolution service (ADR scheme)  its continuing inability to understand the complexity of property complaints and to investigate them fairly and independently?

We were not given the Firm's submissions by the Property Ombudsman.

When we received the Property Ombudsman's Provisional Conclusion report its inaccuracies and illogical conclusions led us to request further information through the Data Protection Act. The company's booklet, Resolving complaints fairly tells the consumer,

'You will probably already have seen all the information we use to make a decision, but we will refer to all the documents o which the decision will be based in the Provisional Conclusion,' 

The reality for the complainant is likely to be very different. Decisions, according to the evidence provided by DJS Research, seem to be based on what their fee-paying members tell them and this would explain why a majority of complainants were dissatisfied with their illogical nature.  There would appear to be two categories of evidence; Complainant evidence and RICS Member  evidence. Independent evidence suggests that the latter carries far more weight when it comes to the Property Ombudsman's habit of arriving at decisions in an illogical manner.

We discovered that on every major point in our case the surveyor was in complete disagreement. And on every major point the Property Ombudsman accepted The RICS Member's evidence - even going to the point of, "not seeking out the photographs" we'd submitted.

Under, "What if I provide you some information to you in confidence?" the company goes on to say,

"If you believe some information should be kept confidential between you and us, you should mark the information clearly and tell us why you think we should not pass it on to the other party. We will consider your request - but we may not agree to it."

In other words, for the complainant there is likely to be no information that ever remains confidential - because the Property Ombudsman will in all probability decide to pass them on to her fee-paying Member after deciding not to agree to it.

Q71 Is this not in contravention to of The OFT Criterion 9 which states, "There must be free exchange of information of information between all parties relating to a complaint?"

"Resolving complaints fairly" also states,

"We will also usually send any significant documents on which the Provisional Conclusion refers to you, or the firm if you don't already have them. If there is any document you haven't seen, you can request a copy." 

But usually they don't.

Q72 What happens when a RICS Member requests their Property Ombudsman to information confidential and she agrees? Under this system how is a complainant ever going to be in a position to request information and documents they haven't seen? Complainants haven't seen them and if The RICS Member requests they remain confidential, surely the complainant will never know they exist?

For example, the Property Ombudsman about The RICS Member's messages to her office.

Q73 Hasn't this company created the perfect Catch 22 situation regarding information? How can you request what you don't  know exists?

The OFT Criterion 9 continues,

"The procedures must allow all parties concerned to present their viewpoint"

Q74 Under the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme how can a complainant ever fairly present their viewpoint  when they are kept by this company's practices from having access to all the available information?

Q75 Does this not explain why so many property complainants are forced to make, "further representations" after the Provisional Conclusion Report is issued?

Q76 Isn't the complainant's right to information set out in the company's Terms of Reference under (7) Provision of Information where it states

"Information passed to the Ombudsman will be will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure?"

The RICS Member sent the following information to his Property Ombudsman, 

"None of the works recommended in the survey have been carried out by the purchaser.

16-19 "to replace the leaking parapet gutter (which he finally did this year)

"with hindsight I should have responded in writing to him after each visit."

"Having started the complaints procedure at his request we have since refused to visit the property."

"Further to the above I drove by yesterday and noted the concrete tiles have been replaced."

"He has suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case."

Conspiracy - what conspiracy?

Q77 The company's Terms of Reference state, "Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party." Why  wasn't the above information disclosed to us by the Property Ombudsman?

Q78 As this information wasn't disclosed to us why didn't the Property Ombudsman set out the circumstances for, "justifying non-disclosure" as demanded by the company's by the company's Terms of Reference?

Q79 Why did we have to resort to a Data Protection Act request to access this information when it is the Ombudsman's duty to disclose information or provide reasons for not doing so?

Q80 Does this not happen to countless other complainants and does it help to explain why so many attempt to make further representations - 91% of which end in failure?

Q81 How does it satisfy the Ombudsman Association's governance requirements for this company's continued membership when its Property Ombudsman appears to ignore the company's Terms of Reference?

Along with the majority of other property complainants we thought the Property Ombudsman's Final Decision was not arrived at in a logical manner and asked for an oral hearing.

