Some Real Perarlers From The Ombudsman Services' Spin Attack. Attempt 28.

To the Business Secretary and the Business Secretary.

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. Attempt 28.

28) Some Real Pearlers Form The Ombudsman Services' Spin Attack.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

It's astonishing how a few seconds of ball tampering can produce such a rapid and dramatic response by the authorities whereas years of broken solutions to consumers' complaints, can't.

The Full English Cover-Up is indeed an impressive operation and peerless.

Pearlers:

1) 2009-2010: "Our Decisions are our product." CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith. 

The Straight Bat:

"Most, 61% felt the outcome went against them, 43% completely against them." " Satisfaction levels have dropped across all the attributes we measured." And," The number satisfied that the report's conclusions were supported by the evidence available has fallen from 35% in 2010 to 27% in 2011." (DJS Research's Final Customer Satisfaction Report)

That's 73% of property complainants saying that Lewis Shand Smith's product, sucked.

2) 2010-11: "It is a matter of great pride that Ombudsman Services has been able to meet almost all of these targets on a consistent basis. This indicates the success of the measures which the executive team has introduced to improve productivity, whilst maintain and enhancing the quality of the service we provide" (Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair)

The Straight Bat:

One of the measures was to dispense with DJS Research's services. The new researchers couldn't agree more with Professor Finch's pride in her achievements. Gone was the 73% dissatisfaction rate of property complainants. They were able to report: "Positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction."

When something's too good to believe surely it's too good to believe.

3) "We also welcomed over 140 new participating companies to our service and have been asked to provide advice on proposed changes to government policy"

(CEO and Chief Ombudsman Lewis Shand Smith)

The Straight Bat:

We asked government to provide answers to our concerns about Ombudsman Services' achievement but were told it would not be an appropriate use of taxpayers' money and scarce resources.

4) "Lewis continues: 'All of this is geared towards adding value. We don't just resolve complaints; we must ensure that our service is high quality, cost-effective and sets a good example." (CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith)

The Straight Bat:

The Property Ombudsman added real value to her Members' business practices by reducing the awards paid to dissatisfied RICS clients from £1.511.75p to £950 thereby ensuring that the service they paid for was indeed, "high quality."

5) "Ombudsman Services goes out of its way to respond to complainants who object to the service's decisions and who are persistent in seeking explanations.

I have seen in the files that there is often considerable correspondence after the final decision has been reached and when the investigation is formally at an end

- This of course reflects good service." (Roger Jefferies. Ombudsman Services Independent Assessor) 

The Straight Bat:

The Independent Assessor complained that some complainants were even rude which will never do.

Ombudsman Services went out of its way not to answer our questions as did the Government's OFT. Then it was the turn of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor who went so far as to threaten us with prosecution should we publish her findings. Which we will of course do.

5) 2012-2013:

"Our product is dispute resolution and we aim to deliver this quickly, effectively and at a reasonable cost. We owe it to our customers to provide the best possible service and we constantly seek ways to improve and become ever more efficient." CEO and Chief Ombudsman Lewis Shand Smith)

The Straight Bat:

Unfortunately, property complainants no longer knew if the CEO was delivering on his promises as his Ombudsman's performance was no longer being monitored by the researchers who replaced DJS Research. The Property Ombudsman had very efficiently failed to record what the average financial award was and there were no breakdown of these so-called, "awards." This as in contravention of the OFT Criteria.

6) 2013-14:

"We have been co-operating with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills on the interpretation, development and implementation of the directive, which must be transposed into UK law by July 2015 ... Proposals for an independent Scotland include the creation of a single consumer ombudsman. We believe this should be a reality for all of the UK."

(Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair, Ombudsman Services)

The Straight Bat:

We sent a number of questions to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills suggesting areas in which Ombudsman Services failed to meet the EU Directive's requirements. Requirements to be; transparent and accountable. None of our questions was answered. The Property Ombudsman again failed to publish the average financial award paid to property complainants and there was again no breakdown of those awards. This again contravened the BIS' OFT's criteria.

