Farcical Ombudsman Services - Also, "In A State Of Crisis." (718)

To the Leader of the House of Commons:
For Clarity - Attempt 718.

718. Farcical Ombudsman Services - Also, "In A State of Crises."

Dear Mrs Leadsom,
The problems confronting asylum offices are remarkably similar to those at certain ombudsman schemes.
 

Immigration and asylum

Asylum offices 'in a constant state of crisis', say whistleblowers

Two whistleblowers claim Home Office departments delay asylum applications for profit

Amelia Hill

@byameliahill

Mon 25 Dec ‘17 23.40 GMT Last modified on Tue 26 Dec ‘17 00.51 GMT

 

Staff in the Home Office’s asylum directorate are undertrained, overworked and operating in a “constant state of crisis”, two whistleblowers have claimed, as applicants endure long waits to have their case dealt with due to internal pressures.
The Home Office staff have also told the Guardian that asylum case workers are making poor decisions about applications because they are under pressure to focus on more profitable visa applications. Despite a “shocking increase in complaints (from applicants) and MP enquiries questioning delays”, they say caseworkers have been told to brush off all enquires and “just give standard lines” of response when called to account.

           

A source from the UK Visa and Immigration Unit (UKVI) has alleged that caseworkers have been ordered to kick applications for spousal visas “into the long grass” because they can make more money for the directorate by processing student visas. Spousal visas, also known as settlement visas, cost more than student visas but take much longer to process.

The source also claims visa applications are routinely labelled “complex” or ”non-straightforward” by staff – a term which excuses the UKVI from adhering to their standard processing times – it is, the source claimed, “just a euphemism for ‘there’s more profitable stuff we could be doing’”. Paying hundreds of pounds for priority services to try to avoid delays on decisions is a “waste of time”, they warned applicants.
The allegations reflect concerns expressed in a report earlier this year by David Bolt, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who said the Home Office is not “in effective control” of its asylum process.
In his damning independent inspection report, Bolt said that unless the Asylum Intake and Casework (AIC) unit accelerates its plans to resolve its “struggles” to keep on top of immigration claims, the unit will soon “be unable to cope”. But those plans, he added, are currently “not sufficiently advanced”.

Asylum seekers record festive single with message of unity

One Heart Refugee Choir, made up of 24 refugees, join professional musicians to record version of Bill Withers’ Lean On Me

Read more

Some of the more shocking findings from Bolt’s report included pregnant women being made to wait more than two years for decisions on their immigration applications; an increasing numbers of applicants having their immigration applications registered as “not straightforward” and endlessly delayed; and Home Office employees being “pushed to the limit” by individual targets and threatened with disciplinary action as deadlines approach.
Bolt’s report revealed that in 2016 to 2017, the number of claims categorised as ”non-straightforward” peaked in March this year, representing almost half of the initial case assessments.
The independent report expressed concern that of the non-straightforward cases in March, more than half were over 12 months old and less than one-quarter had been reviewed. “This is in direct violation of the Home Office’s internal performance aims, whereby non-straightforward cases should be cleared in 12 months and the claimant kept informed of progress,” it said.

We've seen how staff at Ombudsman Services apparently cope with their backlog of cases - they cut and paste the ombudsman's signature to reports and send them to complainants unchecked.

Senior executives then seem to have, "back slapping parties" to brag about how clever they've been in clearing their "stock of work" - ie desperate individuals with costly and complex problems.

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman has described this as being a, "superb model." We would beg to differ but it most certainly is - Good For Business.

Whereas the Home Office was subject to a damning independent inspection report, Ombudsman Services - being a private company - wasn't. Instead it appears to have been included in a whitewash report by MoneySavingExpert - "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform" whose recommendations - we would argue - merely put consumers at even greater risk.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when complainants attempt to call Ombudsman Services to account their concerns are simply ignored and the company's standard line is to tell them to go elsewhere, "and find a solution that suits you better." Isn't a public inquiry into this farce not long overdue?

The report was sent to Amber Rudd, the home secretary, on 25 September and published in November.
The source also said that mistakes are being made by caseworkers when they decide whether applications are denied or accepted, because they have targets for the number of cases they must deal with each day. “Caseworkers don’t have time to request more documents if something is missing or if more information is needed,” they said. “Sometimes they don’t even have time to read the applications properly.”
The Home Office has suffered 24.9% cuts to its £10.6bn annual budget and has been asked to outline potential additional spending cuts of 6%. It strongly denies that financial incentives influence its immigration decisions.

The second whistleblower comes from inside the Family and Human Rights Unit (FHRU), a department inside the UKVI which focuses on visas for spouses and parents of British and EU nationals. They describe a similar state of constant crisis: “We currently have staff who are trained for one week before doing live cases. There is a high turnover (in the unit), staff are leaving and coming every week,” they said.
FHRU cases are streamed into three tiers according to their complexity, but junior administrators are regularly given more complex cases reserved for managers, the source said.

“Caseworkers will make poor decisions because of lack of training, support and mentoring from experienced caseworkers. This in turns creates a bigger workload for post-decision casework,” they said.
The backlog, said the source, is enormous. “We have 49,000 works in progress, which our senior management team has committed to get down to 12,000 by April 2018. There is currently up to an 18-month delay on FHRU cases, because they are not subject to a service standard,” they added.

 

“On my team, we are seeing a shocking increase of complaints and MP enquiries questioning the delay. We are just told to give standard lines.”

Mike Jones, Group Secretary for PCS, the union for Home Office employees, has canvassed his members and has found both whistleblowers’ comments to be “correct”.
“PCS have repeatedly raised concerns with the Home Office around a lack of staffing and resources within caseworking areas,” he said. “We are already seeing excessive amounts of overtime being worked due to insufficient staff to deal with work volumes.”
The Home Office has disputed the claims of both whistleblowers. Regarding the UKVI allegations, a spokesperson said: “Each application is dealt with on its individual merits. Standard overseas visa applications are prioritised on the facts of the case and not based on profit.”
Regarding the FRHU allegations, a spokesperson said: “We do not recognise these claims. We have dedicated and hardworking staff who are prepared to go the extra mile to provide a high level of service with what are often complex applications. Their individual workload is appropriate and dependant on their seniority and experience.”

We've seen in our previous blog that investigating officers at Ombudsman Services don't appear to bother reading the complainant's case before sending out their decisions.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, doesn't this make a laughing stock of British Justice?

The Home Office denies that there is a financial incentive behind the way in which it conducts itself which to any neutral observer would hard to credit. Clearly, at Ombudsman Services the financial incentive behind reducing average awards from £1.51175p in 2010 to 50 quid in 2017 would be to appease the company's Members (Participating Companies) and ensure that, "real value is added to heir business practices."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't this an example of rigged redress and isn't it inherently corrupt and illegal?

Whereas the Home Office employees have a union and whistleblowers the private redress scheme operated by Ombudsman Services doesn't.

This private scheme is a blueprint for post-Brexit British civil justice when it become the Singapore of the North Atlantic.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, is this why this company enjoys so much political protection - protection from any meaningful scrutiny and accountability - a private state within the state?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

The Ombudsmans51percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Farcical Ombudsmen / Farcical Ombudsman Services / Farcical Ombudsman Association / Farcial Government Monitors (717)

  To the Leader of the House of Commons :
   For Clarity Attempt 717.

   717. Farcical Ombudsmen / Farcical Ombudsman Services / Farcical Ombudsman    
           Association  /  Farcical Government Monitors.
   
