Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (6) Manipulating Data. (709)

To the 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 Services / CEO and Chief ombudsman of Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 709.

709. Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (6) Manipulating Data (709)

Dear Yvonne Fovargue, Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

In their 2009 Annual Report the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services states,

"Our Terms of Reference preclude any ombudsman from being a surveyor, decisions are taken by a lay person whose expertise is in dispute resolution, not in the profession or service about which complaints are. It is for the ombudsman to decide when third party expertise would be helpful in reaching fair and appropriate resolution."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, if your Terms of Reference preclude any ombudsman from being a surveyor, why is a chartered surveyor the present Property Ombudsman?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, is this not a manipulation of the Rules?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest and how does it satisfy the EU Directive's requirement for impartiality? (2013/11/EU on ADR)

The Annual Report goes on to say,

"SOS (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) is a member of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) - (now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association) - In order to enjoy full membership we have shown that we meet the published criteria for recognition attached to the BIOA's rules, which are essentially independence of the ombudsman from those whom the Ombudsman has the power to investigate, effectiveness, fairness and public accountability."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why is your organisation a member of the BIOA / OA when you have a chartered surveyor working as Property Ombudsman and who is clearly not independent from those whom he is investigating?

Q. Mr Clark, why haven't the government monitors of this government approved scheme withdrawn their approval for this scheme?

Q. Mrs Leadsom,  as Lord President of the Council, why has The RICS allowed its, "appointed" company, Ombudsman Services:Property to appoint an Ombudsman who breaches the company's Terms of Reference, the requirements for membership of the BIOA / OA and the EU Directive on ADR requirement for there to be no conflict of interest?

On the subject of independence the 2009 Annual Report concludes,

"RICS provides funding for the operational work of SOS (OS:P) but the Ombudsman is completely independent from RICS."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, if the Property Ombudsman is completely independent of The RICS why is he also a chartered surveyor?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why do you have such scant disregard for the Rules?

On page 60 of Martin Lewis' Report for The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection:

Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform - How Would You Describe The Ombudsman's Decision

he tells us that for Ombudsman Services:Property 80% of consumers thought it was, "unfair."

The corresponding figure for The Property Ombudsman was an unfairness rating of 60% which was shocking but nowhere near as shocking as the Ombudsman Serivces:Property Ombudsman.

Part of Martin Lewis' methodology when producing his report for the All-Party Parliamentary Group was, "to conduct background discussions and on the record fact checking with the organisations mentioned in (this) report."

Both the Ombudsman Association and Ombudsman Services:Property are mentioned in his report along with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Two of them - The BEIS and The Ombudsman Association - are put forward by Martin Lewis as being competent to determine a new Gold Standard for Ombudsmen. Surely, this recommendation must be of concern for consumers who really do need protecting - 80% of Ombudsman Services:Property complainants cannot all be wrong.

The BEIS (formerly the BIS) had oversight of the OFT who monitored the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme and yet saw nothing wrong with; a) its ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner or b) being a chartered surveyor. Or the BIOA /OA ignoring its own rules and giving membership to an organisation whose ombudsman was not independent from those he was investigating.

This is blatant manipulation of the rules.

Despite evidence to the contrary, Martin Lewis appears to believe that these two organisations are fit for purpose and competent to decide Gold Standards of Ombudsmanship. We strongly disagree.

When taking their complaints to The RICS appointed redress scheme - Ombudsman Services:Property - 80% of property complainants will have amassed an awful lot of evidence/data to support their cases against the RICS regulated surveyors they'd employed and who had not only failed them but also failed to resolve the dispute before escalating it to their ombudsman. 

These aren't just any surveyors they are RICS surveyors with the, "cachet" of being at the pinnacle of integrity and professionalism. Or so they say

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when according to Martin Lewis, 80% of property complainants believe your Ombudsman's decisions are not, "fair" does this not suggest that data/evidence has been manipulated on an industrial scale - otherwise, surely, things would be different?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, when according to Martin Lewis, 80% of property complainants believe your Property Ombudsman's decisions are not, "fair" does this not suggest that what you describe as, "your best efforts" simply aren't good enough?

Martin Lewis raises these exact issues on page 15 of his Report where he talks about, "independence" and, "impartiality."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when your Ombudsman, who also happens to be a chartered surveyor is unfair 80% of the time is this demonstrating a gold standard in both, "independence" and "impartiality?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, isn't the evidence used in investigations of property complaints being manipulated on a colossal scale?

On the same page, Martin Lewis goes on to talk about, "being transparent" and, crucially, "providing an annual report." His conclusions from his examination of Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Reports didn't appear in his Report to Parliament. This is somewhat disappointing and an unfortunate omission. .

DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report for Ombudsman Services in 2010-2011 stated,

"Many (around two thirds) felt the report was completely or on balance, against them, in line with previous years. This did not change even after further representations were made." (DJS Research: Customer satisfaction Report 2010-11)

That is a 66% dissatisfaction rate.

In 2011-12 DJS Research were replaced and BMG produced their first report. It was very different and marked a seismic change with the past. They were able to report,

"Both the quantitative and verbatim comments showed largely positive findings, with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Service. Results were consistent by sector."  

That is nothing short of miraculous.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, within the space of a year property complainants had gone from a dissatisfaction rate of 66% with the Property Ombudsman's decisions to, "strong levels of satisfaction" - results being consistent by sector - how do you account for this miraculous turnaround?"

Martin Lewis makes no comment on this but by 2017, he is able to tell us that 80% of property complainants are saying the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's decisions are, "unfair." That's a remarkable increase on what was reported in 2010-11.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, what's going on?

At the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign we believe the consumer has a right to know why none of this was in Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform and just what exactly is going on at The RICS, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

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