7) 2014-15:

"Despite the economic challenges that have arisen from the increased demand

complainants tell us that we're doing a good job and meeting their expectations across a number of important measures, including the efficiency of our processes and understanding of the problems presented to us." (CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith

The Straight Bat:

Regarding property complaints, no-one knows whether that was true or not because whereas DJS Research specifically asked questions about the speed, accuracy and fairness of the investigation of heir complaint, the new researchers don't. There has been a deliberate cover-up of the Property ombudsman's performance. However, his financial awards were now averaging £100. There was no breakdown of those so-called, "awards."

8) "I was concerned by the scale and significance of the failing I identified in certain cases... I was surprised to find such instances of maladministration within an ombudsman organisation." (The Independent Assessor)

The Straight Bat:

Couldn't be straighter than that.

9) 2015-2016

"A model in which data insights drive improvement where consumer detriment is reduced by the Ombudsman with suppliers and sectors to put things right, to stop problems arising in the first place and to make a real difference to the whole consumer journey." (CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith)

The Straight Bat:

There was by now virtually no data on the consumer detriment suffered by property complainants at the hands of RICS' surveyor and RICS' Property Ombudsman. The Property Ombudsman's average financial award was now £50. There was again no breakdown of awards. Complainants were apparently 100% satisfied with customer journey

10) Ombudsman Services say they are providing, "a broken solution to a broken market." Their spokesman said: "Ombudsman Services will come back into the housing market as quickly as we can - once we feel that action is being taken to make the system for redress less confusing and more transparent."

Lewis Shand Smith said, "We fully support Sajid Javid regarding the need for a single ombudsman for housing - only then will the housing sector be able to retsore trust and ensure that consumers get a much better standard of service." And, "Housing is one of the biggest issues we face as a nation, and a fair, balanced, redress system will make sure that it serves the whole of society. We want to work to develop a model that works for everyone."

(www.propertyindustryeye.com ombudsman-quits-property-arbitration-saying-housing-market-is-broken)

The Straight Bat:

MoneySavingExperts' report for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform state that nearly 90% of property complainants are dissatisfied with Lewis Shand Smith's existing model describing it as, "unfair."

We sent hundreds of emails to Sajid Javid when he was the Business Secretary. He didn't answer a single one of them.

Lewis Shand Smith's researchers were unable to discover that themselves.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, was the action to make Ombudsman Services for redress more transparent?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how can the consumer trust Lewis Shand Smith when nearly 90% of property complainants are reported as describing his system of redress as being, "unfair?"

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why didn't Sajid Javid answer any of our questions about Ombudsman Services and why did he permit property complainants to take their complaints to this government approved and monitored scheme when there was so little transparency about its performance in handling complex property complaints?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, have politically influenced and engaged civil servants prevented this information from reaching you and your colleague, Sajid Javid?

Q. Mr Clark, why have you permitted property complainants to continue taking their complaints to this broken solution?

 

One key performance indicator in The Full English Cover-up is its remarkable ability to avoid answering questions.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com

Ombudsman Services: "It Simply Isn't Cricket Old Boy."

To the Leader of the House of Commons and The Business Secretary:

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. Attempt 27.

27) Ombudsman Services: "It Simply Isn't Cricket Old Boy."

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

The team captain made a tearful, heartfelt apology saying he was, "deeply sorry." The other two culprits made their mea culpas before all three went into internal exile. Careers and fortunes lay in tatters. Amazingly, they'd somehow managed to convince themselves that in front of the cameras and eyes of the cricketing world, they could get away with taking the shine off a cricket ball by rubbing sandpaper over it.

It was a decision arrived at in an illogical manner.

According to the now deleted DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports and company Minutes the shine came off Ombudsman Services' superb model of ADR shortly after it left the drawing board. They've been bowling consumers googlies, beamers and Chinamen ever since.

For example:

1) "Our Terms of Reference preclude any Ombudsman from being a surveyor, decisions are taken by a lay person whose expertise is in dispute resolution..."

(2009 Annual Report).

- Despite that rule the present Property Ombudsman is a member of RICS.

2) "The Ombudsman is a lay person whose expertise is in dispute resolution not in the profession or service about which complaints are." 