   Dear Mrs Leadsom,

   Here's the story from another consumer whose customer journey didn't live up to their    
   expectations:

Dear 61 campaigner,

 

I read your damning assessment of the Property Ombudsman with great interest and sympathised with your fury and frustration. I made a complaint about Sky UK my TV/broadband/phone provider. It took 5 weeks before I received a deadlock letter from then. I took it to the OS-Communication and was given a case ref no. I assumed it was like Article 50 Brexit – I would activate the case when I had written a Statement, prepared a Time Line and compiled a Dossier of evidence. Five week later on holiday, I’m astonished to get an email from the CIO saying she’d looked at my evidence (?) and made her Decision. Phoned the next day, and say, ‘What evidence? I haven’t given you any.’ She maintained she’d obtained it from my phone call (of ‘enquiry’) – natch, hadn’t listened to the 58 min call (which I paid £10 for a CD of) but relied on 9 lines of notes (138 words) from a colleague. My case was finally resolved (unfairly) after 27 weeks. Thought that must be a record till I read the other day of the tragic case of the anorexic girl who was failed by 3^rd world NHS (non) care. Father spent £200,000 investigating her death and the Ombudsman took 3.5 years to produce a report!

 

Anyway, I’ll cut long story short, save myself time and copy the email sent 9 days ago to OS-Comm. CEO with subject heading as above. Since then I’ve contacted my local MP, Theresa May(!), and she’s said ‘she’d be happy to contact the Ombudsman on my behalf.’ That was gratifying but your blog leaves me thinking I’ll be wasting my time. Did you think about suing the Ombudsman? I’m getting a list of solicitors from Law Society hoping to get a free initial 30 min consultation. Can’t find online whether anyone’s tried that.

 

Everything you criticised about the O. and Independent Assessor rang true – even though I’m a new boy to this unaccountable organisation. But a word of advice: I tried hard to reduce a number of complaints to a page and a half. People won’t bother reading longer documents. I ‘feel’ your indignation but you must reduce reading time to 3 pages MAXIMUM.

 

Dear Lewis Shand Smith,

I have cc’d you in to a number of emails (crucially on 22/11/17 but also on 12/11, 15/11, 20/11, and the 27/11) where I alerted the OS to a number of instances of illegal and improper behaviour by Case Investigating Officers and senior managers at OS- Communications. This behaviour includes:

1. Collusion between ****** ****** and Sky UK; this collusion (which I can prove) may also extend to other CIOs and senior managers. *******’s subsequent improper behaviour in her initial ‘non’-investigation of my case and then her investigation/Decision on my appeal which should have led to her dismissal by OS.
2. Violation of established procedures by senior managers in such a way as to prejudice me in my complaint against Sky
3. Failure to observe OS’s Terms of Reference which prevented me obtaining any responses to the serious charges I have been making, raising further suspicions about collusion
4. A level of Incompetence and gullibility in ***** and *****’s handling of my case so extreme as to again raise suspicions of collusion
5. A noticeable willingness to cast doubt on my testimony (‘I accept your version of events’) and a corresponding readiness to accept without question everything Sky tells you. Given I’m a retired University lecturer in Teacher Education and the Sky chairman is James Murdoch of phone-hacking fame, such responses look very suspicious.
6. An entirely unwarranted intervention by *** ****** who dismisses ******* my new CIO and replaces her with CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT ***** *****. This intervention was clearly prompted by malice – I’d dared to criticise *******.
7. A bungled, inept investigation and Decision by ***** – described by ******* as ‘well informed’ and thorough. His ‘thorough investigation/ Decision’ is completed in just 5 days! Though I can demonstrate flaws and inaccuracies in almost every paragraph, I can do nothing about it, because *******, violating OS procedures, allows me no Appeal..
8. ***** either tries to mislead me in his Report/Decision or displays a basic ignorance about the Ombudsman’s powers that would suggest he’s not fit to hold office: he says: ‘We can request information from a company but we cannot compel it to respond’. This contradicts 8.3 of the OS Terms of Reference which states: The Ombudsman may require the Participating Company to disclose any documents and to provide any information that the Ombudsman may lawfully and reasonably request relating to his or her consideration of the complaint’ [see also 8.4 and 8.5]. Since this request concerns Sky’s handling of my Formal letter of Complaint of 27 March – the one Sky wants to bury (and the OS seems determined to assist Sky) it exposes the fiction of the ‘Date Complaint Made’ being 31/01/17!  This raises the most serious suspicion of collusion between Sky and an OS officer.  ******* describes ***** as a man representing the ‘highest level at Ombudsman Services: Communications’. And yet *****’s Report/Decision is as inept, biased, and flawed as the two Garner’s Reports/Decisions set aside by the OS.
9. Finally, ******* promised me a CD recording of our 90 minute conversation on 19 October, saving me the £10 access fee. I received the CD but it’s coming up as ‘unplayable’. I email  requesting a replacement CD as a matter of urgency.  I’ve had no acknowledgement of my email. Today I pay a professional company to check it – they say it’s encrypted and needs a password to open it. There’s no problem with the one I paid £10 for earlier. Any comment?

Clearly what we’re dealing with is not a few isolated instances of improper conduct.  It is a systemic culture of corruption. I’ve listed 9 points above, I could easily list another 10 cases of serious shortcomings in OS customer service.

I’ve kept you fully informed of all these failures in upholding the minimum standards of ‘decency and fairness’. You’ve failed to intervene to stop the abuses and corruption cited above. As the person ultimately responsible for everything done in the name of the OS-Communication, you become complicit in the illegal and improper conduct I’ve described.

To do nothing would be a dereliction of duty, the ultimate irresponsibility. I’m informed my case has now been handed to the Customer Relations Team.  How this relates to my pending complaints about the OS collectively and individually, is unclear. The CR Team have no power to take retrospective action in relation to a company that one complains about. I seek retrospective action against the Ombudsman, not Sky.

My new case review officer, ***** ******, a member of this elite Customer Relations Team, emails to say she’s struggling with my ‘complex case’. I’m not surprised – it is complex: it lasted for 27/28 weeks. I suggested she consult either COMMUNICATIONS SECTOR EXPERT ***** ***** or me. Having spent at least 400 hours working on this case, (10 times longer than Brady) I know more about it than any OS officer.

There’s just one snag: the Customer Relations Team (set up as a PR exercise?) can’t speak to me on the phone because they are not: ‘Customer facing people’. I’m told this quaint phrase (one I’m now becoming very familiar with) means they’re not allowed to speak to me. Perhaps you can explain the curious logic of this?

Everybody at OS has ignored the serious charges I’ve made in a series of emails over the last 5 weeks.

As I’ve commented before, comparisons with the Financial Ombudsman are instructive. The FO’s website stresses ‘decency’ and fairness’ – the language is simple. Phone their number, and you’re greeted by a simple, welcoming message from ****** ******, the CEO. On the Home page, there’s a series of categories, one of which is ‘Our Aims and Values’. Click on this for a simply worded, accessible account of values like fairness and decency.

Your website has a logo and heading ‘Good for the Consumer and good for Business’. I’d endorse the 2^nd claim. You refer to ‘Mission’ statements and ‘stakeholders’ - business ‘speak’. The closest thing to the FO’s ‘Aims and Values’ is ‘Vision Mission [!] and Values’ which can only be accessed by 1^st clicking on ‘Terms of Reference’, and then on ‘Governance’.  On ‘Governance’, you find references to ‘reduce customer detriment’ and ‘our relationships with key stakeholders’. You click on ‘Customer Satisfaction research’ and get a Microsoft warning about opening an unprotected website. Disregarding that, you get a Power Point analysis/spreadsheet.

