Ombudsman Services:Property's Monitoring by Civil Servants - A Conspiracy? (13)

    Dear Reader,

    We sent the following email to the Leader of the House of Commons in the

    forlorn hope it might elicit a response.

To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Ombudsman Services Case 510458 - Part 3 Issue (1) Asking Questions Attempt 13.

13. Ombudsman Services:Property's Monitoring by Civil Servants - A Conspiracy?

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

We're told in Joe Watts's article for the Independent that,

"Theresa May justifies refusal to sack embattled Brexit Minister Steve baker amid fury at Civil Service Conspiracy Comments." (Independent 02/02/2018)

He reports Mrs May as saying there was the highest regard for hardworking civil servants - especially those not frantically trying to access porn - and that Mr Baker,

"...is going to ensure that the record in Hansard is correct so that Parliament is not misled when the record is read in the future."

It is vitally important that Parliament is not misled. Or the people.

We sought to raise the issue of misleading Parliament with one of your predecessors, The Under Secretary of State, Jo Swinson. It concerned one of her statements to Parliament.

It was - Column 225 (16th April 2013):

Jo Swinson: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says; we may have to agree to disagree on this matter. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we are dealing with people's homes, which is why this measure is so important. Incidentally, it is also something that his party did not see fit to introduce in 13 years in government. This government are righting the situation by making amendments to ensure that there is a redress scheme. Indeed, when the Lords amendment was introduced in the other place, that is the argument that was made and that is what was said was most important. I agree that a redress scheme is important to ensure that where there is a problem, tenants can have an avenue for redress.

Indeed, such a scheme has two functions, because it is not just about ensuring that when somebody has a problem, they can get redress. The very fact that agents have to sign up to redress schemes in the first place is in itself a driver of behaviour to ensure less wrongdoing in the first place."

This amendment was the direct result of, "political influencing" and "engagement work" conducted by the RICS (Mary Thorogood RICS UK Parliamentary Affairs Manager). Those brainwashed, sorry, "politically influenced" and "engaged" were MPs, Ministers AND civil servants. 

Q. Mr Clark, the statement: "The very fact that agents have to sign up to redress schemes in the first place is in itself a driver of behaviour to ensure less wrongdoing in the first place," is surely misleading as the evidence produced independently by DJS Research says otherwise. On what evidence did Jo Swinson - and government - base that statement to the House of Commons?

In fact the exact opposite is what appears to have happened. Again, the evidence for this is provided by DJS Research Ltd's Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services - a scheme which had been approved and is monitored by government and its civil servants.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, DJS Research Ltd ceased producing their highly critical reports for Ombudsman Services in 2011. Since then there have been no independent Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services:Property. Although NO data was produced and therefore there was nothing for government civil servants to monitor, Jo Swinson still assured Parliament (and the people) that such schemes, "would ensure less wrongdoing." In stating this wasn't Jo Swinson misleading Parliament?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, where is the evidence for the statement that that signing up to redress schemes is a driver of behaviour?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't the fact that OFT monitors weren't actually monitoring because there was nothing to monitor in itself an example of Jo Swinson's "wrongdoing?"

We were told by Paul Gurowich of the OFT (17th June 2011)

"..raising further issues by way listing 100 questions about OSP, its Chief EO and the ombudsman who dealt with your complaint ...

on the basis of the enquiries made by staff in this office, I am satisfied that the OFT is properly carrying out that monitoring role in relation to OS:P."

None of those questions were answered and OS:P stopped collecting data on its performance in handling property complaints. Jo Swinson should have known this - she would have been told so by the OFT monitors of the OFT approved scheme. 

DJS Research Ltd produced evidence to show that surveyors' "wrongdoing" was actually increasing not diminishing. That surveyors' surveys and valuations were at the pinnacle of, "wrongdoing" and the CEO of the Ombudsman Services ADR scheme has even admitted that his organisation can't even get its fee-paying members to keep and maintain proper case files.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't this beyond incompetent? Where, exactly, is Jo Swinson's driver of behaviour?

Jo Swinson continued - Column 223:

The Government will consult on the detail, taking into account the recommendations of the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Office of Fair Trading.

The right honourable gentleman raises a good point, but there is also a good answer. The government are preparing an amendment in lieu of Lord's amendemnt40, which, as he said, subjects letting and management agents to the Estate Agents Act 1979. The amendment made to the Bill at present would not properly achieve the effect of requiring redress. It would impose undue regulatory burdens by making such provision much broader. The requirements of the 1979 Act are rightly onerous, because purchasing a house is something that people might only do once or twice in their lifetimes and it involves a huge sum of money. There is therefore a strong case for significant levels of regulation, which is not made in quite the same way for letting agents, where

redress is the most important issue."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, as the OFT approved and monitored the Ombudsman Services ADR scheme and took no action whatsoever when the company it monitored failed to produce data on its performance in resolving property disputes, what recommendations did Jo Swinson (and government) take from them that enabled her to say what she said to Parliament?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, we've attempted to contact Jo Swinsom on countless occasions attempting to raise what we think is a good point - but have so far not got a good answer. Or any answer for that matter. Why is this?

We find ourselves, however, agreeing with Jo Swinson when she says that there is, "a strong case for significant levels of regulation" due to the huge sums of money involved.

Q. Mrs  Leadsom, given the huge sums of money involved and the corresponding requirement for significant levels of regulation to ensure consumer protection from cowboy operators, why are the RICS unable to enforce their own Rules and Regulations?

The RICS, through what Mary Thorogood describes as, "our ongoing political and influencing programme to achieve better regulation of lettings agents" successfully influenced Jo Swinson to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill thus giving them a greater control of the ADR market.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why didn't Jo Swinson challenge RICS to regulate its own Members and (Un)Regulated Firms before they started ordering the same for others?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, was she - and Government - unaware of the fact that the RICS don't actually do any regulating?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't it a good point and doesn't it deserve a good answer?

Mrs May has the highest regard for civil servants.

The Independent reports Sir Jeremy Heywood, The Cabinet Secretary as posting,;

"Every day their great work supports the Government in making evidence-based policy and helps deliver better public services across the country."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, what happened to that great work by civil servants when monitoring the Government approved - and monitored - Ombudsman Services:Property ADR scheme?

Mr Rees-Mogg, had this to say on the subject of bias and its relationship to civil servants;

"If this is correct does he share my view that it goes against the spirit of the Nothcote-Trevelyn reforms that underpin our independent civil service?"

This is all very strange and surreal.

We know that civil servants aren't independent because the RICS tell us they aren't. They say;

"Over the past 18 months, RICS has undertaken a great deal of influencing work - both publically and behind the scenes - to drive home the need for change to Government and policy makers. This work has included events in Parliament, briefing MPs, Ministers and Civil Servants.

Why is RICS campaigning to support this amendment? There are too many corrupt agents who are taking advantage of the current gap in regulation, putting consumers at risk."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, is a RICS politically influenced and engaged civil servant, independent?

A. No.

Which is why the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is campaigning for a public inquiry - there are too many corrupt RICS surveyors who are taking advantage of the current gap in regulation, putting consumers at risk by sending them to their, "appointed" redress scheme where they'll get a ludicrous decision and maybe a 50 quid award for their troubles.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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