Ombudsman Services: From A Three Course Meal To A Pinch Of Salt. Attempt 13

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up Attempt 13.

13) Ombudsman Services From A Three Course Meal To A Pinch Of Salt.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

The Executive Director of the OFT, Jonathan May, and the CEO of Ombudsman Services, The Rev Shand Smith between them assured consumers that a superb three course meal of speedy, fair and independent dispute resolution awaited them. And what's more it was entirely free.

Reality being what it is, some property complainants got a pinch of salt to rub into their wounds. Most got nothing apart from the Ombudsman's crumb of comfort - "you're free to take your complaint elsewhere and find a solution that suits you better."

We received the following email from the OFT: EPIC/ENQ/E/138617.

"With regard to your email to BIS, which you have been advised was transferred to the OFT for response, I can confirm that BIS requested the OFT respond to your email of 25 July 2012. We later responded to BIS to explain that the issues raised were not ones we could address. We advised that the OFT had already corresponded with you directly regarding your concerns about OSL and that we could not comment on the issues you raised regarding RICS, referrals to RICS by OSL or the regulation of surveyors more generally."

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle and a motorist cross from Camden to Westminster than it is for information to go from government to a concerned taxpayer.

Perhaps ALL the civil servants working for the BIS have been secretly recruited to the political wing of the RICS.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, if the OFT couldn't comment on our concerns regarding the RICS and its regulation of surveyors but the BIS could, why haven't they?

We wrote to Clive Maxwell to point out that the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (The SOS but now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property or OS:P) was appointed by the RICS to deal with complaints made against Chartered Surveyors who are members of the RICS. We tried asking:

Q. Would it not have been more accurate - and less confusing for the taxpayer - if the OFT had said, "The SOS was set up and is controlled by the RICS?"

An obvious conflict of interest that makes a mockery of the Property Ombudsman's professed independence.

Q. Isn't it true that no amount of rebranding could alter the fact that consumers remained on the receiving end of often ludicrous decisions handed down by the Property Ombudsman (DJS Research 2009, 2010 and 2011)?

In practice, the Rev Shand Smith's, "broken solution to a broken market." But remarkably, "Good For Business."

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, SOS/OS:P maintain: "Is the service independent. Yes. It is essential we are independent from the property industry, the regulator and from consumer groups so that people can trust us to be fair. It is a key role of the Board to make sure of this."

We asked Clive Maxwell:

Q. Aren't the RICS not part of the property industry? Aren't RICS Chartered Surveyors not also part of the property industry so how can SOS/OS:P be independent of the regulator when the regulator is the RICS, it has a Memorandum of Understanding with its appointed company and has two of its members sitting on the Board of this supposedly independent company?

We don't know if Clive Maxwell. refused to answer our questions, chose not to answer our questions or never saw our questions because politically influenced and engaged civil servants prevented him from doing so.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, government is beginning to resemble Kafka's Castle. Why isn't it prepared to shed any light on RICS the regulator and the practices it has been allowed to develop that do not work in the customer's interest and which now see its, "appointed" company incapable of even producing an Annual Report?

It's time to take back control of regulators who don't actually regulate but who see their primary role as being not to punish those with whom they've cosied up to but to fail consumers instead.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services - "Bend It Like Bradley." (12)

To the Leader of the House of Commons and

To the Business Secretary.

Ombudsman Services: The Full English Cover-Up. Attempt 12.

12) Ombudsman Services: "Bend It Like Bradley."

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

One particularly high achiever in the current Parliamentary intake of MPs is Ben Bradley, Mansfield's representative since 2017.

He is remarkably adept at opening his mouth and firmly planting his foot in it a feat he has now managed on at least two separate occasions. Whether its the same foot - twice - or two different feet we're not sure but we suspect he's equally talented with both his feet.

Given what he said about the Leader of the Opposition and his obvious flair for bending the truth, the fact that he doesn't seem to have broken the new Conservative code of conduct for potential MPs, speaks volumes about the effectiveness of this particular code of conduct.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why doesn't the Conservative Party have sovereignty over its very own code of conduct?