Now what could be simpler than that? I’m sure the average man in the street would have no problem.

Making sense of the different sections requires a good deal of expertise, and is time consuming. I looked briefly at the Independent Assessor’s role.  Initially, I got the impression the IA has no powers, can’t change a thing, and can only give the OS a ticking off. You start to think ‘why would I bother with the IA or spend any more time looking at the OS Customer Satisfaction survey?’ Fortunately, I returned to the latter and was amazed to read:

In over half of the cases we reviewed we increased the consolatory payment (often as we found additional maladministration), most frequently by £50 or less. Our highest award in addition to that already made by OS this year was £150.

It’s curious that no OS official drew my attention to this.

Like most people my understanding was that Ombudsman officials were public servants. Alex, an Ofcom advisor, certainly thought so. I gently corrected him: not according to the OS, I said.

Like most people, I hadn’t realised the OS was a private company. That also surprised Alex. ‘But,’ said an OS advisor, ‘we’re a non-profit making organisation.’ That’s irrelevant. Local Government officers, the police, the NHS are all public servants, but they are also non-profit making organisations.

Finally, like most people, I hadn’t realised the OS, and OS officers’ salaries are paid for by the companies they investigate.  Isn’t there a potential conflict of interest?

I hope the very serious charges made here will be addressed. If they are not, I will take appropriate actions.

Yours sincerely,

****** *****

PS I have previously substantiated all these charges in emails.

 

 We await Theresa May's intervention in her constituent's complaint with bated breath.

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

Farcical Ombudsmen / Farcical Ombudsman Services / Farcical Ombudsman Association / Farcical Government Monitoring. (716)

To the Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection

 / The Leader of the House of Commons

For Clarity - Attempt 716.

716. Farcical Ombudsmen / Farcical Ombudsman Services / Farcical Ombudsman Association / Farcical Government Monitoring.

Dear Yvonne Fovargue MP and Mrs Leadsom MP,

Today's newspaper headlines totally vindicated a former policeman who had said 9 years ago that there was pornography on Damien Green's Parliamentary computer.

"Damien Green was sacked because he, 'lied', Jeremy Hunt says as he attacks police over porn leaks." (The Telegraph 21/12/2017)

It speaks to the depth of the depravity when Jeremy Hunt of all people should then attack the police for in effect - whistleblowing - whistleblowing  that was to eventually reveal the truth about his lying, porn-watching former cabinet colleague.

Jeremy Hunt's totally morally bankrupt position on the moral low ground would seem to be that it is morally acceptable for a cabinet minister to watch pornography at the taxpayers' expense and then lie about it for nine years - also at the taxpayers' expense.

The way in which Mr Hunt's department treats whistleblowers is also scandalous.

Very little has been done to protect these principled individuals who chose at great cost to themselves to stand up and speak out against the corrupt practices of those vested interests. And so Anonymous Desk Top Reviewers at NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd. will continue to hand bewildered patients decisions that are beyond all known logic, safe in the knowledge that their appalling decisions are highly unlikely to ever be exposed.

"Damien Green's demise - the sexual harassment allegation and 9 year feud with police that ended his career." (The Telegraph 21/12/2017)

"Feud" would seem to be a strange choice of word in this context given that the police officer was 100% correct in what he had said - Damien Green had porn on his computer and then lied about it. The matter should have been dealt with nine years ago.

We suppose that it takes a decent person to do the decent thing. Clearly, Damien Green was not that person.

"Damien Green sacked because he lied, says Jeremy Hunt" (The Guardian 21/12/2017)

Does that mean that if he hadn't of lied he wouldn't have been sacked? Why did Mr Hunt omit to mention the bit about the pornography? Where is the transparency and accountability that Francis Maude said would be at the heart of all that this government does?

A fraudulent claim that itself surely should be investigated.

"May's nightmare before Christmas: Damien Green sacked over pornography claims." (The Independent 21/12/2017)

The Independent 's story carries a picture of a very smug-looking Prime Minister sitting on the front bench beside her, "right-hand man." She doesn't strike us as a person who is actually going to stand up, right wrongs and really challenge those vested interests she spoke so critically of in her conference speech..

Vested interests such as - private ombudsmen and their farcical schemes.

"Prime Minister sacks deputy Damien Green after report finds he lied when he said there was no porn on his Parliamentary computer as detective who found it nine years ago finally gets his man." (Daily Mail 21/12/2012)

Our campaign for a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property has only been going on for seven years and so we still have someway to go.

Along the way we were assured by the OFT monitors of the government approved Ombudsman Services:Property scheme that that not only would the same customer satisfaction questions be asked about this private redress scheme's performance in handling consumers' complaints but that there would be extra ones about its website.

Really? Where are they? Look for yourself they simply aren't there. 

For two years there no questions whatsoever.

We tried asking the OFT and then the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and now the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy what were those government monitors actually monitoring? Porn? Their backsides?

Whatever it was it wasn't the alarming fact that consumer dissatisfaction levels with this private redress scheme had gone from 61% to 80%+.

Q. Mr Clark, isn't that as shameful and as disgraceful as Damien Green and his porn lie?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number 510458.

The Ombudsmans61%percent Campaign is at www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

The Ombudsman Association and MoneySavingExpert's Recommendation for a Gold Standard in Ombudsmanship. (715)

715. The Ombudsman Association and MoneySavingExpert's Recommendation for a Gold Standard in Ombudsmen.

Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to read our blog about private ombudsmen and their schemes. 

Ombudsmen and their organisations have a strong aversion to answering questions. They are accountability institutions who work hard and succeed at not being held accountable.

This is the consumer protection landscape pre-Brexit - one where 80%+ property complainants at Ombudsman Services:Property thought theProperty Ombudsman's decision had been "unfair." (Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform p60)

We wrote to the Director of the Ombudsman Association on 21st April 2016:

Dear Director,

We did try writing to you earlier in our campaign to complain about the following:

Your Association - The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) - clearly state in its Rule, that to be an associate member each ombudsman scheme is required to have a Whistleblowing Policy.

This seemed fair and reasonable to us.

One member of you Board is CEO and Chief Ombudsman for Ombudsman Services. Ombudsman Services does not have a Whistleblowing Policy.

Q. Why is this person a Board member when the scheme for which he is CEO does not have a Whistleblowing Policy?

Q. Why is Ombudsman Services permitted to remain a member of your organisation when it doesn't have a Whistleblowing Policy?

We were told be the BIOA secretary that he, "was in the process of reconfirming the membership of all existing members" and "could not help us further."

In short, you did nothing about the Ombudsman Services' deliberate breach of

your own Rules.

It would seem that when a member - Ombudsman Services - breaks your Rules  of Membership, instead of expelling that member you simply amend the Rules to accommodate them. And thus it became no longer a requirement for your members to have a Whistleblowing Policy.

The BIOA - now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association - state in their present day Rules; "The Ombudsman Association will only give recognition to Ombudsman's Offices whose primary role is to handle complaints about; unfair treatment, poor service, maladministration or other inequitable conduct of those subject to investigation."

(www.ombudsmanassociation.org/doc/OA-Rules-Schedule1)

You will be shocked to learn that last year that the Ombudsman Association's Independent Assessor wrote the following,

"I was concerned by the scale and significance of the failings I found in certain cases. I was surprised to find such instances of maladministration in an ombudsman organisation."

