Dear Reader,
Who in pre, soon to be, post-Brexit Britain is going to protect consumers from
Ombudsmen with Broken Solutions in Broken Markets?
To: The EU Justice Sub-Committee:Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. (65)65) Ombudsman Services: From DJS Research to BMG Research - A Short History Of Chaotic, Private Rigged Redress.Dear Baroness Kennedy,British victims of Lewis Shand Smith's, "Broken Solution in a Broken Market" must wonder what he based his evidence on when addressing your committee on the 4th July 2017.Seemingly, at the time of his contribution the model of ADR was still, "superb" and only imploded sometime after his erudite presentation to your Committee. It would have been before November the 17th when MoneySavingExpert's "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform - commissioned by The All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection - was published and February 2018 when BMG's Customer Satisfaction Report for Ombudsman Services came out.We believe the following evidence and statistics supplement what was discovered by DJS Research between 2008-11: that this ADR scheme was broken before it left the drawing board and has been failing to protect consumers for near on a decade.We're told by BMG that:"The data in this report is based on over 5,000 completed surveys, with this larger sample size increasing both the statistical robustness of the data and the potential for it to be explored in greater depth."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, don't the victims of this Broken Solution need it to be explored in greater depth by a judge-led public inquiry?
This makes the 2017 data a very robust dataset. The data presented in this report is also highly robust for the Energy and Communications sectors. The relatively low same base of consumers responding to Property cases means that greater caution is required when reviewing the feedback in relation to this sector.
The ability to link the real time survey returns to an online reporting dashboard, thus providing Ombudsman Services with direct access to their latest customer feedback scores.
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services failed to mention the, "Property Sector" in his evidence. Why was that? And was it because it performed so differently to other sectors?
3.1 Overall Satisfaction
Seven in ten (72%) consumers were satisfied with the overall handling of their case, including 56% who gave the most positive response on the scale of very satisfied. Only a small proportion (6%) gave a neutral response to this question, with 22% being dissatisfied. Overall satisfaction with case handling is consistent in the Energy and Communication sectors at 73% and 71% respectively. However, satisfaction is significantly lower for those who had a Property case at (53%). Among these consumers the proportion dissatisfied is nearly double the survey average (42% c.f. 22%).
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, did the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services gloss over the Property Sector because of its woeful performance in, "protecting the consumer?"
The outcome - % agree Was clear and easy to understand – 80% Was fully reasoned and was supported by the available evidence - 69% Was fair and unbiased - 69% Addressed the key elements of your complaint - 69% 3.7 Delivering for customers
When asked to state if the remedy they received was better or worse than expected, 67% suggest that it was either in line with expectations (43%) or indeed better than expected (24%). The fact that a quarter of consumers are achieving an outcome that exceeds their expectations does suggest that Ombudsman Services is making a difference on behalf of consumers.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign finds this statement somewhat confusing.and wonders how a 42% dissatisfaction rate by Property Sector respondents is in any way an example of, "Delivering for Customers."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, what exactly is Ombudsman Services delivering for Property Sector customers when BMG state 42% are dissatisfied?
This level of advocacy is equal for Energy (NPS of +36) and Communications (+33), but is lower among those how had a Property case. Indeed, for these individuals a negative NPS of -13 is found, with the proportion who are Detractors (53%), being greater than the proportion who are Promoters (40%).We were told by DJS Research that property disputes were complex and costly and many property complainants had suffered huge detriment at the hands of their RICS surveyor.Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, when 53% of Property Sector respondents were classified as, "Detractors" doesn't this suggest that something was seriously wrong with Ombudsman Services', "Solution?"Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, why was the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services apparently unaware of this when offering his evidence to your Committee?
Across 2017 Quarter 4 shows a significantly higher index score for the investigation stage (83%) relative to the preceding three quarters. Analysis by sector again shows a consistency in the index score of customer experience between Energy (80%) and Communications (79%) cases, with this score lower for Property (64%).