(2009 Annual Report)

- 6.19) Dissatisfaction with the overall level of service is perhaps informed by the great lack of satisfaction with the perceived attempt to which the Ombudsman attempted to resolve a dispute through mediation and negotiation 48% very dissatisfied. (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report: Second Year)

- So much for the Property Ombudsman's, "expertise."

3) "RICS provides funding for the operational work of SOS (now re-branded as OS:Property) but the Ombudsman is completely independent from RICS."

- Steven Gould, Director of Professional Regulation RICS, was a Board Member and RICS have a Memorandum of Understanding with their appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property - "RICS and OS:P will work together

...to meet the agreed aims of ensuring that:

- there is regular communication to foster the effective resolution of complaints by OS.P."

- That's "independence?" And how is having an Ombudsman who fails to mediate and negotiate, "effective?"

4) "PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO RICS ABOUT COMPLAINTS, OSP: will also provide RICS with management and performance data about the operation of OS:P as may reasonably be required."

- That's "independence?" And how is having an Ombudsman who fails to mediate and negotiate, "reasonable"

5) Minutes for 15 December 2009:
5.8 "The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the apparent increases in the level of recent awards."

- The Property Ombudsman duly reduced the level of financial awards, in her terms, " significantly." They went from £1.511.75p in 2009 to £950 in 2010. Today they stand at £50. Clearly, RICS regard this as being, "effective" otherwise they would have listened to, and acted upon DJS Research's recommendations to raise them in line with the financial loss they'd incurred. They didn't.

6) Gillian Fleming. Property Ombudsman, "In reviewing the last year, even though the average financial award is significantly less, the range of award has not changed." (Annual Property report 2010-11)

- Publishing annually a range of financial awards was a requirement of OFT - Governmental - approval. That ceased when DJS Research lost the contract to produce customer satisfaction reports. There has been no explanation for this breach of the OFT criteria. Rules don't seem to apply at Ombudsman Services.

Gillian Fleming, Property Ombudsman, "These awards together with any recommendations, demonstrate how our service makes a difference."

- It most certainly does, RICS surveyors get off virtually scot-free whilst their clients are left attempting to come to terms with the difference the Property Ombudsman has made to their lives.

- DJS Research say, "The nature of SOS (now OS:Property) means that problems may have led to significant financial loss for complainants ... it was the scale of the financial goodwill that went against them... this should be looked at."

- It was. It now stands at £50.

7) "The complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge and something that OS:P has addressed by developing expertise across the business and introducing a new approach to reports." (Gillian Fleming Annual Report 2011-12)

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Rev Shand Smith, announced that, "Our decisions are our product."

- DJS Research: 61% felt the outcome was against them, 64% went to further representation, 83% had submitted further evidence, 61% felt the investigator had not understood the nature of their complaint, 47% felt there were errors in the report. The majority disagreed that the ombudsman had helped sort out the problem.

- Investigating officers were led by an Ombudsman would did not understand the complexity of property disputes yet managed to find in favour of their fee-paying Members and reduce financial awards, "significantly."

- It's certainly a good product for the Rev Shand Smith's fee-paying Members.

8) DJS Research, "To be effective the SOS (now rebranded as OS:Property) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the consensus of opinion."  (DJS Research)

- DJS Research were suddenly replaced and there was a remarkable turnaround at the company. A miracle happened. The new researchers were able to state,

"Our research approach has been designed to provide a more timely and flexible insight into the customer experience Ombudsman Services provides. March - April 2012: Verbatim comments showed largely positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Services. Results were consistent by sector."

- In the space of twelve amazing months the customer experience went from widespread dissatisfaction to blissful happiness and serenity. A truly remarkable flexible insight indeed..

9) There was no mention of the maladministration at the company. Yet more flexibility.

10) Martin Lewis' Report for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform found something that the new researchers had failed to spot: That 80%+ of property complainants thought that their customer experience - The Rev Shand Smith's, "Product" - sucked.

 

The contrast between the Aussie cricketers and their thirty seconds of madness and Ombudsman Services and their 10 year regime of, "broken solutions" could not be greater.

