Ombudsman Service - Martin Lewis: "A Shambles." (693)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.

For Clarity - Attempt 693.

683. Ombudsman Service - Martin Lewis: "A Shambles."

Dear Mr Clark,

"Don't mention the war" has now, it seems, been replaced by, "Don't mention the ombudsman's decisions" and in particular, "Don't mention The RICS Property Ombudsman's decisions." That's because they're illogical and/or have been made by an insider.

We've seen what insider dealing in the financial markets has been capable of - Libor etc - now it would seem to have been joined by what looks suspiciously like insider redress at certain ombudsman schemes. Light-touch regulation appears to be twinned with rigged markets and the mushrooming market in private redress is no different.

The crucially important issue: the actual decisions made by ombudsmen - how they were arrived at and how they were justified -  wasn't addressed by Martin Lewis in his article. We agree with him when he states that the ombudsman service, "is a shambles" but not as to why it is a shambles.

He writes,

"Ombudsman schemes should be the premier league of alternative dispute redress and its time to crack down on the use of the term. Consumers need to have confidence that any body bearing the, 'ombudsman, brand will investigate impartially, and companies will have to abide by their decisions."

(Now it's time for a crackdown as ombudsman service labelled, 'a shambles.' Martin Lewis. www.theguardian.com/money/2017/oct/28/0mbudsmen-regulate-parliament-review-martin-lewis)

As to why certain ombudsmen lack, "impartiality" was hinted at but not fully addressed and surely makes the Ombudsman Services Ltd. a key area for scrutiny. Why? Because in a world where Ofsted has amassed a vast amount of data on schools' performance, Ombudsman Services has done the opposite especially when it comes to the performance of its Property Ombudsman's decisions. It studiously fails to gather data and therefore has nothing to publish and nothing to be held to account for.

If Ofsted were regulating surveyors and not The RICS and its company - Ombudsman Services:Property - both would have been placed in special measures years ago. But it doesn't and so they haven't.

Q. Mr Clark, why is it not a statutory requirement for ombudsman schemes to collate and publish data on ALL of their decisions?

Q. Mr Clark, placing Ombudsmen's decisions into the public arena would make the whole process transparent and accountable, there would be nowhere for ombudsmen or those they ombuds to hide. Why hasn't this happened and who benefits from this not happening?

Q. Mr Clark, wouldn't the amassed data provide a clear and accurate picture of the state of British business and is this why it is NOT collected and published?

Martin Lewis tells us that companies do not abide by ombudsmen's decisions.

This suggests that the business world regard ombudsmen schemes as minor sunday league stuff and treat them accordingly - the referees (ombudsmen) are seen as sheep with rubber teeth.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that this goes to the heart of the matter: The power relationship between business, regulators, politicians, civil servants and unfortunate complainants such as; Michael Hernon, Sarah Fowler and Julia. 

There is no level playing field. The referee's been nobbled. And bewildered consumers have been left to turn up to a knife fight expecting a boxing match with full Queensbury Rules.

Michael Hernon and Sarah Fowler's dissatisfaction wasn't with the actual decision made by the Energy Ombudsman but the inability of that particular Ombudsman to enforce his/her ruling.

Martin Lewis doesn't explore the actual quality of Ombudsmen's decisions and whether they are as, "fair" and "independent" as they - ombudsmen - would like us to believe.

Ombudsman Services:Energy (part of Ombudsman Services Ltd) investigated 38.000 energy complaints. Surely there should have been 38.000 complainants' voices heard as to whether they were happy or not with the outcome of their case.

Q. Mr Clark, why isn't it a statutory requirement for ombudsmen to actually ask consumers whether they are satisfied with the outcome of the investigation of their case?

Q Mr Clark why are ombudsman schemes such as Ombudsman Services:Property so reluctant to gather data on their performance?

38.000 energy complaints is an awful lot of energy complaints. It certainly feeds a giant job creation scheme for ombudsmen and their investigating officers but the Energy Ombudsman's threat to refer recalcitrant energy firms to the regulator, Ofgen, hardly has them shaking in their boots.

Q. Mr Clark, why don't regulators get it right in the first place - then there would be no need for "shambolic" ombudsmen schemes?