This code states that MPs are expected, "To act with probity and honesty" and uphold the party's, "values and reputation."

They must, "treat others with civility, courtesy and respect" and not use their position to, "bully, abuse, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, wasn't Lord Prescott right when he sought Mr Bradley's removal as Vice Chair of Youth at CCHQ as he's hardly a role model of probity, honesty, courtesy or respect?

The Conservative Party's Code of Conduct would seem to be about as useful as the RICS and its Code of Conduct. It too doesn't enforce it.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, when a Property Ombudsman declines (but apparently doesn't "refuse") to answer a complainant's questions are they also treating others, "with civility, courtesy and respect?"

The consumer is told by this private ADR scheme's CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Shand Smith, that what's been on offer has been, "a broken solution to a broken market."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, when the Ombudsman Services: Property Ombudsman handed complainants decisions, "that were not arrived at in a logical manner" is this what The Rev Smith meant by, "a broken solution" and wasn't it highly discriminatory?

Clearly, the EU 2013 framework offers its citizens far great protection from cowboy operators than the broken solution on offer here.

We're now 57 days into the new year and although Ombudsman Services:Property are required by the Ombudsman Association to produce an annual report they so far haven't.

It would seem that the Ombudsman Association's rules and code of conduct are about as effective as the Conservative party's - both offer the British public little or no protection from rampantly high achievers.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services:Property. Regulation - The Three Lions Continue To Snore. (11)

11) Ombudsman Services:Property. Regulation - The Three Lions Continue to Snore.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

It has been pointed out to us that the Pensions Regulator has also been asleep on the job and that Alan Duncan's refusal to implement transparency reforms in British tax havens has shown the UK Government to be incapable of bringing leadership to the global stage.

Whilst the Brexit Minister was telling Europe about his robotic lawn mower and the government's leadership role in setting global standards for regulation the Foreign Minister was  saying and doing the opposite. According to the Guardian,

"The foreign minister, Alan Duncan, however said the government would only pressure the territories (tax havens) to adapt new transparency measures when they became a global standard and insisted that an EU commitment to introduce public registers did not meet that threshold."

UK regulators have a very strange notion as to where the threshold is.

Back in April 2016 when speaking on the subject of transparency and regulating  MPs tax returns Alan Duncan had said,

"we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low achievers, who hate enterprise, hate people who look after their own families and who know absolutely nothing about the outside world." 

Accordingly, we now have a House of Commons that is stuffed to the gunnels with high achievers who on the face of it seem to know absolutely nothing about the inside world of regulation - or the criminal lack of it. Or perhaps they do and are only too happy to see it rigged in the way it is - in favour of other high achievers.

To say otherwise is to show the petulant envy of the eternal low achiever. Apparently.

In this Dunconian world of high achievers, arms length and light-touch self-regulation is all that is required. An 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate at Ombudsman Services:Property is just RICS regulated surveyors looking after their own families.

Not being high achievers ourselves we have to say we don't see it in such simplistic terms.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why has the RICS been able to get away with not enforcing its Rules and Regulation for so long?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why does RICS the regulator see an 80%+ property complainant dissatisfaction rate at its company OS:Property to be, "effective?"

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, aren't the only beneficiaries of such scandalously inept regulation - enterprises?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why are regulatory bodies stuffed full of operators who hate those people who are merely seeking to look after their families but who are denied access to those tax avoidance schemes so enjoyed by Alan Duncan's high achievers?

Quite clearly, high achievers see regulation to be a hateful burden on their enterprising mission to maximise profits at whatever cost to consumers. Consumers are low achievers who are merely envious of high achievers' remarkable DNA.  High achievers' profits quite understandably need to be secreted in tax avoidance schemes in opaque former British colonies. High achievers' families quite obviously need far more money to get by on than those of low achievers. By definition it's why they are high achievers. Low achievers don't have the burdensome cost of flying their families business class to tax havens. Meanwhile the three lions continue to snore and although there aren't any lionesses to be seen the system has no difficulty in reproducing itself.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services - And David Davis's Regulatory Race To The Bottom - Attempt 10.