Nowhere in the company's booklet, Resolving complaints fairly does it tell the complainant that they have a right to request an oral hearing. This information along with a lot of other information including resurveys and face-to-face meetings is kept from the consumer. 

Q82 Why is the complainant not properly informed of their right to an oral hearing? Doesn't The OFT's Criterion 8 say that the scheme must also, "Ensure that complainants are provided with clear, comprehensible and accurate information on the procedures, possible outcomes, avenues for appeal or review of the decision, and whether the outcome is binding?"

The OFT Criterion 9 states, "The SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services: Property) has produced FAQs and an information sheet (available on its website) to explain that an hearing may be requested, and what it will take into account when considering such a request."

When we looked at this website (25/112012) we were unable to find this information. The information wasn't sent to us when we first complained either,

Our request net with the following response from the Property Ombudsman,

"The provision for an oral hearing is in relation to the determination of a complaint. If I had thought there were exceptional circumstances which made that or a site visit necessary, or had I required further information, I would have asked at the time. Broadly, your emails provide further detailed analysis which include my responsibilities, where you consider your complaint has not been properly handled or considered and your views on the service generally. There seems to be little I can usefully add to my earlier letters of which there are several. As I am not prepared to maintain an indefinite an continuous dialogue, as and when, you wish to raise or reiterate a point, I will only acknowledge future correspondence." (Letter 7th September 2010)  

Q83 Wouldn't it have been useful if in the Property Ombudsman's several letters she had answered my our complaint about Terms of Reference 7 and her failure to disclose information or provide a reason for not doing so? She had several opportunities to answer our question but chose not to. Why?

Q84 Could The Ombudsman Association ask the Ombudsman Services CEO and Chief Ombudsman, who is also a member of your executive committee: is it or is it not the duty of the Ombudsman to disclose information to the other party or set out reasons for non-disclosure as demanded by the Terms of Reference? A simple yes or no is all that is required.

Q85 How does this satisfy The OFT Criterion 9 stipulation that, "In deciding whether there should be an hearing and if so, whether it should be public or private, the Property Ombudsman will have regard to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights?"

We believe that this company's actions have violated our Human Rights along with the Human Rights of the 61%

(According to MoneySavingsExperts' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform this figure now stands at a staggering 80% plus)

We don't expect the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services will oblige us with an answer any time soon because to date he hasn't answered any of questions. Perhaps a Parliamentary Committee will succeed where we have failed. Or that you, as the organisation responsible for monitoring your member schemes' compliance with the requirements for membership, will take firm and decisive action to protect consumers.

In the 2011 Ombudsman Services Annual Review the Chair stated,

' We have set new standards for ourselves and have put in place processes to monitor them. In just a few months we have achieved enormous progress.'

Q87 Doesn't that imply that what was in place before - the old standards the pre gold standards - were wholly inadequate?

Q88 Weren't the previous standards inadequate because DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports provided the data to show, as far as the consumer was concerned, that they were?

Q89 How does what existed before the era of new golden standards satisfy The Ombudsman Association's Principles of good governance requirement for, "Effectiveness" and "Clarity of purpose?"

The Ombudsman Services' CEO and Chief Ombudsman stated in the same report,

'This year we successfully managed a significant increase in property complaints.'

Yet in the same report DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report seriously question this, "success." They report,

'When asked about the Provisional Conclusion Report, satisfaction levels were low. The majority were dissatisfied with the logic of its recommendations, accuracy of content, use of evidence and extent to which they were fair and reasonable. Two thirds were dissatisfied with the reports recommendations, with more than a half very dissatisfied.'

And,

'There was active dissatisfaction with the efficiency and speed of the process with around a half or more dissatisfied. The majority expected their cases to last for 2 months but most cases lasted 3 or 4 months: around one in four lasted seven months or longer.'

And,

'OS:Property is different to OS:Energy or OS:Communications in that the financial implications are often much larger as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. There remains a key issue with complainants' perceptions of what recompense to expect. (ie the scale of financial award to expect from the complaint and what can actually be delivered) This should be looked at.'

Q90 Does The Ombudsman Association agree with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman's belief that when a majority of property complainants are dissatisfied with the, "service" his company provides, that this is a, "success?"