(For The Good - annual report and accounts 2014-15)

The Independent Assessor was surprised by the scale and significance of maladministration.

We weren't in the least bit surprised because we've had dealings with this organisation and the scale and significance of the maladministration comes as no surprise to us whatsoever.

However, if the BIOA (now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association) had acted on our earlier complaint a significant number of consumers might have been spared; the inadequate conduct, the poor service, the unfair treatment and the maladministration of their complaints by Ombudsman Services.

Q. What do you intend to do about these instances of maladministration by your Board Chairman? Cover them up again?

Yours sincerely,

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

cc. To the MP for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.

We didn't get a reply to that either but it must of huge concern those who still believe they're living in the mother of all democracies to learn that those private ombudsman schemes that now make the Rules - and determine civil justice - can break them so easily and with apparent total impunity.

What does that say about the quality and integrity so-called, "investigations" of consumer complaints conducted by individuals who arbitrarily ditch Whistleblowing Policies and engage in significant maladministration?

And what does it say about MoneySavingExpert's Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform - recommendation that: The Ombudsman Association should become one of the bodies that determines a Gold Standard in Ombudsmanship?

Our recommendation is that there urgently needs to be a public inquiry into scheming ombudsmen and their farcical schemes.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert. - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services / Farcical Ombudsmen - The Consumer Need For A Public Inquiry. (714)

 

CASE STUDY - 510458:

INTRODUCTION:

On page 399 - 6.2 Lesson 2: Evaluation has political consequences - the authors tell us,

"Because the various stakeholders are likely to have conflicting interests in the outcome of the ombudsman evaluation it is crucial to find an evaluator who is both technically competent at evaluation and has respect and trust of the key legitimate stakeholders ... the results of an evaluation become more convincing when these biases are explicitly acknowledged."

And,

"One of the key biases in studying ombudsman offices is the positive image many people have of the ombudsman as a fighter for the underdog, for the victim of the uncaring, or even malevolent, governmental bureaucracy. Officials. asked whether they read the ombudsman report and sometimes learn from it as well, know the politically correct response is, 'Yes, of course."

(Steven E Aufrecht and Marc Hertogh in Righting Wrongs: The Ombudsman In 6 Continents edited by Roy Gregory and Philip Giddings p399)

When asking: Why Do It Anyway? they suggest that,

"what is really need is qualitative data - interviews, case studies, surveys and other interpretation of data, all of which are themselves subject to challenge and interpretation." (p400)

Crucially, they add,

"....Above all this often calls for creativity and tenacity; researchers should not be satisfied too easily."

(Steven E Aufrecht and Marc Hertogh p399)

Something that MoneySavingExpert would seem to have singularly failed to do when arriving at their remarkable recommendation in Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform that the two organisations that had so scandalously failed to hold ombudsmen to account - The Ombudsman Association and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy - should now be responsible for determining a "Gold Standard" for them

.

We have said previously that this would be akin to putting the Kray Twins in charge of policing in the East End of London.

It now appears consumers need protection from self-appointed experts in self-appointed ombudsmen and their schemes.

Meanwhile, the private state within the state - the private self-regulating ombudsman market in so-called, "civil justice" - goes from strength to strength aided and abetted by those they so easily dupe.

We complained to the Chair of Ombudsman Services about the ludicrous outcome of our complaint made to the company's Property Ombudsman. The Chair passed the complaint to the CEO and Chief Ombudsman who promptly passed it back to the Property Ombudsman who told us she already answered our questions and to go elsewhere.

Passing the buck is an extremely effective way of resolving complaints about complaints.

To the Chair of Ombudsman Services,

It would appear that our letter of complaint addressed to you at Ombudsman Services and sent four months ago, failed to arrive. We shall therefore set out our complaints by way of email.

The Annual Minutes for 2009 clearly show staff at the service were presented with a sudden and huge extra amount of work. That, "due to a range of complicated factors the company was experiencing pressures that required careful management."

Also, "The company was hit by the biggest increase in complaint numbers it had ever seen. This was a challenge to our people. processes and structure." Yet in spite of this unforeseen challenge the CEO and Chief Ombudsman confidently announced, "We have a superb model that provides high quality outcomes to consumer complaints." (Minutes June 2009) 

On the other hand, DJS Research's Pilot Study 2009 shows that far from receiving, "high quality outcomes" an overwhelming number of complainants thought the service had failed them.

The SOS website under: Our Service Standards directs the dissatisfied complainant to the Independent Assessor should they remain unhappy with the service they'd received. As we are part of the majority - the 61% according to DJS Research - who remain unhappy with this service and in particular the Property Ombudsman's Final Decision, there are a number of issues we should like to raise with you.

The company's literature promised the complainant that the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (SOS) as it was then known, was entirely independent and could be trusted to be, "fair." We should like to set out below our reasons for now believing why these claims are wholly misleading.

The Executive Director of the OFT has said, "The SOS scheme successfully met the criteria applied by the OFT. Buying and selling a home is a significant and complex transaction so it is good news that from October there will be access to free, easily accessible and speedy redress schemes that will ensure fairness and transparency."

The keywords; speedy, ensure, fairness and transparency are benchmark criteria not only for the OFT but for complainants who have chosen to turn to this service in an attempt to resolve their complaint.

We should like to begin by complaining about a number of misleading statements in your document  "Our service standards ...what to expect from us when we deal with a complaint between a consumer and a member company (a) we resolve disputes fairly and quickly."

According to our experience and DJS Research's Customer satisfaction Reports, neither statement is true.

DJS Research has shown that: (6.22) "Most - 61% - felt the outcome was against them - 43% - felt it was completely against them."

Q1 How do you equate, "fairness" with the fact that most of the complainants felt that the Property Ombudsman found in favour of her Members?

Q2 How do you account for the fact that although complainant after complainant failed in their complaint, the Independent Assessor, only had to make one small award against the Property Ombudsman?

Just as damning, DJS Research continue (8.24) "to be effective the SOS (now OS:Property) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the consensus of opinion."

Q3 How do you explain this lack of effectiveness?

Q4 How do you account for the arbitrator's lack of impartiality?

Q5 How can this in any way be described as being, "fair?"

Q6 How can the OFT's claim that this particular redress scheme will, ensure them fairness and transparency be justified in the light of DJS Research's findings?

Regarding the speed of process, DJS Research show (6.18) "a quarter were very dissatisfied with the speed of the process." (9.14) "cases often took longer to reach a conclusion than complainants had expected. In actual fact cases tended to last 3-6 months or more 71%." This is far from speedy yet the OFT has said the SOS will, "ensure" it.

The Independent Assessor's 2010 report stated, ""I am aware that the services have experienced high demand and that the staffing levels have taken a while to catch up." It is now clear that complainants, who at such a crucial time financially and emotionally, have turned to this service for help but would have been completely unaware that investigating officers were firefighting.

Q7 Is it  because management had totally failed to anticipate that their members would be dispatching their clients in quite such huge numbers?

Q8 Would this not have put a dramatic strain on the ability of investigators to investigate complaints fairly?

It must have been an extremely stressful environment in which to come to work and difficult when there, to ensure that each case got the full and undivided attention it deserved.

Q9 Does this apparent state of chaos help in some way to explain the bizarre Provisional Conclusion at arrived at in our case?

