Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection Leader of the House of Commons / Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy / Chair of Ombudsman Servoces / CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.For Clarity - Attempt 708.
708. Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (5) Data Manipulation.
Dear Yvonne Fovargue, Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith.
MoneySavingsExpert's call for Government to reform the ombudsman complaints system is based on; data it collected and interpreted (comparative analysis), a review of various reports, information from ombudsmen's websites, background discussions, on the record fact-checking with organisations mentioned and an online survey. It believes the present arrangements are, "farcical."
The failure of the regulators to get it right in the first place was not addressed by MSE.
A RICS-like self-regulatory arms-length approach to regulation by those companies formed after the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service has led to an almost inevitable scandal - the apparent manipulation of data on an industrial scale.
The Guardian report Louise Haigh Lab as saying,"As the time scale of this scandal becomes apparent, the Tories' decision to to abolish the Forensic Science Service is beginning to look like a catastrophic error of judgement. The lack of statutory powers to enforce standards in forensics has given providers the green light to cut corners."("Police review 10.000 cases in forensics data 'manipulation' inquiry. Hannah Devlin and Vikram Dodd. The Guardian, 21st November 2017)
One of the problems with gathering information from ombudsmen's websites, conducting background discussions with ombudsmen and on the record fact-checking with ombudsmen is: bias - ombudsmen aren't going to tell you what they don't want you to know.
On page 58 of the MoneySavingsExpert Report - Ombudsmen Seem Biased (Towards The Other Party) the Report reveals that 60% of the consumers they surveyed believed just that - Ombudsmen have a bias towards the people making the complaint ie consumers.
Martin Lewis does not appear to ask the most obvious question: if, "farcical" ombudsmen are indeed biased towards their member firms and companies aren't they thus guilty of manipulating data in order to favour those firms and companies? Firms and companies whose fees often pay for the so-called service.
This isn't, "farcical" so much as a criminal conspiracy.
Q. Mr Clark, that's a lot of ombudsmen being biased towards a lot consumers - why are ombudsmen so biased towards those bringing the complaint and not those responsible for the complaint in the first place - why haven't the regulators intervened to correct this staggering injustice being meted out to consumers on a daily basis?
The RICS have a Memorandum of Understanding with their, "appointed" company, are in regular contact with their Ombudsman (who just happens to be a member of RICS) in order to monitor what it (The RICS) determines to be the, "effective resolution of disputes."
This is the most glaringly obvious intrusion into the supposed independence of ombudsmen - yet nothing has been done about it.
On page 60 of the MSE Report: "How Would You Describe The Ombudsman Decision" we see that;
a) Ombudsman Services:Property - over 80% said it was, "unfair."b) The Property Ombudsman - 60% said it was, "unfair."Marin Lewis simply leaves the figures on the page to speak for themselves. But they are scandalous and surely consumers have aright to expect an explanation for them?
Martin Lewis has reviewed the reports published by ombudsmen and so will have seen Ombudsman Services 2016 Annual Report - Customer Satisfaction (page 16). Here it is claimed, "overall satisfaction with our handling of cases is also positive among 62% of
customers, broadly comparable with similar ombudsman services."
This is a staggering anomaly.
Martin Lewis says over 80% of Ombudsman Services: Property complainants believe its ombudsman is, "unfair." The company on the other hand claims 62% of its customers are satisfied. Both can't be right.
This has been "fact-checked." We believe Martin Lewis' figures are a more
accurate representation of what is actually going on.
Q. Mr Clark, why is there such a discrepancy between Martin Lewis'
figures and those of Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr |Clark, shouldn't this be the subject of an immediate inquiry?
Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministers at Ombudsman Services - and the BIS had oversight of the scheme's monitoring - how has a situation whereby over 80% of property complainants say the ombudsman's decisions are unfair been allowed to go unchallenged by your Department and The RICS for so long?
Although Martin Lewis states that over 80% of Ombudsman Services:Property complainants believe the Property Ombudsman's decisions are unfair there is absolutely no mention of this on the company's website or in its Annual Report.
We believe that data on the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's performance has been systematically and very deliberately removed from public scrutiny. It is no longer gathered. Just look for yourselves.
Q. Mr Clark, is this not blatant data manipulation?
Ombudsman Service's Annual Property Report is now down to just 2 pages - this not only breaches the criteria for approval set by the OFT but EU ADR Legislation.Nowhere in the Annual Property Report do the company executives ask consumers whether they thought the handling of their case by the Property Ombudsman was, "fair."