Q91 Doesn't the Chairman's expression of, "concern over the levels of recent awards" not go a long way to explain why there is so much complainant dissatisfaction? 

The OFT Criterion 5 states, "The Ombudsman must proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Requirements to meet this criterion:

- The Ombudsman is required to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair in all the circumstances.'

Q92 How has this requirement been met when year after year a majority of property complainants express deep dissatisfaction with the logic of the Property Ombudsman's recommendations? Hasn't the evidence for this lack of credibility been carefully amassed, year on year, by DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports and the Chair's demand for new standards?

Not only has the executive not acted on DJS Research's findings and taken decisive action to ensure that future, "investigations" would have been, "fair" and "effective" (otherwise wouldn't DJS Research's statistics been entirely different)

But,

Q93 Hasn't the Ombudsman Association also ignored these findings when sanctioning the continued membership of Ombudsman Services:Property?

Q94 Why hasn't The Ombudsman Association a process for terminating the membership of a company that is quite clearly unable to satisfy the requirements of, "A Guide to principles of good governance?'

Q95 Is membership of The Ombudsman Association, membership for life?

Q96 How can the consumer have any faith in The Ombudsman Association when it appears to have no process to expel members and accepts the continued membership of private companies such as Ombudsman Services:Property, when DJS Research showed that complainants' dissatisfaction rose year on year? (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports 2008-2011)

Q97 Do you not agree with us that The RICS Members and Regulated Firms are dispatching consumers to what is all intents and purposes their company and their ombudsman. One that simply isn't up to the job of resolving consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently?"

Under the heading, "Independence" on your website it states,

'Ensuring and demonstrating the freedom of the office holder from interference in decision making.' 

We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services questions regarding the independence or otherwise of the, "office holder" when that, "office holder" was reported in the company's minutes in the following way,

'5.8 The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards.'

We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services questions regarding the independence or otherwise of the Property Ombudsman,

- Surely, aren't awards made on the merits of the case?

- If awards aren't based on the merits of the case how are awards determined at Ombudsman Services:Propety?

- As Chair, why do you think there is, "some concern" over the recent levels of awards?

- Wouldn't the complainant have a greater reason for trusting the services' ability to deliver on its promise to be, "fair" and "independent" had the Chairman expressed concerns over the pitifully low levels of awards being handed to property complainants?

Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Report - Report and Accounts 2010 says,

'Likewise some complainants consider the redress awarded by the Ombudsman

is insufficient because it does not provide incentive for the firm to improve its performance. In other words a complainant wants to see a company penalised when a financial award is made. It is quite clear however from the Terms of Reference that any financial award made by the ombudsman is intended to compensate the complainant and is not intended to be, and may not be, a penalty."

Q 98 Can The Ombudsman Association tell us just where, exactly, is the incentive for RICS Members and Regulated Firms to improve their performance?

When their own professional body - The RICS - is apparently powerless to enforce its own Rules and Regulations, we doubt very much whether surveyors are going to spend too much time agonising over what their ombudsmen tells them.

Q99 It is not quite clear from DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports' recommendations and the company's response to them, that the consumer's concerns always come second to  those of their fee-paying Members?

Q100. Is this not another example of what Consumer Focus has all but described as a rigged market in redress?

The Ombudsman Association Secretary told us he was unable to help us with our complaint.

We told The Ombudsman Association Secretary we hadn't expected he would.(TO BE CONTINUED)

Conclusions so far:

1. The Ombudsman Association ignore consumer's complaints.

2. Just like The RICS with its unenforced Rules and Regulations, The Ombudsman Association also refuse to enforce their requirements for membership.

3. The OFT does not enforce its Criteria for approval of The Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme

4. The OFT in failing to enforce its Criteria seriously undermine consumer protection.

5. The Ombudsman Association in failing to enforce its membership requirements also seriously undermine consumer protection.

6. The Ombudsman Association's Board members have a conflict of interest which seriously undermines consumer protection.

7. MoneySavingExperts' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform recommendation that The Ombudsman Association should determine a gold standard for ombudsman would be a disaster for consumer protection.

8. Pre-Brexit standards of consumer protection are "farcical."

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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