Customer Satisfaction Monitoring 201724
Overall, nearly four fifths of respondents were satisfied with the speed/ timeliness (77%) and the quality of the customer service (76%) provided by the investigation officer during their investigation. Almost one fifth of respondents were dissatisfied with the latter (18%). Furthermore, this dissatisfaction rises to 31% amongst respondents from the Property sector and 35% amongst respondents who case required an OSD.Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, the OFT when approving this private redress scheme on behalf of the British taxpayer assured the taxpayer that it would be speedy, fair and independent. Why have government monitors done nothing to protect consumers from this scheme's slowness especially when over 98% of Property Sector decisions require - an Ombudsman Service Decision?7 The Outcome
When respondents were asked to think about the decision that was made about their complaint following the investigation, four fifths (80%) agree that it was clear and easy to understand. This perceived clarity is significantly higher amongst respondents who had an Early Resolution (93%) or reached a Mutually Accepted Settlement (87%). Among those whose case resulted in an OSD, the proportion who said that the final decision was clear and easy to understand drops significantly to 65%.
Again, the vast majority of Property Sector complaints require an Ombudsman Service Decision.
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, why do you believe so few property complaints result in a Mutually Agreed Settlement?Among all consumers, seven in ten agree that the decision was fully reasoned and supported by the available evidence (69%), fair and unbiased (69%) and addressed the key elements of the complaint (69%). However, nearly a quarter actively disagree across these three measures.
This finding needed to be broken down by sector.
7.1 Delivering against expectations
When asked to state if the remedy they received was better or worse than expected, 67% suggest that it was either in line with expectations (43%) or indeed better than expected (24%). As already noted above, managing of expectations appears to be strong given that at initial contact 83% of consumer agree that the role of Ombudsman Services was clearly explained and that during the investigation the process was clearly explained (82% agree). Even so, the fact that a quarter (24%) of consumers are achieving an outcome that exceeds their expectations does suggest that Ombudsman Services is making a difference on behalf of consumers.
This is contradictory and confusing. It is not what Property Sector respondents were reporting as can be seen by what was said before.
At a sector level the proportion of consumers who state that the remedy they received was worse than they expected is lowest for Energy cases at 32%. This proportion is significantly lower than the 35% of Communications consumers who felt their remedy was worse than expected and the 53% of Property consumers who gave the same response.
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, when 53% of Property consumers felt their remedy was worse than expected, how can this be, "Delivering against expectations?" And what does that mean - delivering against expectations?
Among those who indicated that that the remedy achieved was better than expected 99% express satisfaction with their case remedy overall. For those whose remedy was in line with their expectations, 90% were satisfied with their remedy. However, where the remedy achieved was worse than expected only 14% express overall satisfaction with their remedy, with a clear majority (77%) dissatisfied
This needed to be broken down by sector.
Comments given regarding outcomes being worse than expected tended to be very specific in nature, referencing the details of their case. In interpreting these responses it can be seen that for some consumers there is a perceived mismatch in their eyes of the evidence presented and the outcome delivered. Criticisms are also made about the depth of the investigations. Others appear to suggest the remedies achieved are not commensurate with the time and effort involved to produce them. A small selection of such comments are provided below by means of illustration.
This need to be given far more analysis and required an explanation by the Chair and CEO and Chief Ombudsman.
"None of the impartial evidence we provided was deemed valid. It was provided by a party not involved with the dispute, one of the key points in our case was about access to the property, we got a statement from a bank which said that access was always available as this wasn't he banks fire escape. The ombudsman chose not to accept this statement and instead relied solely on the energy companies statement that access wasn't available. It clearly wasn't an unbiased decision."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, what happened to the much trumpeted independence of the ombudsman?
"I felt that the investigator just repeated what they had been told without actually looking into the reasons behind the complaint. Nor did they explain why they found what they did."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, when the company's Terms of Reference REQUIRE the Ombudsman to give reasoned decisions, why don't they?
"The damages offered were ludicrously small for the trouble I had been put to."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, DJS Research (2010-11) recommended that financial awards be increased to be more in line with the detriment suffered. Why was this never listened to?
"£100 compensation for all my time and effort is unreasonable."
The OFT criteria required this private ADR scheme to publish a range of awards and how those awards were determined. In the last Annual Report published by this company back in 2016 this was not complied with.
