Sajid Javid Was Warned Over The Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution. (49)
To: The Leader of the House of Commons / The Business Secretaries Past and Present: Mr Cable, Mr Javid and Mr Clark and to The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government: Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover Up (49)
49) Sajid Javid Was Warned Over The Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution.
Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Cable, Mr Javid, Mr Clark and Mr Brokenshire,
We've contacted your various departments of government; the Cabinet Office, The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government because, heaven forbid, not all of them are being staffed by RICS, "politically influenced" and "engaged" civil servants intent on stopping our complaint from reaching you and receiving your urgent attention.
One email must surely eventually penetrate the defensive barriers set up to stifle all matters of transparency and accountability regarding this government approved and monitored ADR scheme.
The Guardian tells us:
Sajid Javid warned over students forced from UK after language tests
Up to 4,000 foreign students falsely accused of cheating in visa tests, barred from courses and ordered to leave, says lawyer
Tribunal hearings found ‘5%-10% of allegations over language tests for visas were suspect’. Photograph: Andrew Fox for the Guardian
Sajid Javid, the home secretary, is being urged to review the treatment of thousands of foreign students who were ordered to leave the UK after being accused of cheating in English language tests set for visa purposes.
Q. Mr Javid, when you were the Business Secretary we urged you to review the treatment of thousands of consumers who had been on the receiving end of an Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution but you did nothing and as a result now nearly 90% of complainants say they have been treated unfairly. Why when you were the Business Secretary didn't you intervene to protect consumers?
According to one immigration lawyer as many as 4,000 students may have been falsely accused by the Home Office of faking their tests in what has been described as another example of the government’s “hostile environment” immigration policy.
Q. Mr Clark, we have written to you 283 times but we've still not had a response. You never phone you never write. Is this because; a) you are indifferent to the plight of the victims of Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution b) RICS' "politically influenced" and "engaged" civil servants are preventing the information from reaching you as apparently was the case with you predecessor and his c) you are orchestrating the Full English Cover-Up into this scandal of Broken ADR?
Q. Mr Clark, we believe part of Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution was that they faked investigations. Do you not know this?
Due to the Home Office move, visas were cancelled, and students were barred from their courses and told to return to their home countries. Doubts, first highlighted in a Financial Times report, have now been cast on the quality of some of the evidence upon which these accusations were made.
Q. Mr Clark, we have sent you evidence that details the appalling quality of some of the illogical decision making upon which Ombudsman Services based their Final Decisions - their Broken Solutions. Did you not receive it?
Q. Mr Clark, government monitors of this government approved scheme should have provided you with the evidence for this scheme's Broken Solution. Why did you not act upon it to protect consumers?
The students’ ordeal began in 2014 when a BBC Panorama investigation made allegations of cheating in the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), which students must take to meet visa requirements for spoken language proficiency.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't an Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution not also evidence of, "cheating?"
Q. Mr Clark, doesn't this, "cheating" rob complainants of a, "fair" and "independent" investigation of their complaint
Advertisement
Theresa May, home secretary at the time, asked the US-based Educational Testing Services, which ran the system, to analyse voice files to check whether students had used a proxy for language tests. It found that 33,725 results were “invalid” – in other words for involving use of a proxy – and 22,694 more were “questionable”. The Home Office then revoked almost 40,000 visas.
Q. Mr Javid, when you were Business Secretary we sent you details of DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services which concluded that the Property Ombudsman was not an impartial arbitrator in disputes. She appears to have cheated. Why did you fail to act on this information?
Patrick Lewis, an immigration lawyer, said tribunal hearings had since found that between 5% and 10% of the allegations were suspect and that innocent individuals had been caught up in what was undoubtedly widespread fraud.
Q. Mr Cable,Mr Javid and Mr Clark, a fundamental part of Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution was the apparent inability of its Property Ombudsman to arbitrate impartially. Isn't this also fraudulent and why did you fail to act to protect British consumers some of whom might well have been from the Windrush generation.
Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution doesn't discriminate on the grounds of race. Anyone can become a victim of theirs.
The impact had been enormous. “I have clients who were in their last term of study who were then told simply they had to leave on that very day the accusations were made. They had to leave and they would not be able to complete their course.”
Q. Mr Cable, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, what do you believe has been the impact of being handed an Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution for complainants seeking justice?
The students were told they could appeal once they had left the UK and gone home, but, according to Lewis, in most countries, including China, Bangladesh and India, there was no mechanism for any such appeal.
Q. Mr Cable, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, on being given their Broken Solution by Ombudsman Services complainants are told that, "they are free to take their complaint elsewhere and find a solution that suits them better." Wouldn't it have been far better if you and your monitors had done the job taxpayers paid you to do and ensured that ALL complaints were handled by a fair and competent person?
Stephen Timms, the Labour MP for East Ham, who has been contacted by a number of those affected in his constituency, has called on Javid to give the issue careful consideration.
Q. Mr Javid, when you were Business Secretary, why didn't you give the Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution you're careful consideration?
Timms said: “It is very clearly an aspect of the hostile environment. The whole thing strikes me as completely scandalous. They say their lives have been ruined by this. Their families invested quite often their life savings to provide a decent British education at a good university for their child.
