Sharper Teeth: The Cnsumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (9) And The Consumer Need For A Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And Department For Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy At All Costs. (713)

 

713. Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (9)  And The Consumer Need For A New Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And Department For Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy At All Costs.

Ombudsmen do not like their illogical decisions to be challenged. They don not answer consumers' questions about those illogical decisions. Neither do their professional body - The Ombudsman Association. And nor does The Department For Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the former OFT. They are not transparent and appear to be becoming increasingly unaccountable. 

Trevor Buck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson tell us,

"Not only can ombudsmen fail due to error or incompetency but an ombudsman can also fail through timidity"

And,

"These are accountability institutions that are not accountable."

(The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice)

We would add, "and through the manipulation of data and rigging of redress."

Scheming Ombudsmen are fast becoming a private state within the state.

We asked the Secretary of The Ombudsman Association,

Q101 Hasn't the market in so-called dispute resolution at OS:Property become totally rigged in favour of RICS surveyors whose professional organisation - The RICS - set it up in the first place?

Q102 The RICS appointed Ombudsman Services:Property to resolve disputes that arose from its failure to enforce its Rules and Regulations. What role did it have in determining the Terms of Reference?

Q103 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association agree that whoever determined the company's Terms of Reference, the stipulation that financial awards must not be, "punitive" appears to be extremely beneficial to RICS Members and Regulated Firms?

Q104 At what point does compensation become punitive and thus a penalty?

Q105 Is it not extremely beneficial for RICS Members and Regulated Firms that there appear to be no criteria whatsoever - apart from not being punitive - as to how these financial awards are arrived at?

In the 2011 Annual Review under, 'Outcomes' the Property Ombudsman reports,

'In reviewing the last year, even though the average financial award is significantly less, the range of awards has not changed.'

Q106 Are the financial awards significantly less because the Chief Executive  intervened and let it be known that here had been, 'some concern over the recent rise in levels of awards?'

Q107 Of what possible comfort can it be to complainants to be told the range of awards had not changed after they'd been reduced, significantly?

Q108 Why is there no transparency regarding the way in which financial awards are determined?

The OFT Criterion 10 says: 'There must be a range of awards which take into account the level and type of detriment - the level and applicability of awards must be publicised.'

Q109 Ombudsman Services:Property appear to have maintained a range of awards but reduced the amount within them. Does The Ombudsman Association not agree that the company has failed to act on DJS Research's recommendation that awards be raised to be more in line with the loss incurred or complainants' expectations be managed more tightly at the beginning of the process? Why doesn't the table of awards for 2011 show that no-one received anything like £25.000?

(this requirement for a range of awards to be annually published ended with DJS Research losing the contract to produce Customer Satisfaction Reports)

Q110 Is it not a matter of significant concern for the consumer that it is the Property Ombudsman - who we are told often arrives at decisions in an illogical manner - who is tasked with determining the level of financial awards handed to complainants especially after hearing the Chief Executive express "some concern" over the recent rise in levels? 

We sought an explanation from the company's executives for the following statements made by the Property Ombudsman,

'You reiterate your question of the 16th July: Did you consider (The RICS Member's) unannounced visit to our home to gather photographic evidence (that was in the event deliberately misleading) to be professional and worthy of inclusion in helping you arrive at your Final Decision? In considering a complaint I will not reach a judgement on professional conduct which is a matter for the relevant body.' (letter dated 11th August 210)

And,

' I would reiterate that the question of whether (The RICS regulated 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 The RICS.' (letter dated 24th August 2010)

Surely, this incorrect and misleading.

The company's Terms of Reference state quite clearly in 10: Powers and Duties of the Ombudsman that it her duty,

'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.'

How will The RICS know their Member Firms have breached the Rules of Conduct if their Ombudsman doesn't tell them?

We asked the company's executives,

'Either the Ombudsman does not know her duties as an Ombudsman and therefore shouldn't be an Ombudsman or knows her duties as an Ombudsman and is deliberately misleading a member of the public. In which case she shouldn't be an Ombudsman.'

Neither the Chair of Ombudsman Services nor the CEO and Chief Ombudsman  have to date answered our complaint about the Property Ombudsman's interpretation of the company's Terms of Reference. No doubt you will be asking the CEO to account for this as it raises very serious issues of governance at Ombudsman Services.