    Dear Reader,

    We sent the following email to those responsible for regulating the regulators:

To the Leader of the House of Commons and

To the Business Secretary.

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up - Attempt 10.

10) Ombudsman Services - And David Davis's Regulatory Race To The Bottom.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

On the same day as the Brexit Minister was in Vienna seeking to reassure the rest of Europe that those of us back here in Dystopia were not racing to the regulatory bottom, one of the Telegraph's articles was headed: "Incoming City regulator questioned by MPs after investing in a 'tax avoidance' scheme."

(Iain Withers 20 Feb 2018 4.33pm)

The regulator in question was the FCA.

Over the years we've enjoyed reading Private Eye's stories about the Financially Supine Authority and its pathetic attempts at regulation. It is now to be led by someone who once financially benefitted from his own spot of tax avoidance.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, does such a person have the unimpeachable integrity to lead such an organisation or is government clearing the way as it prepares to sprint to the bottom of the world regulatory barrel?

If Olympic Gold Medals were handed out for downhill regulatory racing then the FCA would probably be pushed into the silver medal position by the RICS. This Byzantine organisation comes complete with its very own ideology on regulation and internal power struggles. It enjoys the cachet of a Royal Charter which bestows upon it the right to, "self regulate" regulate at, "arms length." 

Put simply, it doesn't actually do any regulating which is why those it doesn't regulate - its very own brand of cowboy operators - are able to run amok.  No burdensome Rules  or Regulations for them to have to bother with.

A blueprint for a gold standard in regulation.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, did no-one in the Cabinet point any of this out to Mr Davis before he made his Brexit speech?

However, the Brexit Minister did say this about regulation and standards:

"And whether Britain is going to be the same country it has been in the past: dependable, open, fair, a bastion of Parliamentary democracy and a defender of liberty and the rule of law"

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is Britain dependable when a government approved and monitored Property Ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, where is the, "openness" when a government approved and monitored ADR scheme fails to publish an annual report on its performance in handling consumers' complaints?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, what is, "fair" about a private ADR scheme which achieves an 80%+ dissatisfaction rating from its customers?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, if you are indeed both bastions of Parliamentary democracy why do you keep avoiding (but not "refusing" as the Ombudsman would say) answering our questions?

As for, "liberty" and the "rule of law" one only has to look at the state of anarchy in the Tory Party to see that there is no Scrutonian National Interest - just the competing self-interests of squabbling Tory factions.

Mr Davis told Europe and the rest of the world,

"There are two important principles which can help us point in the right direction. The first is Britain's determination to lead a race to the top in global standards."

If we are going to do just that and race to the top in global standards, then we're going to have to make up an awful lot of lost ground. to our friends abroad.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why has the RICS with its Royal Charter been permitted to fail in its duty to regulate effectively for so long?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why are we at the top in global standards for saying we're going to regulate and then doing the exact opposite when failing to do just that - and regulate?

Mr Davis talks about,

"...the intention of ensuring choices about Britain's future are taken by Britain's parliament, directly accountable to the people." 

We need to talk about Britain's present and the choices taken by the present Parliament.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, yet another highly criticised regulator is the QCC. Why has it allowed Professor Waite's NHS Livewell SouthWest Ltd to operate a system in which Anonymous Desk Top Reviewers decide who should  pay for the full cost nursing - the NHS or the patient - on the strength of an one line sentence written by an anonymous health care professional?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why has the CQC allowed Professor Waite's health care professionals to be anonymous and why aren't they directly accountable to the people just as the Brexit Minister insists?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why hasn't the government approved and monitored Ombudsman Services produced an annul report and why isn't it being accountable to the people just as the Brexit Minister insists?

The Minister when talking about driverless cars said,

"So we are striving to set the global agenda for effective regulatory frameworks that keep consumers and passengers safe."

