Ombudsman Services - Issue 1: Asking Questions. (2)

To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Questioning The Ombudsman's Take On Private Redress - Attempt 2

2. Issue 1 - Asking Questions.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

It has been said that democracy is a requirement of justice and an instrument for realising it.

The growing market in private justice left - unaccountably - in the hands of MoneySavingExpert's, "farcical Ombudsmen" has resulted in investigations of consumer complaints in which one Ombudsman, "does not routinely ask questions." 

How it is conceivably possible to conduct a fair and thorough investigation of a complex and costly property dispute without recourse to asking questions was never explained to us. Our questions did not elicit straightforward answers.

Laura Valentini believes that,

"even if we plausibly identify experts on justice, we may still want to distribute political power roughly equally across the citizenry in order to prevent flagrant abuses of it or to encourage social solidarity."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't a failure by Ombudsmen to ask questions a flagrant abuse of power?

And,

"By exchanging reasons and sharing information, one could argue, citizens are more likely to discover the truth about justice."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how can the Ombudsman's failure to exchange reasons discover the truth and lead to justice?

Also,

 "...by deliberating and listening to one another's reasons, we express respect for each other as rational persons."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when independent researchers state that an Ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner how can that Ombudsman possibly treat complainants with respect?

Further, "...Moreover, as reasoners who disagree, we may hope through argument to make progress in understanding one another, and converge on a single answer we all regard as compelling. This would allow us fully to realise the ideal of mutual justification at the heart of a liberal understanding of justice."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why did government monitors of this government approved scheme permit a unreasoning Ombudsman who failed to arbitrate in disputes to remain in post?

(Laura Valentini CSSJ Working Paper Series SJO12 2010)

Laura Valentini would seem to have provided Ombudsmen with a clear and purposeful working definition of how to arbitrate and negotiate in order to arrive at just and compelling resolutions to consumers' disputes.

Keith Dowding in chapter 2 of Justice and Democracy: Essays For Brian Barry, when asking - are democratic and just institutions the same - appears to conclude that they are.

But a lot has happened since 2010 to actively undermine that liberal understanding of justice and democracy. Farcical Ombudsmen have been actively colonising and privatising those justice institutions to devastating effect.

They've even formulated a novel way of resolving disputes by not asking questions.

In so doing they no longer listen to reasons and no longer respect complainants as rational persons. This enables them to, "arrive at decisions in an illogical manner."

(DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Reports; 2009, 2010 and 2011)

In a letter dated 11th August 2010 the Ombudsman Services: Property Ombudsman wrote,

"You say that all questions should be answered to get to the root cause of a problem and such a lack of rigour discloses a lack of fairness and impartiality. I can only say that some questions do relate to a root cause." And that was that.  

On 3rd September 2010 we wrote to Ombudsman,

"Yet again you have chosen not to answer the questions I sought to raise about (the RICS Firm). Furthermore, the contradictions in the written responses I have received also do not appear to warrant a response from you either.

I should also like to take issue with you when you state:

"I would reiterate that the question of whether (the RICS 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.'

The questions I tried to raise were;

a) was it reasonable for an Ombudsman to accept evidence gathered from a RICS Member that involved unsolicited visits to a complainant's home when that member had made it abundantly clear that they had no intention when rainwater was cascading down the walls. Your response was that you hadn't been able to look at the photographs.

b) I asked you what you meant when you said they weren't, 'strictly relevant to the Building Survey." You chose not to answer that question.

and

c) Why were (the RICS Firm) making, 'Goodwill gestures' in the first place if there was indeed nothing wrong with the original survey? According to your fair and independent judgement this is all perfectly reasonable. Otherwise why would you have arrived at this conclusion? This is what I mean by bias and collusion. It is why I will now be taking my complaint to the Council of Ombudsman Services Property."

Our complaint never reached the Council of Ombudsman Services Property.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, MoneySavingsExperts have described these practices as being, "farcical." We believe they are far more pernicious than that and in order to protect consumers from this institutionalised injustice there is an urgent needs for a public inquiry into this highly secretive private market in justice.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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