The OFT Criterion 6 states,

'Complainants must also be kept informed of what their alternative or additional actions could be at each stage of the procedure.'

Q111 DJS Research shows widespread complainant dissatisfaction with the efficiency and speed of the process so why aren't complainants expectations being properly met?

Q112 There is only one stage and when the Provisional Conclusion Report is issued the consumer's choices seem somewhat limited and would appear to be: take it or leave it. Why aren't complainants being kept informed about these additional actions? Actions such as: resurveys, site visits, face-to-face meetings and/or oral hearings?

According to 2010 Annual Report:Property,

There were 465 contacts and of the 260 cases, "resolved" by the Property Ombudsman, 106 received nothing, 73 received less than £200 one lucky soul got almost £13.000 but the jackpot of £25K was carried over to the next year.

The Property Ombudsman - in one year - reduced these awards from £1.511.75p to £900. A staggering drop.

This is indeed adding real value to their Members business practices. And the contrast with the way in which The Property Ombudsman report on awards could not be starker.

This was not deemed worth mentioning in the Martin Lewis Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform.

Q113 Why don't the statistics also clearly tell us that the majority of, "successful" claimants received less than £200?

Q114 Isn't £200 far less than the cost of the average survey?

Q115 What happens when The RICS Member and Regulated Firm view the financial award as a, "penalty?"

Q116 What is the mechanism which permits unnamed individuals to express some concern over the levels of awards to the Chairman?

Q117 Is The RICS Members and Regulated Firms' concern over the levels of award expressed by their representatives who sit on the Board or does it come from those RICS officers who operate the Memorandum of Understanding and who monitor their appointed company for the effective resolution of disputes?

The RICS efficiency in monitoring the effective resolution of property disputes is in sharp contrast to their inability to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms.

The suggestion that the Property Ombudsman is, we believe, "entirely independent" is "entirely farcical."

Q118 Wouldn't a truly, "fair" and "independent" dispute resolution service have Terms of Reference which stated that financial awards would be made on the merits of each and every individual case?

A truly independent dispute resolution service would have no arbitrary upper limit designed primarily to protect inadequately regulated RICS Members and inadequately Regulated Firms from "punitive" and "disproportionate" financial awards along with their substandard surveys and practices that do not work in their customer's interests.

The Annual Report continues,

"We must ensure that the Members know that we are spending their money wisely and have a well-run service which adds real quality to their own business practices."

Q119 Does making the average level of financial awards significantly less help in adding that real quality to RICS fee-paying Members' business practices?

Business practices that The OFT state, "do not work in the customer's interests." The OFT  being overseen at that time by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (now rebranded as the BEIS)

Q120 Why is there no mention of the consumer in all of this? Why the constant pro-business bias to the quite obvious detriment of consumers?

After all, Chief Executives' salaries go up as average financial awards go down - significantly.

Q121 Surely, as stakeholders, the, "workstock"  have a have a right to a well-run efficient service - one that adds, "real quality" to the lives they would wish to lead if only they hadn't been blighted by inadequately regulated RICS surveyors and a Property Ombudsman with a compulsion to, "arrive at decisions in an illogical manner?"

Q122 And shouldn't the resources needed to carry out, "fair" and "independent" investigations of a complainant's case always be made available?

According to DJS Research this is NOT what happens at Ombudsman Services:Property.

Their 2010-11 and final Customer Satisfaction Report has this to say about the issues,

"In keeping with the trend throughout this complainant sector, sector satisfaction levels dropped across all the attributes we measured."

And,

"There remains a key issue with regards to complainants' perceptions of what recompense to expect. This should be looked at"

Q123 Why were DJS Research's independent recommendations not listened to?

Q124 Why did the Board chose instead to listen to expressions of concern about the rise in awards and cut them significantly?

Q125 How does that satisfy the Terms of Reference Integrity requirement for ensuring; straightforward dealing and completeness, based on honesty and objectivity and ensuring high standards of propriety in the conduct of the scheme's affairs and complaint decision making?

Q126 Hasn't DJS Research, over a period of three years, provided the Ombudsman Services Board with important information - data - concerning significant levels customer dissatisfaction and isn't it the case that this information hasn't been acted upon to improve the quality of investigations of consumers' complaints?

Otherwise things would be different.

To recap:

An unnamed individual (or individuals) express, "some concern" over the levels of award to the Chief Executive and the "independent" Ombudsman suddenly decides to lower them, "significantly."

