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.
No comments:
Post a Comment