  

There has been no apology, tearful or otherwise, either from the Chair, Lord Tim Clement Jones or The CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Shand Smith,. Neither has offered their resignation or been forced to resign and the pay cheques and bonuses still keep coming. 

Good For Business. Bad For Consumers, Justice and Democracy.

It simply isn't cricket old boy.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com

Ombudsman Services: THE QUEEN on the application of (1) DSD and NBV (2) MAYOR of LONDON (3) NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD And the PAROLE BOARD OF ENGLAND AND WALES (2) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTIICE + JOHN RADFORD (formerly known as JOHN WARBOYS) Attempt 26pt 26

To: The Leader of the House of Commons and The Business Secretary:

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. Attempt 25.

26) Ombudsman Services: THE QUEEN on the application of (1) DSD and NBV (2) MAYOR of LONDON (3) NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD And the PAROLE BOARD OF ENGLAND AND WALES (2) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE + JOHN RADFORD (formerly known as JOHN WARBOYS)

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

The ruling by; Sir Brian Leveson, Mr Justice Jay and Mr Justice Garnham in the above case on the Parole Board's decision to release John Radford (Warboys)surely raises important issues regarding those Final Decisions made by ombudsmen.

At 9) we read:

    "There is no right of appeal against a decision of the Parole Board

      although any can be the subject of challenge by way of judicial

      review on public law grounds which, in this case, are designed to

      adjudicate upon the legality of decisions reached by an expert body

      entrusted by Parliament with the function of undertaking the relevant

      evaluative assessment, rather than upon the merits of that assessment."

Consumers also have no right of appeal against an Ombudsman's decision no matter how ludicrous, unfair and unjust although they can be similarly challenged by a judicial review. The above named judges had one complex Parole Board case to consider.

At Ombudsman Services there is no data on the number of property case "resolved" in 2017 but in 2016 it stood at 1166. In Martin Lewis' Report, Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform we're told that 80%+ property complainants were dissatisfied with the decision handed to them by the OS Property Ombudsman. That's 932 property complainants and if they were to seek to overturn their decision it would involve 932 judicial reviews.

The Public Law Project Short Guide 03 at 9) How to pay for a judicial review, it states,

     "If you lose your case, the usual rule is that you pay the other side's

      legal costs. There will be the costs of their solicitor and barrister, and

      court fees. That could amount to £30.000 or more.

If the 932 dissatisfied victims of OS:Property resolved cases were to seek judicial review it could set them back £27.9 Million should they lose.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, where is the justice in that?

Sir Brian Leveson spoke of John Radford's (Warboys'), "apparent deftness in impression management." We discovered that our surveyor had a similar deftness of impression management when discussing our case with his ombudsman but we had to resort to a Data Protection Act request before we learnt about it.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, where is the justice in that?

Sir Brian Leveson went on to question, "whether he (John Radford) was  being open and honest." Clearly, when surveyors feel completely at ease messaging Ombudsmen during the course of an investigation and neither send the complainant a copy of what is being discussed and decided, openness and honesty are the last things on their minds.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, where is the justice in that?

Sir Brian Leveson concluded that the Parole Board's decision on the evidence considered was, "irrational."

DJS Research's independent Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services arrived at a similar conclusion. They found that the Property Ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner" (Customer Satisfaction Reports 2008-11). Unfortunately, complainants do not have a figure like Sir Brian sitting in judgement on their cases.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, where is the justice in that?

At 15) we're told,

     "We would add that consideration should also be given by the

      Parole Board in a case of this complexity and prominence to

      whether a serving judge or retired judge should chair the panel."

DJS Research discovered that the Property Ombudsmen and her team of investigating officers; misrepresented information and failed to understand the complexity of property complaints before arriving at decisions in an illogical manner.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why are consumers still being forced to wait for a judge-led public inquiry into Ombudsman Services' broken solution?  

