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.
No comments:
Post a Comment