If the effective regulatory framework that RICS applies to its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property were to be applied to driverless vehicles then its an odds-on car-crash waiting to happen.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, the RICS has a Memorandum of Understanding with its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property in which an 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate is seen as being, "effective." How can this possibly be right?

Mr Davis must have been unaware of the RICS's supine approach to regulation and the EU Directive 2013/11/EU 21st May 2013, when he continued,

"so we will build on the leading reputation we have, and take other countries with us ..... And yes - that will mean continuing to work with other European countries to drive new standards."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, the EU Directive attempted to set standards for ADR. Standards  which spoke of the need for consumer trust to be built around a scheme's transparency and accountability. Why has the Rev Shand Smith's, "broken solution to a broken market" further broken it by not publishing an annual report for 2017?

Mr Davis went on,

"we have helped the way in protecting employees from exploitative working practices."

And - incredibly,

"While in the European Union, the UK led the change for business practices and more accountability to the benefit of all involved. Just look at our record."

He quite obviously hasn't looked at the record at Ombudsman Services.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, the Rev Shand Smith's once, "superb model of ADR" which is now sadly, "broken" does not include a Whistleblowing Policy. Why have the government monitors of this government approved ADR scheme  not acted to protect those workers from the company's exploitative working practices especially when the EU attempted to take us with it?

Remarkably, Mr Davis seems to believe that,

"The fears about a race to the bottom are based nothing."

In a large regulatory field the race to the bottom is being led by the RICS which is a short head in front of the FCA closely followed by the CQC which has nosed in front of the GDC....

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, if the truth be known isn't Dystopia already here and aren't the RICS's "politically influenced" and "engaged" civil servants the ones really running the show - don't they already monitor emails and intercept the ones that show their organisation to be the regulatory failure it really is?

Otherwise things would be different. Our questions would have been answered. But it isn't and they haven't.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

BusinessSteve Bell on David Davis's speech on EU regulation – cartoon

Illustration: Steve Bell

Steve Bell

Ombudsman Services Part 4: Project Full English Cover-Up Attempt 9.

       Dear Reader,

        

   We sent the following email to our government:

To the Leader of the House of Commons  and
To the Business Secretary.
Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up Attempt 8.
 

9. Ombudsman Services - Project Full English Cover-Up
 

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,
 

In our previous attempt we sought to explain the Full English Cover-Up to you - that Ombudsman Services had told us that, "..information would not advance your (our) cause." 

Information is something that is in short supply at this company. A fact that appears not to have troubled the government monitors who monitor this broken solution on behalf of the British taxpayer.
 

At least the company acknowledged that we - and the then 61% - had a, "cause." 
 

However, time after time Theresa May fails to be open and transparent about the lack of openness and transparency at Ombudsman Services (the government approved and monitored private redress scheme) and as a smokescreen David Dvies has stoked a "dystopian" Brexit theory on the day the Tory supporting Telegraph starts its very own Project Fear regarding the Leader of the Opposition.

Theresa May says Jeremy Corbyn should be 'open and transparent' about his links with Communist spy

Jeremy Corbyn must be "open and transparent" about his links to a communist spy, the Prime Minister has said.

telegraph.co.uk.

It seems lost on David Davis's that we're experiencing his dystopian austerity nightmare right now. One where a crisis-hit NHS is, we're told, not in crisis and a crisis-hit ADR scheme is also not in crisis - just slightly, "broken" - frayed around the edges.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why not focus on a real issue: why hasn't Theresa May been open and transparent about the lack of openness and transparency over Ombudsman Services, "broken solution to a broken market?"

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, we started telling the government that Ombudsman Services were providing a, "broken solution to a broken market" 8 years ago. Why didn't anyone respond?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, isn't this just another in an ever lengthening line of Full English Cover-Ups? 

It's the one thing that this government appears to excel at.

Otherwise things would have been different. Action would have been taken by government back in 2010 and there wouldn't now be 80%+ property complainants saying that Ombudsman Services solution was, "broken."

As they orbit their distant planet, the captains of this particular enterprise have completed their mission - there is now NO information on their performance in breaking the ADR market back down on Dystopia.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61Percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. 