Complainants, through DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports, express a great deal of concern about the abysmally low levels of financial award and the Ombudsman still reduces them significantly.

Power does not lie with the complainant.

The 2011 Ombudsman Services Annual Report at one point states,

"The board dropped the phrase member companies - used to describe businesses that have signed to our four schemes - as it  could be interpreted that these companies, which fund the organisation, had some influence over our decisions. As this is not the case they are now referred to as participating companies."

Q127 If it is not the case that Member companies, "had some influence over our decisions" why is the CEO recorded as saying that, "there had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards?" If that is not direct interference in the supposed independence of the Property Ombudsman, what is?

The evidence for this total lack of independence is there in black and white in the company's very own minutes - only they've now be removed from public scrutiny.

Q128 Why is the Chief Executive only voicing the concerns of one group of stakeholders?

Q129 Isn't The Ombudsman Association concerned about this bias?

Q130 How does this satisfy The Ombudsman  Association's governance requirements?

Q131 Why are the Ombudsman Services' Minutes no longer available for public scrutiny?

Q132. How does this satisfy The OFT Criterion 8 that - "The scheme's operation and its procedures must be transparent?

The Chair did not answer any of our questions but passed them to the CEO and Chief Ombudsman. He also chose not to answer our questions about the Property Ombudsman but chose instead to pass them back to the Property Ombudsman. She chose not to answer our questions or our complaint about her either.

This is how Ombudsman Services handle complaints about the way in which their Property Ombudsman handles complaints - complaints which often end  an illogical manner.

There is a certain logic to it.

An example how those at Ombudsman Services avoid answering complaints is provided by the CEO and Chief Ombudsman letter dated 19th May 2011. It states,

"Your email was received. However, the vast majority of its content was the same as other emails to this service to which there have been many responses.

Your email of 26 March extends to ten pages with 100 questions and, again, a lot of the matter is not new. I have therefore confined myself to key matters. The Property Ombudsman explained to you our governance arrangements. You question again the independence of the service.

You quote from various sources references to "workstock" and "processes" suggesting that this shows a lack of care for the individual. You also contend that pressure of complaints had a similar effect. The service has to balance speed and quality alongside consideration of each case.

It is therefore appropriate for the Board to consider such matters of business and to monitor trends.

As you rightly point out, the Ombudsman has to decide each case on its merits.... the other main issues are ones for the Lead Ombudsman and I have therefore passed your email for her consideration.

I am concerned that you have been writing to this service consistently since the Final Decision ... I must ask you not to continue contacting the service to bring our attention, yet again, to your complaint." 

You will notice that none of the 100 questions has actually been answered by the CEO and Chief Ombudsman but instead has become a huge inconvenience for the service, and for him, to have them brought to their and his, attention, yet again.

None of the questions concerning the Property Ombudsman's relationship with the company's Terms of Reference have been answered, yet again.

If they had been answered when we first asked them, then the CEO and Chief Ombudsman wouldn't have had to go through the inconvenience of not answering them, yet again.

It is extraordinarily similar to the way in which our RICS surveyor handled our complaint too. They could have attended the same conference. Been coached by the same coach.

This would have been an excellent opportunity for the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of the company we're complaining about - and member of your Board at The Ombudsman Association - to put his hand on his heart, or Bible, and explain to us, and the 61%, what exactly is the relationship between the Property Ombudsman and her company's Terms of Reference.

To suggest that  is "Accountability" is to borrow a term from MoneysavingExpert,farcical. 

When I asked to speak with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman he was unavailable to come to the phone. This was a similar story with our RICS surveyor. He never put anything in writing either.

Q133 What does that say about the integrity of the office holder?

Q134 What does that say about, "fairness?"

Q135 What does that say about the this company's requirement to be publically accountable?

The OFT Criterion 16 says: "There must be procedures in place to consider and resolve complaints by consumers or member businesses about the service provided."

It would appear that the procedures for handling consumers' questions of complaint about this service is for the CEO and Chief Ombudsman to simply avoid answering them.

Nowhere in the company's literature that we received does it inform the complainant that they have a right to complain about the Ombudsman or the service.

Q136 At the time of our complaint to the Property Ombudsman the company's literature did not mention the existence of the Independent Assessor, Why not?