The cosy/corrupt/colluding or is it just careless relationship between regulators and ombudsman schemes isn't mentioned by Martin Lewis. And certainly not the relationship between The RICS and its, "appointed" Ombudsman at its, "appointed" company, Ombudsman Services:Property.

Martin Lewis continues,

"The Ombudsman Association, which represents ombudsmen and complaints - handling bodies, says that the new legislation has encouraged competition which confuses consumers, and allows member companies to withdraw funding from one scheme and sign up to a cheaper, potentially less impartial rival."

This is extraordinary.

On one hand the consumer is endlessly being told that competition in the energy market is good for them and yet results in 38.000 complaints in just one year. As for the number of energy tariffs created to bewilder and confuse the consumer - that's just plain bonkers. However, when it comes to ombudsmen schemes it's a very different story indeed. Here, competition has now become bad and confusing for consumers.

Q. Mr Clark, why has the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman reduced so-called financial awards from £1.511.75p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in 2016 but TPOS has managed a much more competitive average of £531 for its complainants?

From the scant data available it can be seen that if Ombudsman Services:Property were to have a monopoly in ADR (as it has been lobbying for) consumers would be considerably worse off. That's Good For Business but Remarkably Bad For Consumers.

Martin Lewis goes on to say,

"The Association's long-standing position is that there should be a single ombudsman within each sector and one competent authority to set standards."

A competent authority? And who determines competency?

A present-day example is The RICS and its apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms which according to the OFT led to practices that did not work in the customer's interests. And yet their surveyors' fees pay for their "appointed" ombudsman scheme - Ombudsman Services:Property, they have a RICS Member as Ombudsman and a Memorandum of Understanding with, what is to all intents and purposes their company, that determines what are to be "the effective resolution of a dispute."

A 50 quid financial award is seen by The RICS to be, "an effective resolution of a dispute." Their  ombudsman no longer bothers to ask consumers if they agree with that judgement. Consumers' views are no longer sought. This avoids the embarrassment of being told that the whole thing's rigged from the start.

Q. Mr Clark, is The RICS a, "competent authority" when it apparently fails to adequately regulate its Members and (Un)regulated Firms in the first place?

Q. Mr Clark, if The RICS were to regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place surely there would be no need to employ a Property Ombudsman?

We believe this is how ADR is rigged. Otherwise it would be different. And it isn't.

The Ombudsman Association's director, Donal Galligan, believes,

"The establishment of more than one within an industry, creates risks creating uneven standards of investigation and redress. There can also be a risk of a race to the bottom."

This is the very same Ombudsman Association which has The Rev Shand Smith as its Chair and which once stipulated that to be a  member of the OA, ombudsman schemes were required to have a Whistleblowing Policy. In its own race to the bottom it scrapped that requirement.thus depriving the referees of their Acme Thunderers.

Languishing at the bottom of the ADR Sunday League is Ombudsman Services:Property which was given no mention in Martin Lewis' article.

This is somewhat surprisingly given that the potential financial loss dissatisfied surveyors' clients can suffer, is so great.

Q. Mr Clark, shouldn't it be a standard requirement for ALL ombudsman schemes - even those affiliated to The Ombudsman Association - to have a Wistleblowing Policy?

Q. Mr Clark, The Rev Shand Smith is also CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services which does not have a Whistleblowing Policy but did have a Property Ombudsman who arrived at decisions is an illogical manner. Does this not imply a shockingly inept standard of, "investigation?"

Q. Mr Clark, contrary to its own Terms of Reference, Ombudsman Services:Property now has an Ombudsman who is a member of The RICS and who, "investigates" consumers' complaints about his colleagues. Why is this permitted to happen?

We believe the fact that the alleged, "fairness" and "independence" of those, "investigations" of consumers' complaints was not investigated by Martin Lewis, needs to be investigated.

The best thing written on the subject of ombudsmen and their schemes is by Julia. She wrote,

"We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor to our complaint - please refer to the surveyors ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them!

It has been eyewateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues.

I really do want to tell my story if for nothing more than to help other people."

It says a lot about the state of ombudsman schemes and our present-day democracy when it's left to the people to help one another.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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