At 18) the findings suggest that,

     "There is no obvious reasons the open justice principle should not

       apply to the Parole Board in the context of providing information

       on matters of public concern to the very group of individuals who

       harbour such concern, namely the public itself. Indeed, it seems to

       us that there are clear and obvious reasons why the Parole Board

       should do so. This information can readily be provided in a fashion

       which in no way undermines the Article 8 rights of the prisoner and

       the confidentiality which attaches to it.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, we have long argued that all Final Decisions in property cases should be made available for public scrutiny along with the complainant's expression of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. And that the number of referrals made by RICS surveyors to what is to all intents and purposes their Ombudsman be similarly made available. Why hasn't this been done? 

 

The three judges concluded,

     "That the open justice principle, or more particularly the right in the

       public to receive information which flows from the operation of that

       principle, applies to the proceedings of the Parole Board."

Surely, the same standards must also apply to farcical ombudsmen and their broken solutions in a broken market.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www,blogger.com.

The Association Of Ombudsmen's Common Book Of Excuses. Attempt 25

To: The Leader of the House of Commons / The Business Secretary and The Ombudsman Services CEO and Chief Ombudsman.

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. Attempt 25.

25) The Association Of Ombudsmen's Common Book Of Excuses. 

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and the Rev Shand Smith,

The Association Of Ombudsmen's Common Book Of Excuses should not be confused with the Common Book Of Witchcraft And Wicca although both concern themselves with the dark art of manipulating reality.

We saw in our previous attempt at explaining The Full English Cover-Up how

not only did one Independent Assessor at Ombudsman Services copy and use whole exact-same sentences from those he was supposedly independent of, but how Amelia Murray's Telegraph article listed failings at the Financial Ombudsman Service that could be twinned with those at Ombudsman Services:

- Cases not handled correctly

- Poor decision making

- Alleged errors

- Improper handling of cases

- The highly questionable "independence" of key decision makers

- Final decisions that aren't really final decisions

and how,

- New evidence might affect the outcome of case.

 

Regarding the last in that long and sorry list, DJS Research reported that although a majority of property complainants resorted to it in a desperate attempt to make sense of the ludicrous Final Decision they'd been handed by the Property Ombudsmen, that sadly, in the overwhelming majority of cases it made no difference whatsoever to the outcome.

An Ombudsman's Final Decision - no matter how eyewateringly ludicrous, unfair or unjust - is Final.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, was forcing bewildered property complainants to submit further evidence and seek clarification of the Final Decision the Property Ombudsman had made (based of the evidence they'd already supplied her with), an example of your, "broken solution?"

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why haven't you apologised in full to each and every victim of your, "broken solution?"

In our reply to the Ombudsman Services Independent Assessor's letter to us we wrote;

    "You state;

     'As a result of disrepair which you discovered in the property you took a

      complaint to the firm and then to the Ombudsman Service."

      Disrepair?

      I complained about the quality of the survey. Would you call a crack

      running the length of a wall, "disrepair?" Are you suggesting that this

      crack appeared after the survey was carried out? Because according

      to the Ombudsman's ruling everything fell apart the day we moved in.

      Part of my complaint is that if a builder can spot this crack why can't a

      surveyor? I paid the surveyor I didn't pay the builder.

      Would you describe such a crack as, disrepair?

      I see from the Terms of reference - Provision of Information:

      7.5 states: 'In exceptional circumstances where the Ombudsman

      considers it necessary(as a matter of sole discretion) a site visit, expert

      report or a face to face meeting (or hearing) may be arranged.'

     

      What a good idea.

      As you will have seen from reading Mr Monk's correspondence with

      the Ombudsman he laments at being no longer able to fulfil his,

      "goodwill gesture" or attend our home with an independent surveyor.

      It seems such a shame to pass this opportunity by and it is indeed one

      of the few moments I find myself in complete agreement with him.

      I would welcome any of the above. It seems strange that this suggestion

      wasn't made sooner don't you think? Who knows what we might have

      found.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, in the past decade how many; site visits, expert reports and face to face meetings did the Property Ombudsman arrange and why isn't this information given in your booklet "Resolving complaints fairly" or Annual Property Report?

The Independent Assessor didn't answer our questions.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, shouldn't there now be a public inquiry into; the Ombudsman Industry, its broken solution, the broken market Ombudsmen operate within and how Ombudsmen all appear to sing from the same hymn sheet?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com.

