Ombudsman Services - (2) Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform. (705)

To the Leader of the House of Commons / Secretary of State Department For Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

For Clarity - Attempt 705

705. Ombudsman Services - (2) Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

The quantitative and qualitative research in Martin Lewis' Report, Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform, supports what we, and others have been saying for quite some considerable time - that ombudsmen and their schemes have been biting consumers rather than their participating companies (or Members as they were once known) and are in urgent need of reform.

Largely unopposed, ombudsmen planted their flag in the consumer landscape and then proceeded to colonise it for themselves. All the while they added real value to the business practices of their more than delighted members (now re-branded as 'participating companies') whilst accruing more and more power for themselves.

It has been a very different story for consumers.

There have been those urging the need for a greater understanding of ombudsman offices and for those offices to be far more democratically accountable.

Much of what we have come to understand about ombudsmen (and been campaigning for) is thanks to;

Steven E. Aufrecht and Marc Hertogh. "Evaluating Ombudsman Systems."

Sharon Gilad. "Exchange without capture: The UK Financial Ombudsman Services' Struggle for Accepted Domain.

Sharon Gilad. "Juggling Conflicting Demands: The Case of the UK Financial Ombudsman Service.

Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson. "Putting the Ombudsman in Constitutional Context."

Philip Giddings. "The British Health Service Ombudsman."

Philip Giddings. "The Ombudsman: Accountability and Contracts.

B R Kirkham. "A Complainant's View of the Local Government Ombudsman.

Trevor Buck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson. "The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice.

The latter, in Chapter 6, "Accountability" when talking about the ombudsman office say that it is ;

" an unelected institution employed to provide assurance to Parliament and the wider population as to the efficacy of government - the interaction of these different bodies is important if the most effective form of accountability is to be achieved.

The ombudsman is an institution endowed with remarkable power that itself needs to be called to account. Not only can an ombudsman fail due to error or incompetency, but an ombudsman can also fail through timidity." (page 21)

We would add to that list the idea that ombudsmen can fail the public due to a pro-business mindset or bias.

The above extract was written in 2011 and yet it has taken until the end of 2017 for ombudsmen to start being held to account by those other than ombudsmen.

Q. Mr Clark, when an ombudsmen is permitted to hand hundreds of complainants decisions, "that are not arrived at in a logical manner" is that due to; error, incompetency, timidity or a pro-business bias?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why didn't RICS the regulator intervene to protect consumers from this second injustice (the first being to have suffered poor service)?

It is the often too cosy relationship between ombudsmen and their fee-paying members and regulators that really needs analysing if we're to understand why it is that ombudsmen are so consistently biting complainants and not the organisations being complained about.

Research into who sits on which board influencing what policy would surely reveal conflicts of interest and also a pro business anti-consumer bias. Otherwise things would be very different.

In the whole of Martin Lewis' Report there is no mention of The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) or their extraordinary approach to regulation and their close monitoring of their, "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property.

The RICS say,

"We are one of a number of professions operating under a self-regulation model, which means our members aren't regulated by Government but are actually internally monitored and inspected.

Our self-established standards of regulation meet and in some cases surpass, the Government's own principles of better regulation."

And Royal Charters - like RICS - apparently

"retain their cachet in the modern professional world as a 'gold standard of excellence and integrity." 

And yet The RICS can't enforce their own Rules and Regulations.

This, "gold standard" was not mentioned in Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform.

On page 4 of Martin Lewis' Report is Recommendation 2. That;

"the oversight of ombudsmen must be boosted."

Particular focus should be paid to:

- ease of complaining

- speed at which complaints are processed

- perception of fairness among those who complain to ombudsmen.

Ineffective ombudsmen must be stripped of the right to use the word in their title.

There should be a form of, 'fit and proper' approved-persons test for people in senior roles in ombudsmen. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could approve such persons."

We would like to suggest that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy might not be the organisation best qualified to conduct a 'fit and proper' persons test of ombudsmen.

Q. Mr Clark, we've so far made 705 attempts to bring to the attention of your Department the issue of the Property Ombudsman; a) not arriving at decisions in a logical manner b) substantially lowering the amount of financial awards from £1.511.75p in 2011/12 to £50 today when unknown person(s) expressed some concern over their levels and c) not being perceived as being an impartial arbitrator in disputes. Was the property person a, "fit and proper" person to be an ombudsman?

Q. Mr Clark, are ombudsmen executives who maladminister consumer complaints, "fit and proper" persons?

Q. Mr Clark, when the Independent Assessor warned of maladministration at Ombudsman Services why weren't those responsible held to account?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, the BEIS has a, "close and continuing relationship" with Ombudsman Services - an ombudsman office which maladministers consumers' complaints and hands property complainants decisions which are not arrived at in an illogical manner - and yet seems to have done nothing to a) ensure it didn't happen in the future and b) compensate the victims of such malpractice, choosing instead to allow consumers to carry on taking their complaints to the scheme. In light of this is the BEIS the right organisation to "approve such persons?

In Chapter 2: The Constitutional Role of The Ombudsman, Trevor Buck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson ask

"As befits the unwritten nature of the UK constitution there is a lack of clarity surrounding the ombudsman's constitutional status and its exact role and purpose,"

and,

"debates on human rights in the UK have tended to ignore altogether the impact of the ombudsman."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, haven't ombudsmen who hand consumers illogical decisions and who maladminister complaints completely undermined their constitutional status while at the same time denied consumers their human rights?

Ombudsmans61percent Campaign Recommendation 1:

- Those responsible for ombudsman oversight need a degree of independence similar to that afforded the Bank of England - a Gold Standard of Independence, Transparency and Accountability.

- Those responsible for the maladministration of consumer complaints should be subject to the full weight of the law.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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