Q137 How does that meet The OFT Criterion 8 requirement that the scheme must also, "ensure that complainants are provided with clear, comprehensive and accurate information on the procedures, possible outcomes, avenues for appeal or review of the decision, and whether the outcome is binding."

Q138 How does it meet The Ombudsman Association requirement for Openness and Transparency?

Q139 How does the deliberate avoidance by any of the senior executives  of Ombudsman Services to answer questions satisfy the requirement to be fair in all the circumstances?

Q140 Why do The Ombudsman Association think so many complainants make, "further representations" after receiving an illogical Final Decision from the Property Ombudsman?

DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report - 6.23 Further Representation:

- 64% of cases went to the further representation process

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

- 47% felt there were errors in the report

- 91% felt this did not change the conclusion.

After the complainant has been unsuccessful with the further representation process their case will be handed to the Independent Assessor.

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the then Independent Assessor's contribution to an analysis of the company's performance was this'

"I also explain that, while easy to assert bias where a decision has gone against someone it is necessary to demonstrate factually how bias might be present. No one has done so." (Annual Report 2010)

Q144 Do you not find it remarkable that although in one year, 61% of 428 complainants felt the investigator had not understood the nature of their complaint and a majority had complained that the Property Ombudsman's decisions were not arrived at in a logical manner, the Independent Assessor was unable to find one example of bias?

We believe this to be biased. It ignores the data.

The company's literature assures the potential complainant,

"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"

Q145 Why doesn't the list include: not understood the nature of the complaint or handed you an illogical Final Decision?

Q146 Why is information about the Independent Assessor and the Independent Assessor' role withheld from the complainants in the literature they send to complainants?

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman spoke of, "monitoring trends."

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman's Ombudsman Services Annual Report 2011 seems to have totally ignored the data supplied by DJS Research. Instead the latter's highly damning statistical data is presented in the following way,

"We do not take sides, but level the playing field between consumers and companies. Our investigations are fair, our decisions are based on the evidence and our requirements for redress are binding on the participating companies."

Q147 How can investigations be seen as, "fair" by Ombudsman Services when 61% of complainants thought the investigator had not understood the nature of the complaint?

Q148 How can this company in all honesty claim that their decisions are, "based on the evidence" when 47% of complainants, "felt there were errors in the report" and the investigator, "Had not understood the nature of the complaint?"

Q149 Which version on the same evidence does The Ombudsman Association believe to be more credible - the company's or the complainants?

The Chair, in the Foreword to the 2010-11 Annual Report told consumers,

"But are we delivering the excellent service to which we aspire? Asserting our commitment to excellence is not the same as delivering this is practice. This year the board has supported the CO in taking a close and honest look at what we are actually achieving. We were doing pretty well in many respects but we were not completely satisfied."

Q150 Isn't the answer to the question, "are we delivering the excellent service to which we aspire?" not provided conclusively by DJS Research? Which in 2009, 2010 and 2011 was emphatically - NO?

Q151 Doesn't the statement, "asserting our commitment to excellence is not the same as delivering this in practice," suggest that when all the hype and spin is removed what you're left with is a company who arrive at decisions, "in an illogical manner?" Isn't the Chair's questioning of performance not also implying that the look they had been taking previously had been neither, "close" nor "honest?"

Q152 In the 2010 Annual Report, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman described Ombudsman Services as being, "a superb business model" but by 2011 the Chair was of the opinion that, "we were doing pretty well in many respects but we were not completely satisfied." The CEO had to be supported by the Board to take an honest look at the shambles. Isn't the truth of the matter that DJS Research provide a far closer and more honest account of what complainants were experiencing?

The reward for DJS Research being so good at their job was for them to lose the contract. Like in Stalin's Russia, their Customer Satisfaction Reports have been airbrushed from history.

We're unclear as to how the CEO and Chief Executive of Ombudsman Services expects to, "monitor trends" when the evidence for those trends has been ditched.

Q153 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association not agree with the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign that, "doing pretty well" simply isn't good enough for the consumers who turn to this dispute resolutions service (ADR) after having often made, "expensive purchasing decisions?"

Q154 If the company isn't delivering the excellent service to which it aspires, what is it delivering?

Q155 Does it not concern The Ombudsman Association and The OFT that the Chair of Ombudsman Services' analysis of the company's performance should differ so markedly from that of the CEO and Chief Ombudsman?