The Ombudsman Services Independent Assessor - "Information would not advance your cause." (8)

       Dear Reader,

       Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a

       public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed"  company Ombudsman

       Services:Property.

    In the hope of advancing the consumer's cause we sent the

    following email to following government Ministers:

    To the Leader of the House of Commons and

To the Business Secretary:

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-up (7)

8) The Ombudsman Services Independent Assessor - "information would not advance your cause."

If the consumer goes to the Ombudsman Services website, clicks on "For consumers" then clicks on, "Complaints data" then drops down to, "Annual reports" and then clicks on, "annual report" they will read that, "In accordance with the Ombudsman Association's requirements to be open, transparent and accountable, the annual report has details about our performance, accounts and the complaints we have handled."

Only there is no annual report.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, does this not confirm what we have been saying since 2010 that Ombudsman Services is not open, transparent or accountable and the details about its performance since the departure of DJS Research Ltd, have been virtually non-existent?

On the 17th August 2010 Roger Brown of Ombudsman Services wrote,

"In your email you say we have failed to inform you of the contact details for the lay members of our Council. It is not that we have refused rather that the provision of this information would not advance your cause any, as they, like me have no role to play in Ombudsman decisions."

Just as the Property Ombudsman hadn't, "refused" to answer our questions so Mr Brown didn't, "refuse" to provide us with the contact details we had requested. Either way - we didn't get any answers to our questions or the contact details of the Council members.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is this not a cover-up and if it isn't just exactly where is the transparency and accountability required of Ombudsman Services by the Ombudsman Association?

We contacted the Council of Ombudsman Services anyway

We didn't get a reply from them either yet in the their publication: Resolving complaints fairly is clearly states their job is to, "agree the appointment of the Ombudsman, keep the service independent review our performance and recommend any changes that might be made to the way we work."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, when any criticism of the way the Ombudsman works was being kept from the Council how could the Council possibly do its job?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, was this not a cover-up?

A member of the Council sat on the Member Board of Ombudsman Services.

The consumer is told that;

"Jane is a fellow of the RICS" and "Steven Gould is Director of Professional Regulation and Consumer Protection for the RICS."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how does having two RICS officials sitting on the Member Board possible satisfy the Ombudsman Association's requirement that this scheme's Ombudsman be - independent?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how can an Ombudsman who is having their performance monitored by two RICS officials possibly be independent?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is this what MoneySavingExperts mean when they say that ombudsmen schemes are, "farcical?"

The company's Member Board Minutes of the 9th meeting of the Member Board of the Surveying Ombudsman Service (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) show that on the 24th July 2008 they took place at RICS Offices 12 Great George Street, Westminster.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, The RICS who can't force their Members or (Un)Regulated Firms to follow their Rules and Regulations and who have, as a consequence, developed practices that do not work in their customer's interests, have, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property to appoint an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner, which apparently meets all of the Ombudsman Association's requirements and whose, "performance" is mulled over at RICS headquarters - all goes to set a worldwide gold standard in regulatory excellence and integrity. Can this possibly be true?

This is the state of pre-Brexit private ADR a landscape where information doesn't advance the consumer's cause. If it's farcical now one dreads to think what it'll be once we've escaped Brussels's regulatory red-tape.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

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

Ombudsman Services - And The Foreign Secretary's Superb Brexit Model (7)

       Dear Reader,

      

       Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public

       inquiry into the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman

       Services:Property. We sent the sixth email in our, "cover-up" series to the following

       government  Ministers:

   

   To the Leader of the House of Commons and

To the Business Secretary.

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up (6)

7) Ombudsman Services - And The Foreign Secretary's Superb Brexit Model.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

The Foreign Secretary's speech detailing his superb teleological Brexit model, printed in full in the Spectator, came with gobbledygook instructions. Bits were missing. Those that were there don't appear to fit together.