"Case Rf 510458 19th November 2009

After considering the evidence my view is (the RICS Member Firm) should take certain actions to resolve your complaint. My reasons for this and the proposed remedy are set out in the attached report."

Amazingly, by the end of the report this had all changed to one where (the RICS Member Firm) need, "take no further action."  We asked the Property Ombudsman for an explanation for this sudden turnaround in our and the Firm's fortunes. We were told that there had been, "a clerical error." That was all we were told. There was no explanation of, or reason for, this apparent administrative error.

At such a crucial time for me and my family, the fact that Ombudsman Services:Property did not consider it appropriate to offer either an explanation or an apology shows a staggering degree of insensitivity. We were told, "You can still follow other routes to try to sort out your complaint in a way that suits you better."

Q10 I asked who had intervened to over-rule the original conclusion but was never given a reply. Why not? How is this in any way, "fair" or "transparent?"

Q11 How do you, as Chair, account for OS:Property's failure to deliver on this very basic standard of service - to resolve complaints fairly and speedily?

Isn't the Ombudsman Services:Property statement we've highlighted simply misleading the consumer into expecting a service from SOS (now OS:Property) which it was incapable of delivering?

The company states, "We are not on the side of either company or the customer." In light of what has already been said isn't it stretching credibility to breaking point to for the complainant to have any confidence whatsoever in that statement? Especially, in light of the fact that the SOS was set up by The RICS to investigate complaints made against its Members.

Q12 How can this statement be true when two of the board members are RICS members?

Q13 How can this in any way be an, independent service?

DJS Research found that, "61% felt the outcome was against them." In its "Further Representations" section - 6.23 - it provides these alarming statistics:

- 64% of cases went to the further representation process.

- 61% felt the investigator had not understood the nature of the complaint.

- 47% felt there were errors in the report.

- 91% felt this did not change the conclusion.

Q14 Isn't the above claim - to be neither on the side of the Member or that of the Claimant - demolished by your very own evidence?

Q15 If the dispute resolution service were indeed as independent as is claimed wouldn't there be a dramatically different set of statistics sitting in the Annual Report?

Q16 How else can the statistics provided by DJS Research be interpreted? Surely not as part of a, "superb model" providing high quality outcomes?

Of course if you happen to be a fee-paying Member this is indeed value for money.

It is the complainant after all who is bringing the complaint - not the Member. At some previous point the Member has been paid in full by their client who quite clearly hasn't received the service they were led to expect. In bringing a complaint to Ombudsman Services:Property it would appear that the odds are stacked overwhelmingly in favour of the fee-paying Member.

The claims for independence seem to be further weakened by the minutes of meetings for 2009 - www,ombudsman-services.org. Minutes for 15th December 2009 5.8 "The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards."

Q17 Surely, shouldn't awards always be made on the merits of each case?

Q18 And if they're not how are they arrived at - a negotiation between fee-paying Member and their Ombudsman?

At Ombudsman Services:Property award levels do not seem to be the subject of inflationary pressures.

Q19 As Chair, why do you think there is some concern over the level of awards being too high?

Q20 Wouldn't the complainant have greater cause for optimism in this service's ability to deliver on its promises - to be fair and independent - had the Chief Executive expressed some concerns over the pitifully low level of awards being handed to complainants?

The service assured complainants that it is fair and independent. So why hasn't the Chief Executive:

Q21 Made his concerns known to the Member Boards about the high numbers of complainants who hadn't so much as received an apology from the Member they had had cause to complain about?

Q22 Is that not an extraordinary admission of a total lack of impartiality from the Chief Executive of an organisation claiming to sit in the middle between Member Firm and complainant?

It is quite obvious that the Property Ombudsman is under constant close scrutiny and this is especially so when it comes to the levels of financial award she might choose to make.

Q23 Isn't there a pressure to make no financial award at all?

It is difficult not to arrive at this conclusion at that conclusion when you read -

"6.2 The Member Board Chairman will require a rationale explaining why costs are higher in 2010/11 than in 2009/10"

Those at the top of the organisation clearly place costs before justice. The CEO stated in the Annual Report,

"We didn't have the staff or processes in place to deal with the sudden increase in complaints" And, "We have now developed a relationship with an outside contractor which helped us clear our stock of work."

Q24 Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with a dispute resolution service that views complainants as a stock of work? And not as individuals, who having been through one traumatic experience are about to experience yet another one?

Q25 As an eminent sociologist who has written about the family are you not concerned about the impact this organisation is having upon the lives of the families it has failed?

Q26 Just what is important here for the Ombudsman Services, "brands?" To ensure a, "fair" and "transparent" service for the complainant or to keep the cost of awards and the service down for - in this case - RICS fee-paying Members?

The answer seems to lie in the 2010 Annual Report,

"Money comes from annual membership subscriptions and case fees.... We must ensure that the Members know we are spending their money wisely and that they have a well run, efficient service that adds real quality to their own business practices."

There is no mention of the complainant's requirements in all of this.

Anyone reading the written record - the minutes of meetings and Annual Reports - couldn't help but notice the almost total absence of concern for the complainant or acknowledgement of their very existence. Families have become work stock. Money, inadequate IT, rebranding and expanding business models seems uppermost on senior executives' minds. The minutes of the July meeting are interesting for what they reveal about Ombudsman Services. They say,

"The agreed budget is passed to the Finance Board which facilitates discussion with the Member Boards on the distribution of costs. If they cannot reach agreement there is a mechanism for the dispute to go to arbitration."

In other words the biggest dog gets the biggest bone.

Q27 Where is the OFT's fairness and transparency in this?

It seems incredible that a service set up to resolve disputes fairly should ever have the need itself to go to arbitration.

Q28 Does it not suggest that a great deal of importance is attached to the discussions that take place over costs?

There would not appear to be a corresponding sense of urgency to act on the findings of the DJS Research into customer (dis)satisfaction.

Q29 Is it not true that a consumer complaining to OS:Property is quite likely to suffer an injustice due to a drive by the executive officers to keep costs down?

Q30 Is it not also true that the costs of awards and the level of work stock seem to be uppermost in the minds of management?

What the minutes and reports offer is a short history of chaos at Ombudsman Services where the consumer barely warrants a mention. We're reduced to the status of work stock.

Q31 Doesn't this in some way account for the finding that 61% of complainants believe the Property Ombudsman's findings are against them?

In our case it wasn't until we made a Subject Access / Data Protection Act request that we began to see the full extent of what we were up against. It was the first time we'd seen 20 statements made by the RICS Member Firm. We tried to challenge these newly discovered statements but without success.

It now seems very clear that for any complainant, once they'd travelled that far along the company's conveyor belt it's already too late in the day for them.

We believe that a truly impartial, fair minded and independent arbitrator would have seen that the two accounts - ours and the Property Ombudsman's fee-paying Member's - were poles apart.

Surely, such an arbitrator would have done the logical thing and appointed an independent surveyor to provide independent evidence upon which the Property Ombudsman could arrive at a "fair" decision based on independent facts.

We have said in our correspondence with the Property Ombudsman that a child could see through this and would have had no trouble in spotting the inherent unfairness. But the logical course of action - a site visit - didn't happen. There was NO attempt at mediation. A fact highlighted in DJS Research's independent research

Q32 Is it not the case that mediation incurs a cost that would be unacceptable to your company's fee-paying RICS Members?

Q33 How many site visits, expert reports and face-to-face meetings take place each year?

Q34 Why aren't statistics for each of these included in the Annual Report?