Ombudsman Services: No Documentary And No Letter To The Chair. That's "Troubling." Attempt 24

To: the Leader of the House of Commons / the Business Secretary / the Chair of Ombudsman Services and the Ombudsman Services CEO and Chief Ombudsman.

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up Attempt 24.

24) Ombudsman Services: No Documentary And No Letter To The Chair. That's, "Troubling."

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and the Rev Shand Smith,

Today's Telegraph article tells us of the sterling work of  Channel 4's Dispatches Documentary and Nicky Morgan MP Chair of the Treasury Committee.

"Financial ombudsman agrees to independent review after 'troubling' documentary."

(The Independent. Amelia Murray)

The FOS has promised an independent review in response to a probing letter from Nicky Morgan, MP and chair of the Treasury Committee about the apparent failings exposed in a documentary Credit: Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg

• Amelia Murray

26 March 2018 • 6:40pm

The head of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has agreed to an "independent review" of the business following the "troubling" revelations that were exposed in a Channel 4 investigation earlier this month that cases may not have been "decided correctly".
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports also strongly suggested that case may not have been decided correctly. Is it not deeply troubling that to date there has been no independent inquiry?

 

Caroline Wayman, the chief ombudsman, responded to a probing letter from Nicky Morgan, MP and chair of the Treasury Committee, which questioned the processes at the FOS to avoid “poor decision making”, as well as the “alleged errors” and “improper handling of cases”.

 

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones and the Rev Shand Smith, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports suggested; investigating officers did not understand the complexity of property cases, misrepresented the evidence, that the Property Ombudsman arrived at decisions in an illogical manner, that complainants were reduced to submitting further evidence and that it made no difference to the outcome of their cases - where were your, "processes to avoid poor decision making" the, "alleged errors" and "improper handling of cases?"

Ms Wayman confirmed an "independent person" would be appointed to to carry out a review, so the business can "better understand and address the concerns raised by the programme".
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, if those running the business need a Channel 4 documentary and Nicky Morgan's searching letter to get them up to speed, why on earth were they running the operation in the first place?

In response, Ms Morgan said the possibility that cases may have been handled incorrectly was "troubling" and suggested complaints should be looked at again even if a final decision has been reached.    

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and the Rev Shand Smith, is it not also troubling that according to DJS Research, Ombudsman Services appear to had mishandled 61% of cases in 2010 and 64% in 2011 and that according to MoneySavingExperts this had rocketed to 80%+ in 2017. Shouldn't all of these cases not also be looked at again by independent reviewers even though a final decision had also been reached?

She said: "It’s right that cases be reopened if there is any new evidence that might affect the outcome. That must surely include failures in the FOS’ own processes."

 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, both the Financial Ombudsman Service and Ombudsman Services appear to have got it hopelessly wrong in the first place. Indeed the Rev Shand Smith has gone so far as to say that his was, "a broken solution in a broken market." Don't the victims of these broken solutions deserve to have their cases re-surveyed by people who a re capable of acting without fear or favour? 

• 'The Ombudsman ordered Lloyds to repay us £47,500 - and then changed its mind'
• BT ignored ombudsman's instruction to repay customer £5,371

Ms Morgan said the review promised by the chief ombudsman "must consider the FOS’ approach to decision-making" and "the assurance process" and be "demonstrably independent".  
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, when the RICS - who can't force their Members and Regulated Firms to do anything or refrain from doing anything even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules and regulation, but have a Memorandum of Understanding with their appointed company and appointed Property Ombudsman and who are in regular communication with said Property Ombudsman to ensure the, "effective resolution of disputes," "resolutions" which now see 80%+ of property complainants, "dissatisfied" - isn't it stretching credulity to breaking point to suggest that their processes are, "demonstrably independent?" 

Other issues which were exposed in the Dispatches documentary included staff admitting they rushed through cases to meet targets and ruled in favour of the banks, because it was easier to just "make one phone call" to an individual then persuade a business to pay out.
 

