Ombudsman Services - Pt 4: The Full English Cover-Up (3)

To the Leader of the House of Commons.

To the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

and

To The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:

Ombudsman Services - Pt. 4: The Full English Cover-Up. (3)

3) "If wrongdoing, abuse. fraud or criminal activity occur we need to know about it, immediately, in full." (spokesperson for DFID)

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid and Mr Clark,

Most fair-minded individuals would fully concur with the above statement regarding the shocking activities of certain Oxfam aid workers - people did need to know about it, immediately, and in full.

We sincerely hope that this correspondence reaches you and is not, once again, intercepted by a, "politically influenced" and "engaged" RICS civil servant as would appear to be the case with our previous hundreds of attempts to contact you.

There is an alternative explanation which is that you have absolutely no wish to know about the RICS with its broken market in surveying or its company - OS:Property - with its broken ADR solution to that broken market, then, now or at anytime in the near future for that matter and definitely not in full.

That being so, it is clear that the same standards required of Oxfam by the FDID were not and are not being applied to Ombudsman Services:Property by the Department of BEIS or the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Otherwise, action to protect the consumer from this private redress scheme's, "broken solution" would have happened the moment DJS Research Ltd were producing their highly critical Customer Satisfaction Reports of this Property Ombudsman's "solutions.". Instead, the government monitors took no action - not even when CSRs for the Property Scheme mysteriously and inexplicably came to an abrupt end.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, why don't exactly the same exacting standards that apply to Oxfam, apply to Ombudsman Services:Property and what its Chief Ombudsman and CEO, The Rev Shand Smith calls its, "broken solution to a broken market?" 

The evidence shows that the company were responsible for the, "broken solution" that most certainly helped to further break the already broken market.

According to DJS Research the market was already shattered by 2013. As were a majority of complainants.

The Head Of ERC @ the OFT.gsi.gov.uk wrote to us: Our ref EPIC/ENQ/E/138617 8 February 2013:

"I should also stress that the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, which is the legal basis for the OFT overseeing estate agents redress schemes, states that - the OFT may withdraw approval of a redress scheme. This gives the OFT a power, rather than a duty, to withdraw the scheme leaving us the option to take other action to remedy problems should we feel this to be appropriate."

(----- ------ Head of the Enquiries and Reporting Centre)

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, when Gillian Fleming, the Property Ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner," when there was a consensus of opinion that the Ombudsman was not an impartial investigator of complaints and when so-called financial-awards were reduced from £1.511.75p to £50, why didn't the OFT withdraw its approval?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, when this company ceased to produce Property Customer Satisfaction Reports why did the OFT consider this to be, "appropriate" and therefore take no action to protect the consumer?

MoneySavingsExperts reveal a present-day consumer dissatisfaction rate of over 80%+ which the government clearly believes to be, "appropriate" otherwise it would have intervened to protect the consumer.

It seems there is no; wrongdoing, abuse, fraud or criminal activity at this private redress scheme - just a broken solution.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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