Q156 If the company, according to the Chair, is only doing, "pretty well" in 2011 what was it doing in 2009 when The OFT state in Criterion 2: The SOS (now OS:Property) "satisfactory information about its staff and funding plans tsoi has indicated that this should allow it to effectively and expeditiously resolve complaints?"

The company has admitted above that not only did they not have sufficient staff but the staff they did have weren't able to understand the complexity of property complaints. They did not effectively and expeditiously resolve property complaints.

(They appear to have deliberately and very successfully hidden the evidence/manipulated the data - otherwise surely things would be very different.)

Q157 How does that satisfy The Ombudsman Association's governance requirements for continued membership?

Q158 How does it satisfy The OFT's Criteria?

Q159 Do you not think the reason why RICS surveyors were so eager to send their clients to what is in effect their own company, was because they knew beforehand that the investigation process would be conducted by staff who didn't have sufficient skills to handle complex property case and should a case not go in their favour they merely had to express some concern that the level of award was too high and get it reduced, significantly? Do you not think the word might have got around the surveying fraternity - quickly - that their Property Ombudsman's decisions were often illogical and that the level of financial awards was dropping rapidly?

Finally,

Q160 Why hasn't Ombudsman Services:Property not got a Whistleblowing Policy when membership to you organisation requires one?

We asked the MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Oliver Colvile to ask questions on our behalf about the Property Ombudsman and the company's Terms of Reference.

We were told by the company that we were the ones who had misunderstood them.

We believe that this company's handling of our complaint along with so many others - the 61% - should now be the subject of an independent inquiry. We look forward to your response to the questions we are seeking to raise about the Ombudsman Services membership of The Ombudsman Association.

                                     Yours sincerely,

                Steve G.  The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

The Secretary of The Ombudsman Association's (formerly The British and Irish Ombudsman Association) reply was that he was in the process of reconfirming the membership of all the schemes and that he couldn't help us further.

We thanked the Secretary of The Ombudsman Association for his response saying it was as we had expected.

POST 2011:

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman:

Oliver Colvile referred our complaint to The Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman who asked for more information which we duly submitted. Our complaint was dismissed on the grounds that our complaint was about a RICS surveyor and not an estate agent and so could not be progressed. Should we disclose any details of the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman's ruling we will be prosecuted.

I asked the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman what would that entail and was told to ask my solicitor. I tried to explain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman that we couldn't afford one thanks to the Property Ombudsman's decision in our case.

Conclusion.

1. An Ombudsmen investigating another Ombudsmen is rather like policemen investigating policemen and regulators regulating redress schemes - a modern-day version of the closed shop.

2.Ombudsman Services:Property Post DJS Research.

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services spoke of the Board's need to, "monitor trends."  (please see between Q132 and Q133 above). We wonder how this is now done at this private redress scheme.

3. BMG replaced DJS Research. We have said earlier how this appeared to miraculously transform the consumer landscape within just one dramatic year.

It went from DJS Research reporting, "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 Property Annual Report 2010-11)

To:

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

When something's too good to be true it usually isn't it usually too good to be true?

DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports have been removed from the company's website. The questions that were once asked and which prompted such shocking answers have gone. The methodology now used to gather data in order to monitor trends is to phone complainants at home. This has apparently unearthed an incredible new trend - one of, "strong levels of satisfaction." Whilst also having the good fortune of doing away with a paper trail.

We believe that what evidence there is has been manipulated.

Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform says on page 8 that they; "took information from ombudsmen's websites." However, he doesn't say from which ombudsmen's websites they took their information. The MSE Report does not comment on Ombudsman Services post-DJS Research or offer an explanation for the remarkable turnaround reported by this company in 2012.

In Chapter 4 - The Ombudsman Association - the MSE Report tells us:

"Three areas in which ombudsman schemes are recognised as providing 'more' include around: advice and signposting; recommendations for improvement; and provision of data for use by enforcement and regulatory agencies."

Martin Lewis has read the reports.

What evidence post-DJS Research were Ombudsman Services:Property providing the enforcement and regulatory agencies and how did this satisfy The Ombudsman Association's idea of, "more?"

The main reason consumers take RICS surveyors to Ombudsman Services:Property is - "homebuyer surveys and valuations." It has, year on year remained the main reason why consumers complain about RICS surveyors.

The Property Ombudsman, whose salary is paid by RICS members fees, has clearly had very little success recommending they improve the quality of their homebuyers surveys and valuations.

