Ombudsman Services Also Failed To Heed Warnings. (22)
To: The Leader of the House of Commons / the Business Secretary / the Chair of Ombudsman Services and the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services:
Ombudsman Services: The Full English Cover-Up. Attempt 22.
22) Ombudsman Services Also Failed To Heed Warnings.
Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and the Rev Shand Smith,
Not only did Ombudsman Services fail to heed our and DJS Research's warnings but the OFT did, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills did, the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman did, the RICS did and the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy continues to do so.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is this not how The Full English Cover-Up operates - it studiously fails to heed warnings and in the Parliamentary and Health Services' case threatens those you attempt to pass on the warning, with prosecution?
Facebook was warned of risk to users' data two years before Cambridge Analytica breach (James Titcomb 24.03.2018)
Facebook responded to warning with minor changes to the way users were notified about how apps were gathering data but did not fully block the practice for another four years
Facebook was warned that its users were at risk two years before the data of 50 million people was accessed by a controversial political firm, the Telegraph can disclose. In 2011, the social media giant’s European regulator cautioned that it was failing to ensure that data was protected when passed to third-party software developers.
Q. The Rev Shand Smith, in 2008-9, 2009-10 and 2010-11 DJS Research warned Ombudsman Services that; its Ombudsman arrived at decisions in an illogical manner, that its investigating officers had failed to understand the complexity of property complaints, that they misrepresented the information, that so-called, "financial awards" did not adequately recompense victims for the, "detriment" they had suffered and that there was a consensus of opinion that the Ombudsman was not an impartial arbitrator of disputes, why did not act to protect the consumer?
Q. The Rev Smith, your company had two RICS officials sitting on the company's board and a Memorandum of Understanding with the RICS who closely monitored its, "appointed" company as to what were and were not - effective resolutions of disputes. Why was any of the above considered to be, "effective" when so many complainants had stated that it wasn't?
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why did the government monitors of this government approved and monitored scheme also believe any of the above to be effective?
Facebook responded with minor changes to the way users were notified about how apps were gathering data but did not fully block the practice for another four years.
Q. The Rev Shand Smith, your company's minutes state that there had been some concern over the recent rise in the levels of financial award and that the Property Ombudsman subsequently reduced them, "significantly." Why did you heed that warning but not ours and DJS Research's?
The discovery of the warning raises new questions about why Facebook did not act sooner to protect users’ private information. In 2013, two years after the warning, Aleksandr Kogan, a Cambridge professor,...(and there the article peters out)
Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, it wasn't until MoneySavingExperts inadvertently gave the game away by disclosing that the complainant dissatisfaction rate with your product stood at 80%+ that you took action and are withdrawing your broken solution to a broken market. Why have you permitted so many consumers to fall victim to your broken solution before deciding to take action?
Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, don't you at least owe the victims of your broken solution a full and unreserved apology?
Yours sincerely, Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com
No comments:
Post a Comment