Q35 Would it not make for greater fairness and transparency if such visits and face-to-face meetings were built into the process?

Q36 Wouldn't it lead to a greater confidence in the organisation's ability to deliver on its promises of, "fairness" "speed" and "transparency?" Why don't these courses of action get a mention in your booklet - Resolving complaints fairly?

Q37 Would it not also drive up standards, dramatically improve investigations and lead to less complainant dissatisfaction?

Is there any wonder that there are such dramatically low levels of complainant satisfaction with a dispute resolution service funded and part run by its Members. It seems clear that cases are aren't being judged on their individual merits but are subject to some sort of cost benefit analysis - one in which the Members benefit and the complainant is left to carry the cost.

Q38 In reality aren't our reforms far too expensive for this company to contemplate - preoccupied as you are with rising levels of award and costs rationales - and in any case you already know that your fee-paying Members would simply not agree to such a degree of transparency?

In a message sent by our RICS surveyor - 12 November: Message from SOS - case 510458 - the surveyor states,

"Further to the above claim I drove by yesterday and noted the concrete tiles have now been removed and the roof re-felted and battened and ready for re-slating as shown in the attached photographs .... as a result we would be unable to re-inspect with an independent surveyor as the alleged defects have been removed .... as a result we would be unable to carry out the minor woks in my response to him to try and resolve his complaint."

There were no slates so it remains a mystery as to how he knew we were replacing concrete tile with slates.

Q39 Why do you think this RICS surveyor is expressing his regret at being unable to re-inspect our home with an independent surveyor this late in the day? Why was this not suggested when we first complained?

Q40 Why didn't the RICS surveyor mention all the other problems that could still have been re-inspected by an independent surveyor?

Q41 More importantly, why was he allowed to keep us waiting for so long?

Q42 In effect isn't the present system designed that way by RICS surveyors in order to benefit RICS surveyors?

Q43 Surely, a disclosure of information must take place early on and an opportunity for re-inspection built into the process and long before the Provisional Conclusion is issued?

Q44 What are your views on The RICS Rules of Conduct - relating to customer care and integrity - especially after our surveyor had said that he had refused to write, phone or visit us, his clients, and then promptly photographs that client's home on at least two separate occasions?

Q45 Why would The RICS Firm we'd employed offer to fix things if they weren't broken and doesn't this imply there were severe failings with the original report?

In his message to the Property Ombudsman our surveyor's conscience appeared to be troubled at being unable, "to re-inspect with an independent surveyor" or carry out, "minor repairs." Yet 10 days previously in a message dated 02 November 15:15 Message SOS - Case 510458 - his tone was somewhat different,

"20. He has suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case."

(We have contacted our surveyor to ask for clarification on this matter but nothing so far!)

"He has chosen not to accept our advice following inspection ....has since chosen to contact us on every issue that has been reported to him by others .... we have tried to address these and put his mind at rest but he still chooses to become concerned about comments from builders who appear to be looking for work ... he has purchased a damp meter which he is using to test all areas himself ... we have therefore done all we can ... he is not willing to take our advice."

Q46 Does this sound like a man desperate to, "re-inspect with an independent surveyor" or carry out repairs no matter how, "minor?"

Q47 We would appreciate your views on these conflicting accounts?

Q48 Doesn't the way the present system operates actually encourage this sort of conduct?

All the, "issues" pointed out by the builders should surely have been reported on in the original survey. This was a full structural survey not a drive by survey. We still wonder in the light of all of this how your Independent Assessor can so confidently maintain in his Annual Report that, "it is necessary  to demonstrate factually how bias might be present. No one has done so."

If, as is claimed, "fairness and transparency" are the driving forces behind this, "superb model" then,

Q49 If all the cases that the Property Ombudsman had investigated merited a £25.000 award then surely isn't that what each complainant should have received?

The Annual Report 2010: Awards and  Breakdown 2009-10 states that,

"The number of financial awards has slightly decreased by 3%" It goes on to say, "71% of Final Decisions contained a financial award."

Q50 Why doesn't the Table, reproduced on page 6, also say 29% of complainants did not get a financial award, this after all was almost a third of all complainants?

The claim to be fair and transparent is further undermined by the way Ombudsman Services:Property hide bad news.  The statistics produced by DJS Research are truly shocking - for the complainant.

Q51 Why is this statistic -29% - not included in the colour table provided as it was one of the biggest groups?

Q52 Isn't Ombudsman Services not actually involved in a deception - one where uncomfortable news is hidden from the complainant?

Q53 Is it not the case that an increase of awards in one area of OS  has a detrimental effect on another?

Q54 Is each Member Service really independent of the others?

Q55 Does it explain why financial awards for OS:Property are so abysmally low- and is it not the case that awards are arrived at in a totally arbitrary fashion and after taking the Chief Executive's expression of some concern over the recent rises into account?

Q56 Why is there a limit of £25.000? Is that not also totally arbitrary?

Q57 Why is there no transparency regarding how these so-called awards are arrived at?

As a sociologist these facts must trouble you. How do you interpret them?

Against a background where the Chief Executive voices concerns about the rising levels of award and Member Board Chairmen want a rationale as to why costs were higher, the Property Ombudsman stated in the 2010 Annual Review,

"We will always need to ensure that the resolution we offer is the right one but during a strained economic climate our outcomes are looked at more closely. The stakes are not only high for the consumer - because their home is important to them - but our decisions have important ramifications for property professionals. It can be of great consequence for them to pay out to a complainant, especially as the maximum award is £25.000."  

This is extraordinary.

It implies a less-than-independent concern to appease the Members whose fees pay for the service and the Property Ombudsman's salary. This seems a long from being a fully independent service one that ensures the right resolution in every case.

Q58 If the consequence of the Member's actions requires a £25.000 financial award as a fair resolution then why on earth does a strained economic climate have to do with it?

Complainants are being victimised twice. Once by inadequately regulated and incompetent surveyors who provide substandard service. And then, for a second time when they either get an illogical decision and no award or one substantially reduced to reflect a, "strained economic climate."

Q59. At this time of economic strain and when the level of awards went down, did the Chief Executive's also go down by 3%?

The company's literature states that, "The investigating officers and Ombudsman will clearly explain the reason for their decision."

Q60 If that were the case why did DJS Research find (9.15) "The majority disagreed that the Ombudsman had helped sort out their problem?"

Q61 If your staff are clearly explaining their decisions why did DJS Research's findings also reveal that (6.23) "61% felt that the investigator had not understood the nature of their complaint?"

Q62 How did your staff explain to complainants why their conclusions weren't arrived at in a logical manner?

This would seem to bear little relationship to what the Chief Executive has described as a superb model. A complete breakdown of awards should be shown in the literature sent out to the prospective complainant. That would enable them to make a more informed choice as to whether to follow this route - or far more sensibly - go elsewhere.

Complainants are told, "Where an Ombudsman has made a Final Decision there is no further appeal." Again this is misleading complainants. There is the opportunity to appeal the Final Decision as set out in the Terms of Reference: (11.3) "In relation to any matter forming the subject of a complaint in respect of which the Ombudsman has reached a Final Decision or Concluded Complaint the Ombudsman shall not accept or consider;

(b) a request to reconsider the Concluded Complaint, unless in exceptional circumstances, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that (I) significant evidence of facts not available at the time of or taken into account in the Ombudsman's consideration of the Concluded Complaint have come to the attention of the Ombudsman, and (ii) had such evidence or facts been so available or taken into account it is reasonably likely that the decision or conclusion reached in relation to the Concluded Complaint would have been substantially different.."