 

Martin Lewis' Report doesn't mention this or how it might explain why 80%+ of property complainants found the Property Ombudsman's decision, "unfair."

And yet in the whole of his Report there is one stand-out statistic which is to be found on page 60. Here it is reported that when asked: How Would You Describe The Ombudsman's Decision - over 80% answered, "unfair" for Ombudsman Services:Property. The corresponding figure for The Property Ombudsman was 60%.

This is a staggering difference.

And yet there is no comment from Martin Lewis and no attempt at an explanation. It was simply left to stand there ignored and alone. Like the victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical final decisions.

The MSE Report lists ADR schemes' requirements to have expertise, independence and impartiality including employing managers with enough experience to be competent. They need to produce an annual report and share best practice. (p15)

Once again the 80%+ statistic was ignored. MSE didn't offer an explanation of what best practice the Property Ombudsman might be sharing with fellow ombudsmen.  

There is no attempt at a comparative analysis either - why is The Property Ombudsman a much better option for the consumer? Or why is the average financial award at TPO in 2016 is £531 whereas at Ombudsman Services:Property it is only £50?

That is a staggering difference and yet again not commented on by Moneysaving Expert.

The MSE Report does not include an explanation for why the TPO's Annual Report is 24 pages long and goes back to 2001 whilst Ombudsman Services:Property's is down to 2 pages and why the 2008-9 Report has been removed from the company's website.

Martin Lewis says he conducted, "background discussions and on the record fact-checking with organisations mentioned in this report." (page 8) One wonders what direction the discussion took over the 80%+ Ombudsman Services:Property statistic or how the background discussion with the TPO Chair of Disciplinary Standards who was also the Property Ombudsman at the time of DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports, went.

There is no list of who MSE checked facts with or their explanations for those facts. Nor is there a list of those ombudsmen with whom MSE had background discussions with.

MSE appear to have lifted the carpet but not looked under it. We believe the MoneySavingExpert Report is a whitewash.

The Ombudsman Association once required all participating ombudsman schemes to have a Whistleblowing Policy. That requirement has since been abandoned. Not one worker in any of the mushrooming ombudsman schemes has the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act. This is thanks entirely to a handful of unelected individuals sitting on the Board of The Ombudsman Association.

This is also not mentioned in the MSE Report.

The 1998 Act is very clear. It states,

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority or regardless of frontiers."

(www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/1/chapter/9)

But not workers at ombudsman schemes in Britain and Ireland. This right was removed pre-Brexit.

In "The Ombudsman Enterprise And Administrative Justice" the authors state,

"Others have argued powerfully that whatever the exact make-up of the ombudsman, their most important objective should be the promotion of Human Rights" (Ayeni 2000 and Houssain 2000)

And yet at The Ombudsman Association we have witnessed ombudsmen doing the exact opposite. Is there a link between Ombudsman Services never having a Whistleblowing Policy and 80%+ of its property complainants saying they'd been treated, "unfairly?"

All of the above has been permitted to take place pre-Brexit.

On our previous blog - BlogForever - we received the following:

 ***** *****(visitor) 201306-22@15:39

"Hi

I used to work for 'OS.' The truth is worse than you imagine. For starters 90% of the, 'ombudsman's final decisions' are never actually seen by the ombudsman whose name is on the letter. They're not seen by the ombudsman at all. They are written by the VERY SAME 'investigating officer' who wrote the original report.

The investigating officer just cuts and pastes the ombudsman's signature to the letter and sends it out Only 105 of the final decisions are, 'checked' by the ombudsman for, 'quality purposes.2

This is new process Ombudsman Services has introduced.

Up until maybe 2011 the ombudsman reviewed all final decisions. This was very time consuming hence massive delays. The regulators - RICS for surveyors, Ofcom for communications, Ofgen for energy basically told OS it had to buck its ideas up.

It had a new director of communications. Her idea was basically get the investigators writing final decisions and sending them out unchecked.

The executive team at O Services are all slapping each others' backs as a result of the scheme! The have cut the backlog entirely (unsurprisingly!) plus the investigating officer's salary is about a 3rd of an ombudsman so they are making a tidy saving as well!

Before I left they even had a celebrating meeting to brag about how ell they'd done in cutting down the backlog and how the executives had all done an amazing job and RICS/Ofcom/Ofgem were really happy ...doubt they know the truth."