Q. Mr Cable, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, we're not monitoring civil servants, ministers, MPs, investigating officers or ombudsmen yet we can see from DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports that Ombudsman Services had created its very own, "hostile environment." An environment which has resulted in nearly 90% of complainants being, "dissatisfied" with the way their cases have been (mis)handled. Isn't this not also scandalous and how many lives have been ruined as a result?
“They’ve paid the money, they’ve lost their visa halfway through a course and they’re absolutely stuck. A lot of them feel they can’t go back to India or Bangladesh because of the shame attached to this. They’ve been accused of cheating by the British government.”
Q. Mr Clark, as Business Secretary you will be aware of the Chair of Ombudsman Services - Lord Tim Clement Jones - and his Foreword to the 2016 Annual Report in which he accused some (he didn't say how many) complainants of not accepting that his best efforts were good enough. When nearly 90% say his best efforts are not up to scratch shouldn't he resign with immediate effect?
A Home Office statement defended the department’s earlier actions. “In February 2014 investigations into the abuse of English language testing revealed systemic cheating, which was indicative of large-scale, organised fraud. The government took immediate robust action on this, which has been measured and proportionate, and so far 21 people have received criminal convictions for their role in this deception.”
Q. Mr Cable, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, DJS Research's data (2008-11) showed the Ombudsman Services' Solution was Broken. It systematically cheated complainants out of an OFT, "speedy," "fair" and "independent" investigation of their complaint. Why did none of you take, "immediate and robust action" action which had been, "measured and proportionate" to protect consumers?
A spokesperson for Universities UK, which represents universities, said the cases largely related to students at private colleges, and called for a fair and proportionate system for investigating immigration issues. “Home Office research shows that levels of visa abuse involving university students is very low and universities take their compliance responsibilities seriously. Action should be taken only against individual students or institutions if there is clear and compelling evidence of abuse of the student visa system.”
Q. Mr Cable, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, DJS Research provided compelling evidence that consumers were being abused by the Ombudsman Services' ADR scheme - The Broken Solution as the maladministrators euphemistically put it. Why has there been a Full English Cover-Up of this appalling scandal?
Q. Mr Cable, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, is it because you are all obsessively committed to a doctrinaire, Thatcherite "free market" approach to private ADR when quite obviously such a dogmatic approach has spectacularly failed the consumer?
It has, however, but been remarkably Good For Business.
Regarding - "New Ombudsman Schemes: guidance. Cabinet Office." (www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-ombudsman-schemes-guidance) it states: 5: In considering setting up such a scheme, departments should have regard to BIOA's "Criteria" for use of the term Ombudsman. Independence from those who the ombudsman has power to investigate; accessibility; effectiveness; fairness; and public accountability. If these criteria are not met use of the term ombudsman must be avoided and an alternative (Commissioner, Adjudicator, Complaints Examiner, for instance) be used.
Q. Mr Cable, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, didn't the Full English Cover-Up commence with the departure of DJS Research in 2011?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, there have been no Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services since DJS Research's departure. How does this failure meet the Cabinet Office guidance for such schemes?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, where is the hallmark of success lurking?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, where is the public accountability?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, how does it meet the BIOA's (now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association) requirement for all member schemes to publish an Annual Report when there has been NO Ombudsman Services Annual Report for 2017?
We asked this government about the accountability (and transparency) of the Ombudsman Services' ADR scheme in Attempt 518: 518: Accountability 1: The BIOA, The Cabinet Office, Ombudsman Services And the Rev Shand Smith. Dear Mr Clark, Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's workshop with Ombudsman Watchers highlighted the huge and systemic failing of ombudsman schemes to be, in any meaningful way, accountable. At about the same time as we were attempting to complain to Francis Maude about Ombudsman Services:Property the Cabinet Office issued the following guidance to the British public in 2010:
"3: The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) (www.bioa.org.uk) is a voluntary organisation to which all Ombudsman in the UK and Republic of Ireland belong. It has considerable experience and expertise, gained since its inception in 1993, in the establishment and running of Ombudsman schemes.
4: An effective (and BIOA compliant) Ombudsman scheme can be the hallmark of fair redress, It is important therefore that anyone establishing such a scheme should consult with the Cabinet Office which acts as a Government liaison point on Ombudsman matters, and also provides the channel of communication with BIOA."
Part of that supposed expertise included the insistence that ombudsman schemes wishing to become members of its organisation MUST have a Whistleblowing Policy. The Ombudsman61percent Campaign thought that was fair and reasonable. To any fair minded person, a Whistleblowing Policy seems to be a fundamental and essential corollary to accountability. Like seat belts in a car.
Q. Mr Clark, when the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services, The Rev Shand Smith, became Chair of the BIOA the requirement for member organisations to have a Whistleblowing Policy vanished. Why?
Clearly, with its liaison point in the Cabinet Office on such matters, the ditching of a Whistleblowing Policy and Annual Report by Ombudsman Services have both been sanctioned at the highest level. Together the Cabinet Office and Ombudsman Services cooked up The Full English Cover-Up at this private ADR scheme. An ADR scheme built on Broken Solutions.
Yours sincerely, Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www,blogger.com ombudsmans61percent campaign and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. Please Comment. Please Join The Campaign For Justice For The Victims Of Fraudulent ADR.
No comments:
Post a Comment