Q63 Why is the complainant being told by the SOS - now rebranded as OS:Property - that they cannot challenge the Final Decision when in the Terms of Reference it states that they can?

Q64 Why is this also further complicated by calling a Final Decision a Concluded Complaint?

Q65 Why isn't the complainant told at an early stage that they had the right to challenge the Ombudsman's Final Decision - after all -most complainants do just exactly that?

To discover that this is in fact the case the complainant has to somehow become aware that this information is tucked away on the organisation's website.

Q66 Do you not believe that there is a remarkable similarity between the confusing nature of Ombudsman Services:Property's literature and the confusing nature of 61% of its decisions in property complaints?

The literature continues with,

"(e) For example, we want to hear from you if you think, in handling the case, we have;

- treated you rudely or unfairly,

- failed to keep you updated on progress,

- caused unnecessary delays,

We take complaints like this about our service very seriously."  

Q67 How can the SOS - OS:Property - justify the claim that they take complaints like this, "very seriously" when you appear to have done nothing about it?

Q68 Isn't this again misleading the complainant into believing that the service they're about to get is far better than it actually is?

Q69 Why hasn't Ombudsman Services:Property listened to the independent research it sanctioned and acted swiftly to implement the very many improvements it recommended?

"(f) Each year the Independent Assessor produces a report, setting out his findings and recommendations on complaints during the year. His report is published in full in our Annual Review."

The Independent Assessor wrote,

"I also explain that, while it is easy to assert bias it is necessary to demonstrate factually how bias might be present. No one has done so."

We have previously said that we believe this organisation is not fit for purpose. That it systematically fails the consumer, deliberately avoids answering questions or if it does eventually provide some answers that they make little or no sense. Or as DJS Research so alarmingly are not arrived at in a logical manner.

It is remarkable that in 61% of 260 cases there wasn't one example of bias.

Q70 If bias isn't a major contributing factor how would you explain the huge levels of complainant dissatisfaction with the way in which their complaints were investigated?

In the 2010 Annual Report the Independent Assessor goes on to say.

"Likewise some complainants consider the redress awarded by the Ombudsman is insufficient because it does not provide an incentive for the firm to improve its performance. In other words a complainant wants to see a firm penalised when a financial award is made."

That doesn't appear to be what was reported in the DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports.

Q71 What does provide an incentive for your fee-paying Member Firms to improve?

Q72 Isn't the failure to disclose information to the complainant a major contributing factor to the high levels of complainant dissatisfaction with this service?

The company's Terms of Reference state,

"(7.3) Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure."

Not only didn't we get the other party's information we didn't get a reason for its non-disclosure either.

None of the information contained in our surveyor's two messages of 12 and 12 November was disclosed to us. We didn't get a reason for their non-disclosure. You appear to have created a perfect Catch 22 situation one in which the complainant will never know what's being said between the Ombudsman and her fee-paying Member because she hasn't disclosed it to them or given them a reason for not disclosing it and as a result the complainant clearly can't request what they don't know exists.

Seems pretty biased to us.

Q73 Why wasn't the above information disclosed to us?

Q74 Doesn't it turn the process into a complete lottery for the complainant and significantly account for the shockingly high levels of consumer dissatisfaction?

Q75 Doesn't it explain why complainants felt the nature of their complaint was misunderstood, why they challenged the Provisional Conclusion and Final Decision and why they desperately tried to provide the Property Ombudsman with further information?

Sadly they were already too far down the company's conveyor belt to be able to do anything about it.  

Q76 Doesn't the literature lull the potential complainant into a false sense of security - one which ensures them of an, "independent" and "fair" investigation of their complaint but fails to mention the myriad of pitfalls along the way pitfalls that will prevent that from happening. And by the time they come to realise just exactly what it is they're up against it will already be too late for them to do anything about it?

- Complainants do not have an automatic right to access information.

- Do not know what the other party is writing or saying about them.

And,

- The burden placed upon them to prove their case is monumental.

We only got to see what the RICS surveyor we'd employed had written about us and our complaint after we'd requested information under the data Protection Act.

It was only then that we discovered our surveyor had been photographing our home, probably from the inside of our back garden. This was done after he'd given a written undertaking that he would no longer be writing, phoning or visiting our home. What he had been sending his Ombudsman was, we believe, both inaccurate and misleading.

Q77 Do you think it difficult, if not impossible, to make a case without proper recourse to the information?

Q78 If this is not a case of, "bias" what then is it?

Q79 Is it not the case that it is ridiculously easy for the RICS fee-paying Member to defend their position and virtually impossible for the complainant to attack it?

Q80. Did The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors - RICS- not set it up that way from the beginning?

The Executive Director of the OFT's assurances that complainants would receive a; speedy, free and independent investigation of their complaint isn't bourn out the evidence provided independently by DJS Research.

Evidence is simply sat on by the Property Ombudsman and not passed to the complainant.

Q81 How does that rest with The OFT's further assurances to the complainant that the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme will be a beacon of, "fairness" and "transparency?"

The only time the complainant has an inkling of what's been said and written about them is when the Provisional Conclusion drops through their letter box. And then this is only a partial picture because the Property Ombudsman appears to have been filtering and misrepresenting the information put in front of her.

That this scheme is patently unfair is underlined by what is said in, "Resolving complaints fairly" - what if I provide some information to you in confidence? It tells the complainant, "If you believe some information should be kept confidential between you and us, you should mark that information clearly and tell us why we should not pass it to the other party. We will consider your request - but may not agree to it."

"Confidentiality" between the Property Ombudsman and complainants is a myth.

Q82 Isn't the fact that the fee-paying RICS Member is not subject to a similar

stricture yet another example of pro-Member bias - otherwise wouldn't things be very different?

Under this regime the complainant will never know what is being said or written about them. The arbitrary nature of all this seems to stand in stark contrast to what most of us believe to be British justice. As this is a private company dispensing what it decides is private civil justice Ombudsman Services:Property even evades the degree of accountability, transparency and scrutiny afforded by the Freedom of Information Act. Ombudsman Services:Property even refused to disclose just how many telephone conversations there had been between them and their fee-paying RICS Member.

Private ombudsman schemes are putting British justice in the dock.

Q83 Does this not account for the huge dissatisfaction expressed by complainants about the contents of the Provisional Conclusion Report?

Q84 If this is to be a, "fair" and "independent" service why aren't all documents disclosed to the complainant?

Q85 Is the reason why this is not done down to the photocopying bill being to high - a cost not acceptable to a Chief Executive who is ever mindful of his members' need to know that he is spending their money wisely?

Q86 Or is it because it would introduce an unacceptable level of transparency into the system and make it slightly easier for complainants to hold the Property Ombudsman to account for her illogical Final Decisions?

Q87 Is it not the case that the people who set up the processes rigged them in favour of their RICS fee-paying Members - otherwise would it be a very different scheme?

It is a matter of institutional injustice that the Property Ombudsman was not, "minded" to disclose her Member's statements to us.

We would ask you as Chairman of this service, was it not the, "duty" of the Ombudsman as set out in the company's Terms of Reference to disclose such information eg

"8.6: In handling complaints, carrying out investigations and reaching any Final Decision (as provided for here under)

(a) to proceed fairly and in accordance with natural justice.

(b) to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to principles of law, good practice, equitable conduct and good administration.

