EU Justice Sub-Committee and Lewis Shand Smith's Broken Solution. (59)

Dear Reader,

                   We are seeking a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services and its

                   Broken Solution in a Broken Market.

 

EU Justice Sub-Committee: Examination of Witness Lewis Shand Smith. 4th July 2017:

Dear Chairman,

We should like to raise the following issues:with you and your committee:

The Chairman: What about other areas that will affect consumers very directly? I am thinking in particular of online purchasing. There are central distribution places in Europe for consumer items. What is going to happen in that area?

Lewis Shand Smith: That is where we need to look much more closely at the legislation and the directives to see whether they will be affected by the repeal Bill. On the directive and regulations from Europe, the ADR directive requires that wherever there is a contract for the sale of goods and services anywhere in the EU, member states must provide alternative dispute resolution for consumers if something goes wrong.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign: What Mr Shand Smith hasn't addressed is what happens to consumers when the ADR they turn to has itself, "gone wrong." (Later to become Mr Shand Smith's Broken Solution).

A great many things, "went wrong" at Mr Shand Smith's Ombudsman Services.

A Lead Property Ombudsman who according to DJS Research arrived at decisions in an illogical manner was able to go wrong  time after time.

Q. Chairman, why was nothing done about this and why weren't property complainants given a) a fair and independent re-examination of their complaint and b) compensation for the stress incurred by the original illogical decision?

Q. Chairman, where in the EU Directive does it say ADR decisions can be arrived at in an illogical manner?

The maladministration of consumer complaints is another example of things going wrong at this ADR scheme.

The 2014-15 Annual Report - Report of the Independent Assessor - Conclusions - states, "I was concerned by the scale and significance of the failings I identified in certain cases."

And,

"I was surprised to find such instances of maladministration within an ombudsman organisation."

Q. Chairman, this is clear evidence that Lewis Shand Smith's superb model of ADR was in fact A Broken Solution. Why didn't the Government monitors of this Government approved scheme act to protect consumers those individuals who were freely maladministrating consumers' complaints?

Q. Chairman, where in the EU Directive does it say the maladministration of consumers' complaints is an acceptable practice?

The Ombudsmans61percnt Campaign is calling for a public inquiry into; the maladministration of consumers' complaints, the illogical Final Decisions hundreds (if not thousands) of consumers have received and why Mr Shand Smith's Solution became Broken.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.