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, wasn't a failure to comply with OFT and Ombudsman Association requirements a clear indication that Lewis Shand Smith's Solution was Broken? Why did no-one in government intervene to protect the consumer?Enforcement powers
"What is the point of having your service if you can't enforce your decisions?"
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, isn't this a perfect example of just how rigged markets control and rig the redress their prepared or not prepared to pay?
"It would appear that the Ombudsman service is toothless."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, did Lewis Shand Smith's ADR scheme suddenly lose its teeth after the 4th July 2017?
"They could have insisted that the company concerned completed the remedies, I called the company and they told me right from the start that they would not implement them because they did not agree with them!"
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, how does that comply with any of the EU Directive's requirements for fair, just and transparent ADR?
"British Gas have not done anything that the ombudsman said they should do."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, why don't regulators in this country actually regulate and who in government regulates the regulators?
"Could have addressed the fact that their original recommendations were not implemented. Recommendations were ambiguous and caused problems."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, why is the consumer no longer King (Queen) and why has Ombudsman Services colluded with the markets to dethrone him / her?
"Well, as I expected, npower have completely ignored the resolution."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, if this is the state of consumer protection pre-Brexit what do you imagine it'll look like post-Brexit?
Communication and support
"The remedy implementation team have not got back to me."
"They did not respond to my email/letter."
"They kept calling me when I was at work instead of email and didn't really listen to me."
"I was not kept informed of anything that was going on."
"They could have made me feel more supported in terms of ensuring implementation of the remedy. No elements of the remedy have been implemented and at this stage I have no real confidence that they will be."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, was Lewis Shand Smith not aware of any of this consumer dissatisfaction when addressing your Committee?
Accuracy
"Failed to understand complaint, sent wrong information to energy company"
"Read the facts of the case thoroughly and act on behalf of the customer."
"Took the wrong action Sent back to the investigation officer - then took too long when he sent thro revised statement."
"The staff give out wrong and conflicting information. They do not return phone calls or give written explanation of the process. This has delayed the legal action I must now take to enforce the award."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, this is truly, truly appalling. How is it conceivably possible that the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of this ADR scheme was unaware of what was going on in his own company when addressing your Committee on matters of consumer protection?
Overall satisfaction with case handling is consistent in the Energy and Communication sectors at 73% and 71% respectively. However, satisfaction is significantly lower for those who had a Property case at (53%). Among these consumers, the proportion dissatisfied is nearly double the survey average (42% c.f. 22%).
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, does this high level of consumer dissatisfaction with Property Sector case handling explain why the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services only gave it the most cursory of mentions?
Customer Satisfaction Monitoring 201740
Among those dissatisfied with case handling overall a number of themes emerge which are show below along with illustrative comments.
Overall dissatisfaction witch achieved outcome
(We're relieved that we're not the only ones who struggle with written English although in mitigation we have no office staff. We have no office either.)
"He was all in the favour of the people I was making the complaint about."
"It was not the outcome I wanted."
"Because you did nothing other than get a apology and compensation which was already offered to me (nothing more than I had got myself!) completely a waste of 2-3 months and doc managing."
"I expected a better outcome instead I felt like I was told this is it take it or leave it."
"Poor quality of adjudication by Ombudsman. Lack of legal knowledge."
"The investigating officer completely ignored my evidence and therefore came to a wrong decision."
"They didn't listen to me and my issues they backed British gas in lowering my compensation from £150 to just £75."
"The initial contact gave the impression I had a good case. The final outcome did not support this."
"I just wasted my time and achieved the same outcome I already had."
These are clearly oily rags masquerading as engineers.
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, do you not agree that the observation that those supposedly, "investigating" consumers' complaints, "lack legal knowledge" goes to the very heart of why these schemes are a complete con and why Participating Companies treat them with such little respect?
Quality of investigation/interpretation
"I don’t feel my case was properly understood due to the amount of documentation I had to send and the complex nature. The outcome I received wasn't worth the time and effort I put into collating all the evidence etc."