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, your company minutes record that there was some concern expressed over, "the recent rise in the levels of award" and that the Property Ombudsman subsequently reduced her financial awards, "significantly." In 20109-10 they stood at £1.511.75p then the Property Ombudsman cut them to £900 and by 2016 they were 50 quid. Today the consumer has no idea what they stand at because you haven't yet produced an Annual report for 2017. Is this because it was easier to do as the RICS said rather than as the consumer needed?

 

 

The FOS, which handles complaints between consumers and financial service firms, had already agreed to a review "overseen by the non-executive board" of the "concerns raised in the programme".
However consumer campaigner James Daley, from Fairer Finance, said he was sceptical of this suggestion. He said the board were "implicated" in the ombudsman failings that "happened on their watch". 

 

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, the broken solution to a broken market which saw 80%+ of property complainants dissatisfied with your best efforts, has happened on your watch. Shouldn't there not now be; a public inquiry into the RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Property, compensation for the victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and the executives' maladministration and the setting up of a publically run fair and independent ombudsman service?

 

Ms Morgan added that she would be writing to Ms Wayman to set out in more detail the Treasury Committee's "expectation of the review" and will be considering whether any further action is needed.

 

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign would like to congratulate Channel 4 and Nicky Morgan MP on their work to protect the consumer from, "farcical ombudsman."

 

Is it not time that some were detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure so that they could have time to reflect on their broken solutions?

 

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com

Ombudsman Services: The, "Independence" Of The Ombudsman Services' Independent Assessor. Attempt 23.

To: The Leader of the House of Commons / The Business Secretary and the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services:

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. Attempt 23.

23) Ombudsman Services: The "Independence" Of The Ombudsman Services' Independent Assessor.

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and The Rev Shand Smith.

We sent the following email to the email to the Ombudsman Services' Independent Assessor on Sun 5 Sep 2010:

   "Dear Mr Jefferies,

    Thank you for your letter and the time you've taken to explain your role

    as the Independent Assessor.

    However, I do find it somewhat strange that after being told by Mr Brown

    that my case had been referred to you - without any prior warning,

    consultation, or indeed knowledge of your existence (there's no mention

    of you in the booklet, "Resolving complaints fairly") that you should

    conclude your letter by saying,

    "May I remind you that my terms of reference provide that their is no appeal

    against my decision. I regret that I am unable to enter into any further

    correspondence on the matter."

   

    I don't find that very fair and I wonder where the natural justice lies in all of

    this? As for your professed, "independence" I wonder at that too. Your to     letter heading is Ombudsman Services and the mail address is identical to  

    everything else I've received from Ombudsman Services:Property. Isn't it just  a bit   

    strange that some of your sentences are identical to Mr Browns? It is as if someone  

    on high has written a script for all of you to adhere to.

    I'm not sure what your role is. You say you are independent of the service

    and yet your terms of reference are laid out by Ombudsman Services. So

    I assume you are paid by them to work for them. Where's the

    independence there?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why didn't the Independent Assessor alert Government monitors and the consumer to the fact that you were offering, "a broken solution in a broken market?

    You tell me that you can't conduct the Ombudsman's investigation again

    or change the decision of the Ombudsman or answer questions about

    the Data Protection Act so as far as I can see there seems to be very

    little point in having an Independent Assessor."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, wasn't the purpose of the Ombudsman Services' Independent Assessor to cover-up the all the company's broken solutions in this part of the broken market in redress?

The Ombudsman is indeed an institution endowed with enormous power.

Power, it would seem, without accountability or responsibility.

When challenging the unregulated power of Beaverbrook and Rothermere, Stanley Baldwin stated;

"The newspapers attacking me are not newspapers in the ordinary sense. They are engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal vices, personal likes and dislikes of the two men. What are their methods? Their methods are direct falsehoods, misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speaker's meaning by publishing a sentence apart from the context - What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."

Stanley Baldwin. Speech March 17 1931)

 Whereas Stanley Baldwin was able - thanks to the print support of other sections of the press - to successfully challenge the power of those two press barons, today's consumers have no-one to advocate on their behalf when confronted by the all powerful Ombudsman.

There is no further appeal against their ludicrous decisions.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at www.blogger.com.