Regarding laws, Mr Johnson stated, "If we are going to accept laws, then we need to know who is making them, and with what motives, and we need to interrogate them in our own language, and we must know how they came to be in authority over us and how we can remove them."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, what were the motives behind the RICS' continuing failure to implement their own Rules and Regulations?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why do the RICS choose instead to let their unregulated members use their Property  Ombudsman to hand out broken solutions to property complainants?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how did the RICS come to be in authority over us when they spectacularly fail to apply their own Rules and Regulations and why haven't they been interrogated about this regulatory failure?

The Foreign Secretary spoke of voters' fears and anxieties over foreign laws, removing people from office and taking back control, and ridiculed, "the exact relationship between the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, justiciable in Luxembourg and the European Convention on Human Rights whose court sits in Strasbourg."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, in a purportedly modern democracy how is it acceptable for those working in the private alternative redress sector to have no statutory right to the protection of a Whistleblowing Policy?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why is this fundamental human right to free speech being denied them?

He says, "as the PM has said repeatedly, we must be able to take control of our laws...

It would obviously be absurd - if we were obliged to obey laws over which we have no say and no vote."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is the Foreign Secretary unaware of the pre-Brexit private civil justice being made up behind the scenes and away from public scrutiny and accountability by "farcical ombudsmen?

The broken solution to a broken market over which we - the British consumer - have no say and no vote.

Next, "The British people should not have laws affecting their everyday lives imposed from abroad, when they have no power to elect or remove those who make the laws. And there is no for us to find ourselves in any such position."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, in which case why are the British people in the position where they have no power to elect or remove "farcical" ombudsmen who most certainly affect our everyday lives with their private and broken model of civil justice?

Regarding regulation Mr Johnson believes,

 "It is only by taking back control of our regulatory framework and our tariff schedules that we can do those deals and exploit the changes in the world economy."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, don't we need to begin by first taking back control of the RICS and its regulatory framework - one which has seen an entire market - in surveying - develop practices that do not work in the customer's interests?

Not only does this government appear incapable of regulating this particular regulator, with its "politically influenced" and "engaged" ministers and civil servants, it can't even do a deal with its friends in the DUP. So much for taking on the rest of the world.

He seems to have walked right past The Big Red £350 Million Bus without even noticing it. This enabled him to say,"Freed from EU regimes, we will not only be able to spend some of our Brexit bonus on the NHS - it may be that we will need a regulatory framework, scrupulous and moral but not afraid of the new."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, didn't the Foreign Secretary and his back-stabbing chum promise the British people that they would spend an extra £350 a week on the NHS?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, do you not both agree that we urgently need a RICS regulatory framework one which actually enforces its Rules and Regulations and work to actually benefit  the public and not itself?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is it not the case that if the RICS actually spent its time regulating its members instead of politically influencing and engaging government ministers and civil servants that there would be no need for its farcical ombudsman scheme?

Mr Johnson believes that, "We will no longer be able to blame Brussels for our woes because our problems will be our responsibility and no-one else's'"

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, if that were indeed the case why has no-one in government taken responsibility for the woes of those countless victims who have fallen prey to the Rev Shand Smith's, "broken solution to a broken market?"

Further, "We are the Olympic gold medal winners in the sport of national self-deprecation."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, shouldn't that be - you are the Olympic gold medal winners at national cover-ups?

Finally, he staggered over the finishing line with a claim that our genius as an island race is, "In its insistence upon democracy, its openness, its belief in the rights of the individual in its protection of our legal system its scepticism about excessive regulation ......" And on and on he went clearly gifted with an egotistical imagination that who can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign Remainers and glorify himself. 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, where is the democracy when the RICS can politically influence and engage civil servants behind the scenes, where is the openness in a private ADR scheme failing to comply with OFT criteria for its existence, where are the rights of consumers when farcical ombudsmen hand them illogical final decisions, who stood up to protect our judges when the daily Mail called them traitors and where is the excessive regulation at RICS - an organisation that cannot and will not enforce its own Rules and Regulations?

We don't see how Brussels was responsible for any of the above. The Foreign Secretary would make a good - bad - Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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