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.