Ombudsman Services / Government / Civil Servants / Transparency and Accountability. (702)

To the Leader of the House of Commons

For Clarity - Attempt 702

702. Ombudsman Services / Government / Civil Servants / Transparency and Accountability.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

We received the following from the BIS Departmental Complaints Officer, Margaret Housden:

"Mr Gilbert,

My email of 28 August was very clear.

I am unable to help you until you are specific about any correspondence to the Department that has not been responded to,

Yours

Margaret Housden."

That response didn't appear to answer any of our questions but instead raised new ones.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how does that sit with Francis Maude's claim that transparency would be at the heart of this government's work?

 

"5 Feb 2013,

Dear Mr Gilbert,

I have been passed your email of 28 January by the BIS Departmental Complaints Officer, Margartet Housden, in which you comment on the transfer of correspondence.

  It may be helpful if I explain that all correspondence received from members of the public is first read to assess whether the matters raised are the responsibility of this Department.

  If this is not the case we are obliged to transfer the letter or email in question to the relevant Department or Agency for reply. This process is in line with guidance produced for departments by the Cabinet Office on the handing of correspondence. It follows that when the Department concerned drafts their reply, they will state that the letter or email was sent originally to BIS.

  You highlight our policy not to inform members of the public when correspondence has been transferred. It may serve to put matters in context when I explain that in 2012 we received approximately 14500 individual pieces of correspondence from members of the public. Although we do not have the resources to routinely advise individual correspondents when correspondence has been transferred to a different Department or Agency, we will of course do so if an enquiry is received about progress will the original letter or email."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why not employ more civil servants, there are lots of young unemployed people looking for work - preferably a new generation who have not, "engaged with" and been, "politically influenced" by The RICS?

Margaret Housden's email was very clear.

Our complaint is very clear. Or so we thought.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why have The RICS, who apparently can't adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms, been given carte blanche to determine what is and what isn't an effective resolution of a dispute at their, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how is having a Property  Ombudsman arrive at decisions in an illogical manner, an "effective resolution of a dispute?"

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how does having a Property Ombudsman who shouldn't be a member of the profession body he is investigating but is, facilitate, "an effective resolution of a dispute?"

Q. Mrs Leadsom, is this not an obvious conflict of interest?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how is reducing so-called, "financial awards" from £1.511.75p in 2010 to just 50 quid today, "an effective resolution of a dispute?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why do those executives who maladminister consumer redress no longer ask property complainants if they agree with The RICS that their dispute has been resolved effectively?

The - "2013 No 1575 Consumer Protection The Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 (Repeal) Order 2013 (Jo Swinson) was supposed to protect the consumer.

When a regulator fails to regulate but is left free to determine private civil justice then to call that consumer protection is in itself a colossal misdescription.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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