"Lack of care, effort and diligence by the case officer. It felt like he couldn't be bothered to understand the complexities of my claim and analyse the large amount of evidence."
"They did not listen to me."
"Information is inaccurate Information is inconsistent Officers are unable to provide the information asked for."
"The investigating officer did not understand the detail of the complaint including my disability."
" 1. Not independent. 2 Did not investigate fully 3. Process followed by investigator left me disadvantage."
"Mainly because all three people I spoke to, didn't listen to what I was saying and try to understand my issues."
"My evidence was ignored."
"It was not looked into fairly, the company change things and never told me I could put in details to show the company lied."
"As before - they fundamentally misunderstood the nature of my complaint." Perceived bias/ lack of impartiality
"The process was very slow and difficult and weighted in favour of the company I was complaining about."
"Because they always back the large companies that are able to walk over the working man. And let's face it the service is funded by these companies."
"I don't believe on the basis of my experience that the energy services ombudsman is genuinely impartial."
"I feel there was too much bias to a very large company who are able to produce better evidence due to their systems than me, all I had to rely on was my account and this was not taken properly. As far as I am aware no recordings of any of the conversation that I had were ever listened to just lots of weight put on what was written by the person/persons I was complaining about."
"I found that my ''investigation officer'' was biased in favour of the energy companies involved."
What a truly scandalous indictment of Rigged Market Capitalism and its Rigged Market in Private Redress.
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, there must be thousands of victims of this ADR abuse, what do you intend to do about it?Remedy implementation
"You have a single purpose - to provide remedies to customers that have been let down by customer service functions. Once a remedy has been agreed you need a process which ensures compliance. This appears to be missing which means that you are not fit for purpose."
"The Ombudsman appears to have little power to deal with these companies effectively - adding to customer frustration."
"Remedy has not been fully implemented more than 6 months after our complaint with supplier was initially raised."
"The company has still not actioned any of the Ombudsman’s resolution points."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports were saying the same things between 2008-11. Why has the BIS and the OFT colluded with a private redress scheme that is so obviously Good For Business but Totally Shite For Consumers?
Overall satisfaction measures 45
In terms of the effort that Ombudsman Services is perceived to expend, this is highest for Early Resolution Cases (60%) and those whose case result in MAS (63%). For those individuals who had an Ombudsman Service Decision the proportion who feel that a high effort was made by Ombudsman Services drops to 43%. This drop in perceived effort is notable given that to reach an OSD requires more involvement and resources from Ombudsman Services.
For years the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has been asking Lewis Shand Smith why aren't figures for; the number of re-inspections ordered by the Property Ombudsman included in the Annual Report? And the number of face-to-face meetings ordered by the Property Ombudsman included in the Annual Report? And is the failure to do so due to the RICS refusing to countenance such courses of action due to a) their expense and b) because they are not part of an effective resolution of a dispute?
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, how can a consumer's complaint be investigated fairly and independently if no actual investigation takes place?
Quality of investigation/interpretation
"Take the time to look at the evidence supplied properly. Not lecture victims about how the Ombudsman service is free for consumers. This isn't some kind of privilege for consumers, it's a right."
"Just ensure that they get the full facts and 'be fair and reasonable' with their outcomes."
"Check the actual information received from the company, before accepting they have complied to the Ombudsman instruction."
"Listen to the complaint and all of the implications."
"Actually listen to the customer and be prepared to tackle companies when they are lying."
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, it seems Lewis Shand Smith was unaware of any of this at the time witness statement to your Committee. How does any of this meet the requirements of the EU Directive to provide the consumer with; fair, independent, transparent and accountable redress?
Perceived bias/ lack of impartiality
"Be more unbiased."
"Try and be less biased, and put themselves in the shoes of the customer rather than the supplier."
"Listen to consumers. Be a little less arrogant, a lot less dismissive and maybe just take the time out to really consider the facts".
"Behave independently. Apply logical reasoning to cases."
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign tried to tell you so. And now the people above are trying to tell you so.
Q. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, what do you intend to do to protect British consumers from snake-oil salesmen selling unregulated quack remedies?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.
The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtryone-percent.