Isn't that manipulating data and isn't it Good For Business?

Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform has made recommendations to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection. One such recommendation is:

Recommendation 2: Oversight of ombudsmen must be boosted

- Relevant government departments, The Ombudsman Association and Companies House should work to make sure that the performance of ombudsmen is consistently higher.

- There should be a form of. "fit and proper" approved-persons tests for people in senior roles in ombudsmen. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could approve such persons.

Why didn't The Ombudsman Association work to make sure that the performance of its one-time Chair's scheme - Ombudsman Services:Property - became consistently higher instead of lower?

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (previously the BIS) had oversight of The OFT who not only approved the SOS (now Ombudsman Services:Property) redress scheme but monitored it. From our Freedom of Information Act request we discovered the BEIS has, "a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services."

We took our complaint to The OFT and were told,

"I have investigated this matter and understand that Ombudsman Services:Property have confirmed that the new company will aske the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OSP website.

Should we have any concerns about the surveys conducted by the new company, however, we will raise these directly with OSP."

This is simply not the case.

You can verify this for yourself by simply going to the Ombudsman Services website. We would ask you to hurry as the information is vanishing quickly.

And

"The OFT may withdraw approval of a redress scheme. This gives the OFT a power, rather than a duty, to withdraw the scheme leaving us the option to take other action to remedy problems should we feel this to be appropriate."

Although no reports were produced for two years after DJS Research were replaced and the ones that are now produced are virtually meaningless - they don't even produce a list of the range of financial awards they make - an OFT requirement for approval - and consumer dissatisfaction now stands at 80%+,  Government did not remove its approval of this scheme.

Clearly, Ombudsman Services have taken no actions to remedy problems otherwise 80%+ of consumers wouldn't now be complaining that they found the Property Ombudsman's decisions, "unfair."

To suggest as Martin Lewis does, that these two organisations should be put in charge of determining the performance of ombudsmen and who is and isn't a fit and proper approved-person would, we believe, be a disaster for consumers.

Why haven't those organisations been doing just exactly that from the day the Executive Director of The OFT approved the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme, when he said it would ensure consumers fairness, speed and independence?

The OFT did not answer our questions either. They said it would not be an appropriate use of resources - apparently we asked too many questions.

Martin Lewis seems to have accepted that, "competent authorities" are actually competent. But surely its their lack of competency - or worse - that is reason we're where we are today. To suggest, as MSE does, that those who have been asleep on the job - or worse - should be left with the responsibility of determining a gold standard for ombudsman almost beggars belief.

Manipulation of data has resulted in the arrest of two employees working at Randox Testing Services Manchester Laboratory and a review of 10.000 cases.

Hasn't what happened - and continues of happen on a daily basis - at Ombudsman Services:Property not also been the manipulation of data? And manipulation that is also on an industrial scale? What data have The OFT been monitoring all these years? Where are the same questions that are supposedly being asked by BMG? Why are property complainants no longer being asked if they thought the Property Ombudsman arrived at decisions in a logical manner? How can the two Property Ombudsman employed by Ombudsman Services (since its approval in 2008) have so consistently looked at the evidence and found in favour of their fee-paying members? Why were so many property complainants forced into the further representation process? Why did RICS the regulator regard an illogical Final Decision and/or a £50 financial award as, "effective" when property complainants were saying otherwise?

These are just some of the issues that didn't make it into Martin Lewis' Report.

The present Chair of Ombudsman Services a person endowed with unimpeachable integrity chose to criticise consumers in his first foreword for Ombudsman Services. He complained that,

"For some consumers our best efforts will never be enough - their expectations of our service and the power we have to resolve an issue are too great. It is not our role to punish companies."

(Ombudsman Services 2016 Annual Report)

With property complainants now expressing an 80%+ dissatisfaction rate and the Property Ombudsman handing out an occasional £50 financial award there's clearly no danger of the Chair punishing his chums is there?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has nothing but admiration for those who stood up for their rights and told the Chair of this private ombudsman scheme that his best efforts were simply not good enough.

Our three recommendations would be:

- That there's a public inquiry into The RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS until undergoing rebranding) and The RICS role in running it and determining the effective resolution of disputes

- Compensation for the victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and the executives' maladministration

- The setting up of a truly fair and independent redress scheme free from RICS influence..

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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