Ombudsman Services - The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (8) Yet More Data Manipulation. (711)

 

711. Ombudsman Services - The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (8) Yet More Data Manipulation.

Martin Lewis says his methodology was to take information from ombudsmen's websites, conduct background discussions and "carry out fact checking with organisations mentioned in this report;"  (page 8)

Carrying out fact checking with Ombudsman Services:Property must have been interesting for MSE as there weren't any for the whole 2011-12 or 2012-13 and very few "facts" since. Something Martin Lewis doesn't comment on in his Report.

He hasn't commented on the size of the current Annual Property Report as compared with those pre 2011-12 or the absence of DJS Research-like Customer Satisfaction Reports which is surely points to a deliberate manipulation of data by the CEO and his team?

Nor has he commented on the Independent Assessor's discovery of significant instances of maladministration at Ombudsman Services.

We've tried pointing out to The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (now the Ombudsman Association) and The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (now The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) that this private company is steadfastly refusing to gather data on its woeful (for consumers) performance in "investigating" consumers' complaints. But to no avail.

These two organisation have done nothing to protect consumers from an ombudsman who, habitually "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."

Martin Lewis says he looked at information from the ombudsmen's websites so he will have read;

"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)

It would surely have helped had he said which websites he looked at and at what information on those websites.

Martin Lewis doesn't seem to follow the evidence.

Why are so many of those consumers presenting their cases, getting gobsmackingly ludicrous decisions, then desperately making yet further representations and still not getting anywhere?

Isn't this data manipulation on an industrial scale?

Doesn't the answer lie with the Ombudsman's apparent habitual inability to carry out anything closely resembling a fair and independent, "investigation" of a complaint? Why wasn't this investigated by Martin Lewis?

In short, hundreds of consumers have submitted evidence only for it to be traduced by the Property Ombudsman. Otherwise things would have been different.

We will send you a line by line account of what happened in our case.

We even asked for a face-to-face meeting with the company's ombudsman - as was our human right as set out in the company's Terms of Reference - only to be told that had she considered it necessary at the time she would have ordered one. She didn't. So she didn't.

We asked the company how many face-to-face meetings were granted in any one given year and are still awaiting a reply.

On discovering that 80%+ of property complainants in 2017 are now saying that the farce is "unfair" why didn't Martin Lewis check the fact and explain it?

Why didn't he ask:

a) what were the government monitors, "monitoring" in 2011-12 and 2012-13?

b) why didn't they withdraw approval of this scheme?

c) why have they sat back and permitted consumers to take costly property complaints to an ombudsman who they know arrived at decisions in an illogical manner?

b) why have these monitors permitted consumers to take costly property complaint to an ombudsman who not only arrived at decisions in an illogical manner but significantly reduced so-called, "financial-awards" from £1.511.75p in 2010 to £50 today?

Why didn't he ask RICS the regulator,

a) how is any of the above, "an effective resolution of a dispute" for consumers?

and,

b) when the OFT have said the RICS have allowed its Members to develop practices that do not work in the customer's interests due to an apparent failure on their part to adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place - why didn't he ask why this has been allowed to happen?

Martin Lewis' Report has simply not explained the root causes of the farce - criminally inadequate regulation in the first place, followed by justice-defying "investigations" of consumers' complaints and the system's carefully constructed lack of accountability and transparency.

By failing to adequately analyse the problem Martin Lewis' recommendations will merely contribute to an even greater problem for consumers.

If the organisations MSE suggest should set the, "gold standard" - The Ombudsman Association and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy - had been doing their job in the first place we wouldn't looking at, Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform

His recommendations would be like putting the Kray Twins in charge of policing in the East End of London.

What consumers urgently need is for someone with sharper eyes, a sharper brain and a sharper analysis - consumers urgently need a judge-led public inquiry into those who manipulate data with apparent impunity.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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