1 The Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's Investigaton of Case 510458 - And Our Public Study Of Private Rdress: Issue (1)

To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Questioning The Ombudsman's Take On Private Justice - Attempt 1.

1. The Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's Investigation Of Case: 510458 - And Our Public Study of Private Redress: Issue 1 - Asking Questions.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

The first part of our campaign was called, "Being More Specific."

It was called, "Being More Specific" because the Department For Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) asked us to be, "more specific" regarding our complaint about the OFT approved and monitored Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme.

We took the title for the second part of our campaign, "For Clarity" from a statement made to us by Ombudsman Services:Property's former Ombudsman.

In a letter dated 11th August 2010 she said,

"You question what I meant by 'You say that a failure to give my view on whether the Firm should have come to visit when you told them about water pouring down the walls and hallway is, in effect, a refusal.  You may hold that opinion but I do not agree.' and say it makes no sense. 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. As I had said in my letter of 9 July, I do not address every single point in each letter that I receive and that was the context of my subsequent letter of 20 July."

We found the Ombudsman's statement on clarity to be bewildering.

After all these years it still doesn't make sense - unless, of course, the purpose of the whole property redress exercise is for the company to exonerate their fee-paying, memo-sending Members in which case it does indeed make perfect sense not to answer questions.

Everyone we've shown the statement to has been clear about one thing - they don't understand what on earth the Property Ombudsman was talking about either and no matter how you might wish to dress it up, a failure to answer a question remains just that - a failure to answer a question..

People have asked: how can you possibly conduct an investigation without asking questions and expecting that those questions be answered?

It seems to us that you can't. So what takes place at OS:Property can't be an investigation of a consumer's complaint but something entirely different. We believe this needs to be the subject of an independent investigation.

The OS:Property Ombudsman complained that our letters were too long, too detailed and asked far too many questions and as a result chose not to answer them. From now on we'll concentrate on one issue at a time. This will remove the excuse that our complaint is too complex to understand and thus too much trouble to answer.

It will mean that those politicians and civil servants whose job it seems to be is to avoid answering questions from members of the public will have to concoct another excuse for failing to do so.

The first issue of part 3 of our campaign is to seek clarity about the OS:Property Ombudsman's failure to answer questions. It seems a good place to start.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, as Leader of the House of Commons and therefore someone charged with responsibility for those who approved this private redress scheme (on behalf of the public) and for those monitoring it (also on behalf of the public), can you please clarify the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's statement on clarity?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, the Ombudsman has admitted that she failed to answer complainants' questions. How can an Ombudsman conduct a speedy, fair and independent examination of a complex property complaint when she fails - but not necessarily refuses - to ask her fee-paying Members questions?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't there an inherent bias in a private redress scheme which employs an Ombudsman who doesn't wish to upset her fee-paying Members by asking them troublesome questions?

This private company's Terms of Reference at 6.6 state, "In handling complaints, carrying out investigations and reaching any Final Decision (as provided for here under) it shall be the duty of the ombudsman:

(a) to proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, if it is the duty of the Ombudsman to proceed fairly how can she possibly do so without asking questions?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, where was the pre-Brexit British natural private justice hiding when the OS:Property Ombudsman failed - but did not refuse - to answer this particular complainant's questions?

6.6 continues stating that it is also the Ombudsman's duty,"(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."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when an Ombudsman's, "reasoned decisions" didn't appear to make sense why didn't the Government's monitors intervene to protect the consumer?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, where does the good practice lie in not answering a complainant's questions?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, where is the equitable conduct in failing to answer a complainant's questions?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how can any of the above be examples of good administration?

Thanks to all of those of you on the other side of the great divide who have so far consistently failed - but, apparently not refused - to answer our questions we've dedicated part 3 of our campaign: Questioning The Ombudsman's Take On Private Justice, to you.

We look forward to a New Year in which MoneySavingExpert's, "farcical ombudsmen" are revealed for what they truly are - the Snake Oil Salesmen of the early 21st century. Charlatans, who without meaningful regulatory oversight so successfully peddle quack private redress. Private redress that is, Good For Business.

Mrs Leadsom, there are a thousand ways for the clock to count down - why not stand beside us on the parapet and join with us in calling for; a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property, compensation for the victims of its Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and executives' maladministration and for the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme that is 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.