(e) to have regard to any applicable rule of law, the terms of a relevant contract or practice any guidance of a general nature given by the Council what is in the Ombudsman's opinion best practice in handling complaints,an

(f) to give reasons for any decisions made or conclusions reached.

Q88 We asked the Property Ombudsman: 'was agreeing to carry out essential repairs to our home not a tacit acceptance that their original survey was not of a satisfactory standard?' Why didn't we get an answer to that question?

Q89 We asked the Independent Assessor to comment on the professional integrity of The RICS Member surveyor, given the Property Ombudsman's statement that,

"I did not look at the photographs" And, "Your view seems to be that external photographs taken without express permission are somehow inadmissible because they amount to evidence gathered in a suspect way"  when she knew that her fee-paying had previously said he would not come to our home again but obviously did in order to take yet more photographs.

We tried  pointing out to the Independent Assessor that we knew what we thought but that neither of us was the Property Ombudsman. We knew that a teacher standing outside a pupil's home photographing it would be in serious trouble but that the same standards did not appear to apply to RICS surveyors.

The Property Ombudsman had the evidence in front of her but seemed to have seen nothing remiss with it.

The Independent Assessor's response was,

"The Terms of Reference of the service, which can be downloaded from the website, provide that the procedure for the conduct of an investigation will be such as the Ombudsman considers appropriate subject, in brief, to the duty to proceed fairly, to make reasoned decisions, not to disclose details of a complaint except in certain circumstances and to have any regard to rule of law, contract, code of conduct."

That is not what the Terms of Reference say (please go to 7.3 under question 72 above)

On 24th August the Property Ombudsman wrote to us saying,

"I reiterate that the question of whether the Firm has acted in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct required is a matter for the professional body concerned, which in this case would be RICS."

Yet the Terms of Reference (10b) state, that the duty of the ombudsman is;

"To report to the RICS Regulatory Board any cases which involve serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by RICS Member Firms."

We believe that there are two issues here.

Firstly, it is a matter for the Property Ombudsman - it is a duty - (of which she and her Independent Assessor appear to be totally unaware of) - to report breaches to the RICS Regulatory Board. Otherwise how are they ever going to know? It would be a remarkable turn of events should the RICS Member Firm report itself to RICS.

Secondly, if the Property Ombudsman didn't consider her Member Firm's actions to be serious enough to report to the RICS Regulatory Board, surely she should have said why. They are, after all, part of her duties and responsibilities as set out in the company's Terms of reference.

It is not, "a matter for the professional body" - it s a matter for her as Property Ombudsman, a duty. Opting out is not an option.

Q90 Is this not a case of institutional bias on the part of the Property Ombudsman?

The Property Ombudsman doesn't pass on complaints made about her to the Council, doesn't disclose information received from Members to complainants and doesn't report breaches of professional Rules of Conduct to The RICS Regulatory Board.

Q91 Is the Property Ombudsman not failing in her duties as an Ombudsman?

Q92 Does the pressure of having the Director of Professional Regulation for RICS sitting on the company's Board in any way influence the Property Ombudsman in these matters?

In the same correspondence (11/08/2010) the Property Ombudsman when responding to this issue of professional and business integrity - The RICS Gold Standard of Excellence and Integrity) informed us that,

"For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or my colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means we have refused to answer that question."

We asked the Independent Assessor if he could clarify this statement for us but he seemed reluctant or unable to do so.

Q93 If this is a working definition of clarity is it any wonder that the majority of complainants are so dissatisfied with the logic of the decision in their case?

Q94 How does that statement satisfy the Property Ombudsman's duty to give clear explanations and reasoned decisions?

Q95 Why are no statistics provided in the Annual Property report detailing how many Member Firms have been reported to The RICS Regulatory Board for breaches of the Rules of Conduct?

Q96 Would this not help to improve standards and drive up performance - or would fee-paying RICS Members simply refuse to countenance such a radical proposal?

The DJS Research: Member Survey pointed to a crucial area where surveyors' performance could be improved. At 10.41 they reported, "When Members were asked about satisfaction with the SOS (now rebranded OS:Property) satisfaction levels were low with just over half accepting complaints when appropriate, training/guidance on compiling a case file, efficiency of handling a case file and speed of case resolution."

And,

"Members were contacted more regularly than complainants."

Q97 Why? Is this not also a form of bias?

The simple truth of the matter is that properly maintained case files are not kept because they contain important information. which at some future date could be used to verify what was or wasn't said, what visits took place and was or wasn't agreed.

Unlike, doctors, teachers nurses or social workers there is no requirement to keep even the most basic record of events. Until, that is, the Client becomes the Complainant and has entered the Firm's Complaints handling procedure.

Q98 In this day and age isn't simply unacceptable that there is no requirement for a RICS Member to keep even the most rudimentary log of phone calls and site visits ?

Q99 Shouldn't it also be a basic requirement to confirm in writing what has been said or agreed on visits? Wouldn't it put an end to nonsense like this - Letter dated 30th June 2010 our ref - 510458 - from the Property Ombudsman,

"Your first recorded representation to the Firm was in December, although you now say you telephoned (the Member)  immediately after moving in."

Having disclosed our information to the Property Ombudsman, not only is this offensive, it is wrong. As there was no Case File entry to support the Property Ombudsman's observation, "You now say you telephoned (the Member) immediately after moving in." The Property Ombudsman not to have taken the trouble to read the letter.

What is very clear is that from the start of the process, the property Ombudsman was only too willing to accept her fee-paying Member's version of the events.

If she had taken the trouble to read our letter of 18th January she might have come to a more informed and balanced appreciation of the case. The letter stamped - Received - by Ombudsman Services:Property said,

"After the second visit to our home last summer you had assured me that you would be contacting me either by phone or letter. This has not happened ... The stain in the attic ceiling which I had been told (by the surveyor who was responsible for the survey) was probably staining from fires lit over years, is indeed damp"

We tried to point out to the Property Ombudsman that a. "second visit in the summer" must logically have come before December. That it was a second visit implying there had been one before it. And that the person I was talking to about it was the original surveyor.

The Property Ombudsman has chosen to ignore the evidence placed in front of her.

There is no Case File record of any of this. We have asked The RICS Member Firm when the surveyor responsible for our full structural survey left the Firm and for a contact number so that some light might be thrown on this but without success. The key witness' role and evidence in our case has been deliberately withheld by the Firm with the tacit agreement of their Property Ombudsman.

Our case - 510458 - began with the Property Ombudsman not looking at the evidence and unquestioningly accepting her Member's version of the events and it ended that way.

Q100 Is that not, "bias" or "partiality?"

CONCLUSION:

The assurances given to the consumer by The OFT that this scheme will ensure a speedy, fair and transparent investigation of their complaints is simply not supported by the facts.

The company's booklet: Resolving complaints fairly is similarly misleading..

Consumers are now being mis-sold private alternative dispute redress.

A far more accurate picture of what really happens at this private scheme is painted by Julia,

"We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor to our complaint - please refer to the Surveyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eyewateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues! I really do want to tell my story if for nothing more than to help other people."

We believe that everyone who received an illogical Final Decision from the Property Ombudsman - and if Martin Lewis' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform statistics are correct they now stand at a staggering 80%+ - should be given that opportunity to tell their story through a public inquiry.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. A public inquiry into The RICS inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property.

2. Compensation for the victims of this company's Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and executives' maladministration.

3. The setting up of truly fair and independent redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number: 510458

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