Ombudsman Services - (4) Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. "Cachet." (707)

To the Leader of the House of Commons.

For Clarity - Attempt 707.

707. Ombudsman Services - (4) Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. "Cachet."

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

Cachet: "a flat capsule enclosing a dose of unpleasant tasting medicine."

(www.oxforddictionairies.com)

On page 3 of Martin Lewis' Report for The All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer protection he states,

"These issues are not academic - they effect real consumers with real disputes. When ombudsmen fail, consumers lose: substantial reform is urgently needed."

(Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform page 3)

This conclusion was arrived at after qualitative and quantitative analysis of 1409 respondents to a survey conducted Money Savings Expert and speaking with various interested stakeholders.

We disagree with the idea that the issues are not, "academic."

Without a clear and informed understanding of the systemic failings of regulation, ombudsmen, civil justice and the Alternative Dispute Resolution they dispense, how can those urgent reforms be meaningfully structured and implemented so that consumers no longer lose out in such staggeringly high numbers?

Each statistic is a person attempting to cope with the bitter pill they've been administered by a farcical ombudsman system.

This is why we believe a public inquiry into The RICS, its regulatory failings and its, "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property's maladministration and colossal failings is a critically important place to begin such a re-evaluation of this state within a state.

The Questionable Cachet of The RICS Advocacy of, "Self-Regulation."

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 internally monitored and inspected. Our self established standards of regulation meet, and in some cases surpass, the Government's own principles of better regulation."(www.rics.org>Home>About>Who we are and what we do)

The RICS also say,

"These Rules provide a strong foundation for RICS and for the firms it regulates, helping to protect the public and uphold the reputation of the profession."

RICS are saying that their Rules (rules with a capital "R") are the strong foundation that  protects the public and upholds the reputation of the profession. And yet;

"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 and Regulations."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how on earth do RICS Rules protect the public when RICS cannot enforce them and cannot force its Members and (Un)Regulated to do anything or refrain doing anything?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, if that is the Gold Standard of self-regulation and surpasses Government's attempts at better regulation does this not mean the public is virtually defenceless against non-transparent and unaccountable government departments and private businesses?

The RICS - now almost beyond logic or reason - claim,

"Consumer Protection and the development of the profession are very much our core."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how on earth are consumers protected by an organisation with a Royal Charter that as a matter of principle will not enforce its Rules and Regulations on the grounds that it is too costly?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, surely one area that is in need of urgent professional development at this organisation is for it to fulfil its duties as a regulator and begin enforcing its Rules and Regulations?

The RICS claim that its non-existent consumer protection and promotion of self-regulation,

"are the are the reasons we have retained our Royal Charter status for well over a century. We are very proud of this position and recognise the responsibility placed upon us. This is why we are consistently working to ensure we set standards for professional regulation, not just in the UK but around the world."

The RICS have retained their Royal Charter for over 100 years for not enforcing its Rules or Regulations.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how is not enforcing its Rules and Regulation protecting the public and shouldn't the RICS now have its Royal Charter removed?

An analysis of this extraordinary approach to "regulation" is missing from the MSE Report.

In, "Applying Regulation" The RICS add insult to injury. They tell consumers.

"Introducing legislation to regulate a sector of industry which is already applying modern practices, regulating at arms length and operating in a business-like manner, would be costly, time-consuming and unnecessary.

Legislation should only be applied if a self-regulation system is not working - if it is not transparent, proportional. accountable, consistent and targeted. These are the fine principles of better regulation determined by the Better Regulation Commission, a division of the UK Cabinet Office on which we base our regulatory model. 

Effective and efficient regulation of the sector is vital to the profession's success. While the government regularly reviews the approval it bestows on professional self regulations, we aim to continuously demonstrate that we maintain a regulatory regime that is leading at the front and fit for purpose."

This regime has resulted in:

- RICS Members and (Un)Regulated Firms sending their dissatisfied clients to two ombudsman schemes in record numbers.

- A Get Out Of Jail Free Card for RICS surveyors who have absolutely no incentive to settle their disputes with clients. Their OS:Property ombudsman will do the job for them.

- "Proportionate" financial-awards falling from £1.511.75p in 2011/12 to 50 quid today.

- A RICS inadequately regulated market in which its Members and (Un)Regulated have unsurprisingly developed practices that do not work in their customers' interests.

- A Property Ombudsman who hands complainants decisions that are not arrived at in a logical manner.

- The maladministration of consumers' complaints at Ombudsman Services.

- The appointment of a RICS Member as Ombudsman even though the company's Terms of Reference preclude such an arrangement.

- The end of Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services:Property so consumers are no longer consulted on their "customer journey."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, do you believe that this example of, "leading from the front" and, "fitness for purpose" is a Gold Standard of self-regulatory professionalism and that it should be rolled out across the world?

We believe these issues are indeed - in part - academic.

In, The Ombudsman Enterprise And Administrative Justice the authors cite Philip Giddings et al saying they had developed a framework for;

"Comparing the role of ombudsman systems and the courts in the UK. They introduce six criteria for evaluating the effectiveness for complaint handling procedures aimed at both identifying defective administration and securing appropriate remedial action. These include; visibility, independence, accessibility, jurisdiction, powers of investigation, competence and authority. In applying these evaluation criteria they have drawn from the literature, reports from parliamentary debates and annual reports from the PCA and other ombudsmen."

Set against these criteria Ombudsman Services:Property is clearly failing the consumer.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why was nothing done to protect the consumer from the failings of this government approved and monitored scheme?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, this private redress scheme has ceased gathering property data and so cannot be held accountable because there is no longer anything to be held accountable for. Why did the government monitors not intervene to protect the public?

The authors continue;

"There are at least 3 important reasons for conducting an ombudsman evaluation. First for reasons of democracy and accountability, ombudsman offices, as public agencies, must be accountable to the legislative bodies which appoint them, and to the public at large." 

Ombudsman Services is not a public agency and appears to be accountable to no-one apart from regulators. One - The RICS - does not enforce its Rules and Regulations and yet closely monitors Ombudsman Services:Property for the effectiveness of its dispute resolution. Today £50 "awards" are seen as being appropriate but £1.511.75 in 2011/12 was not.

A discussion surrounding the politics of self-regulation, arms length regulation, rule and regulatory avoidance, illogical investigations of consumer complaints, derisory so-called financial awards that defy basic economic principles, avoidance of meaningful customer satisfaction reports and the maladministration of consumer complaints was missing from the MSE Report.

If these issues are not even to be the subject of debate how will the ombudsman farce be meaningfully addressed and how will consumers be better protected in the future?

   The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign Recommendation 3:
   The RICS immediately lose its cachet of having a Royal Charter.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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