Martin Lewis says he reviewed various reports and looked at information from ombudsmen websites. If that is indeed the case why did he not comment upon the following:* 2009/10 Annual Property Report - 8 pages which included a breakdown of the financial awards made by the Property Ombudsman (as required by the OFT criteria) a summary of DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report and the fact that the average financial award was £1.511.75p.* 2016 Annual Property Report - 2 pages which did not include a breakdown of the Property Ombudsman's financial awards - in contravention of the OFT criteria for approval of this ADR scheme - no summary of the Customer Satisfaction Report but information that the financial award now stood at £50.
Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why have you removed DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports from you website?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why have you removed data on your Property Ombudsman's handling of complaints from the company's website?Q. The Rev Smith, is this not data manipulation?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, how does this comply with the OFT criteria for approval of this ADR scheme to be a) transparent and b) accountable?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, how does this comply with the EU Directive 2013 on ADR to also be: a) transparent and b) accountable?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why have you removed the OFT criterion for there to be a published and explained range of financial awards for consumers to view?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why have financial awards fallen from an average of £1.511.75p in 2009/10 to just 50 quid in 2016?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why are property complainants no longer asked if they thought the Property Ombudsman arrived at decisions in a logical manner?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, you Independent Assessor reported instances of maladministration isn't this another example of the manipulation of data?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when an ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner are they not guilty of data manipulation?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why are property complainants no longer asked if they thought the Property Ombudsman handled their complaint fairly?Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why are property complainants no longer asked if they were satisfied / dissatisfied with their "customer journey?"Q. The Rev Shand Smith, isn't all the above not an example of data manipulation and isn't your Ombudsman Services:Property scheme the Randox of the redress world?
According Martin Lewis' data we should be re-naming our campaign. It should now be known as - the Ombudsmans80percent Campaign.
Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does Martin Lewis' data not explain why complainants (you don't say how many) are so very dissatisfied with what you describe as being your, "best efforts?"
The regulator RICS has closely monitored the above and clearly believes that arriving at decisions illogically and unfairly and then handing a gobsmacked property complainant an occasional 50 quid "financial award" is, "an effective resolution of a dispute." Government monitors of this government approved scheme would appear to agree - otherwise why haven't they intervened to protect the consumer from such practices?
We disagree with Ombudsman Services when they say they are, fair" and "independent.".
We believe this isn't so much a redress scheme as a protection racket for inadequately regulated surveyors who've been given a green-light by RICS to do very much as they please - safe in the knowledge they'll either get away with it or be handed an occasional less-than-hefty 50 quid fine.
Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't The RICS political influencing and engagement work in promoting "self-regulation" an utter disaster for the consumer and shouldn't the cachet of their Royal Charter now, rightly, be consigned to history?
Although The Property Ombudsman (TPO) is far less of a disaster at mishandling property complaints than Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P), Martin Lewis provides no comments to this effect from those complainants so rightly outraged at Ombudsman Services:Property's "farcical" - "criminal?" - obudsmanry.
He appears to give Ombudsman Services an easy ride. No difficult questions seem to have been asked. He too has a business to run.
Q. Mrs Leadsom, given that The RICS cannot award compensation, cannot enforce its Rules or Regulations when its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms regularly and with impunity breach them, surely it is not a competent authority to a) regulate its Members and (Un)Regualted Firms or b) approve the Ombudsman Services:Property ADR scheme?
The status quo would seem to be one where regulators and The Ombudsman Association and The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are happy see ombudsmen come down on the side of business to the detriment of consumers. The Ombudsman Association no longer has as a requirement for membership the need for schemes to have a Whistleblowing Policy.
It would seem ombudsmen have a lot they wish to hide from "confused" consumers.
Secrecy is the order of the day in the brave new world of ombudsmanry.
This is not an acceptable standard of transparency and accountability in a pre-Brexit soon to have our much vaunted sovereignty back, democracy.
The consumer landscape closely resembles a wasteland in which ombudsmen make and break the rules as and when they please with the knowledge and support of Government.
Otherwise things would be very different for the consumer. But they aren't.
80% of Ombudsman Services: Property complainants can't all be wrong.
We believe Martin Lewis' "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform" raises far more questions than it answers.
Yours sincerely,Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www,facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.
The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is seeking:- answers from The Rev Shand Smith, Gillian Fleming, Dame Janet Finch, Steven Gould, Mark Prisk, Jo Swinson, Grant Shapps, the government monitors of this OFT approved scheme, Jonathan May, Walter Merricks, The Independent Assessor, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Sajid Javid and Dame Julie Mellor.- a public inquiry into The RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding)- compensation for the victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and the executive's maladministration.of consumers' complaints.- the setting up of a truly, "free" and "independent" redress scheme free of RICS' malign influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment