Ombudsman Services:Property Pt (4) The Full English Cover-Up. R.M. Kirkham and "The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section: A 2020 Vision for the Ombudsma Sector."

89) The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign's Response to: R. M. Kirkham, "The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section: A 2020 Vision for the Ombudsman Sector." (Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 2016)- (3)

KEY WORDS: scrutiny, professional regulation, efficient, effective, honest, transparency and accountability.

Dear Reader,

We saw in the previous blog that in seeking to avoid any meaningful "scrutiny" of their woeful performance in resolving property disputes and the pitiful "financial awards" they grudgingly doled out to bewildered complainants the Chair, Dame Janet Finch and her team of executives led by Lewis Shand Smith; replaced DJS Research, changed the way Customer Satisfaction Reports were conducted, removed the company's minutes from its website, didn't report on the property sector for two years, introduced MAS (Mutually Accepted Settlements) and further dramatically reduced the level of so-called financial awards.

The government "monitors" of this government approved scheme found nothing wrong with any of the above.

This is not our reading of what  EU Directive 2013/11/EU had intended from ombudsman schemes. At:,

    "17....Such internal complaint handling procedures can constitute an 

      effective means for resolving consumer disputes at an early stage."

They can but in the case of Ombudsman Services:Property they don't. Why? Because one only has to look at the sharp rise in the number of cases being referred by RICS surveyors to their "appointed" ombudsman. An ombudsman whose salary was paid for by her fee-paying members. 

We suggested to the Chair, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman and Independent Assessor that this was an obvious conflict of interest especially as RICS had a MoU with their "appointed" firm, had their Director of Professional Regulation and Consumer Protection sitting on the Board and monitored it for what it determined to be the, "effective resolution of disputes." 

We didn't get a reply.

There is absolutely no incentive for RICS surveyors to resolve disputes with clients at "an early stage." Especially when they knew that their appointed ombudsman had developed the habit of, "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner." (DJS Research) 

This is clearly, "efficient" and "effective" for RICS's fee-paying members - but totally unjust for their clients.

The company's minutes for 15th  December 2009 state at 5.8:
    "The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the

     apparent increases in the levels of recent awards."

The OS:Property ombudsman acted accordingly. The following year she reduced the level of award dramatically. Thereby suggesting that the purported "independence" of The RICS appointed and RICS monitored property ombudsman was a myth.

She could have followed the independent recommendations of DJS Research and raised the levels of award but chose not to. DJS Research were duly replaced.

Unfortunately, you can no longer examine the data on how, "efficiently" and "effectively" Ombudsman Services:Property handled (or more accurately - mishandled) property complaints because it is no longer there. So the consumer can no longer judge for themselves whether Lewis Shand Smith's, "Superb model of ADR" was all it was cracked up to be.

And of course it wasn't. We once knew that because the then Chair, Dame Janet Finch said as much in her Foreword to the Annual Report of 2011. She wondered:

    "But are we delivering the excellent service to which we aspire? Asserting

     our commitment to to excellence is not the same as delivering this in

     practice. This year the Board has supported the CO, Lewis Shand Smith

     in taking a close and honest look at what we are actually achieving. We 

     are doing pretty well but we were not completely satisfied." 

It seems the only people with 2020 vision were DJS Research and as a reward for their insightful research their services were dispensed with.

By 2016 the consumer no longer knew what the levels and range of financial awards were because they were no longer reported. And they no longer knew how many complainants were "dissatisfied" with the judgement they'd received at the hands of The RICS "appointed" ombudsman.

NEXT TIME: Reform and New Roles. 

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:

1. Answers from Lewis Shand Smith, former CEO and Chief Ombudsman/Chair of the Ombudsman Association, Dame Janet Finch former Chair of Ombudsman Services, Jonathan May former Director of the OFT, Steven Gould RICS Director of Professional Regulation/Consumer Protection and OS Board Member, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Grant Shapps, Dame Julie Mellor former Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, Yvonne Fovargue Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection, Dame Helena Kennedy former Chair of the EU Justice Sub-Committee, Luke pollard MP Plymouth Sutton and Devonport. 2. A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property and the role played by The RICS in determining the "effective resolution of complaints. 3. Compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration and the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions. 4. The setting up of a state-run, fair, independent, transparent and accountable system of ADR.     Yours sincerely, Stephen Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Ombudsman Services:Property Pt (4) The Full English Cover-Up (88)

88) " The O61% Campaign looks at R.M. Kirkham's, "The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section: A 2020 Vision for the Ombudsman Sector." (Part 2)

KEY WORDS: efficient effective justice unbiased fair independent monitor

Dear Reader,

In, "Continued Expansion in the Adoption of the Ombudsman Model" R. Kirkham tells us that ADR grew as, 

    "a solution to the challenge of delivering efficient and effective justice." 

This was written in 2016 but in DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report for Ombudsman Services (2010-11) DJS reported that the property ombudsman, 

    "To be effective .... must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between 

     parties - currently this does not seem to be the general consensus of                   opinion."

In other words the property ombudsman isn't impartial so can't be fair, independent or unbiased.

When we tried raising this with the government civil servants they never answered the question. But they did allow consumers to continue taking their complaints to an ombudsman they knew not to be impartial.

As we said previously Ombudsman Services response was to replace DJS Research with BMG, change the way surveys were conducted and NOT report on their performance in (mis)handling property complaints. This was efficient. It wasn't, as far as we're concerned - justice.

Take the, "Ombudsman Services Property sector report January-December 2016." Here under: "Education" it states - 

    "Ombudsman Services:Property is much than just a complaints handling             organisation."  

More seems to be missing than meets they eye.

The two page report states that: 

    "1166 complaints resolved." and that 64% received a financial award.

In total contravention of the OFT criteria for "approving" this scheme on behalf of the taxpayer they don't give a rationale or break-down of those "financial awards." They don't even mention that the maximum "financial award" was £25.000. Yet in the 2011/12 Annual Report you would have found on page 6 just such a break-down. As far as scrutiny of their performance in resolving disputes effectively and efficiently goes, all reports prior to 2016 have been removed.

So, as financial awards went down from an average £1100 to £10 so did the reporting.

In 2016 we're told: 

    "Of the complaints resolved" "1%" were a "Mutually accepted settlement" whilst "98%" were an "Ombudsman Decision."  This strongly supports DJS Research's finding that the property ombudsman was not an impartial arbitrator has carried on down the years. Otherwise, surely, 98% of those decisions would have been arrived at by the mutual route and only 1% dictated by the ombudsman?

The Eu Directive 2013 states:

(10)

In its conclusions of 24-25 March and 23 October 2011, the European Council invited the European Parliament and the Council to adopt, by the end of 2012, a first set of priority measures to bring a new impetus to the Single Market. Moreover, in its Conclusions of 30 May 2011 on the Priorities for relaunching the Single Market, the Council of the European Union highlighted the importance of e-commerce and agreed that consumer ADR schemes can offer low-cost, simple and quick redress for both consumers and traders. The successful implementation of those schemes requires sustained political commitment and support from all actors, without compromising the affordability, transparency, flexibility, speed and quality of decision-making by the ADR entities falling within the scope of this Directive.

In their final Customer Satisfaction Report complainant dissatisfaction levels with the transparency, flexibility, speed and quality of decision making of the Property Ombudsman stood at 64% - up from 61% when we first began campaigning for a public inquiry into what we consider is rigged redress.

Why end DJS Research's contract? They were fair and independent in their assessment of what they saw was going on. 

Why remove all the Customer Satisfaction Reports from their website?

Why remove the minutes?

If the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman had awarded the 1166 the full £25.000 financial award it would have cost the Property Ombudsman's fee-paying members: £29.1 Million which would have been remarkably Bad For Business. 

So in the 2016 Annual Report - Property Sector they didn't even bother to mention that the average "financial award" was a paltry ten quid.

NEXT TIME: more on the EU Directive 2013/11/EU.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:

1. Answers from Lewis Shand Smith, former CEO and Chief Ombudsman/CHair of the Ombudsman Association, Dame Janet Finch former Chair of Ombudsman Services, Jonathan May former Director of the OFT, Steven Gould RICS Director of Regulation and OS Board Member, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Grant Shapps, Dame Julie Mellor former Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, Yvonne Fovargue Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection, Dame Helena Kennedy former Chair of the EU Justice Sub-Committee, Luke pollard MP Plymouth Sutton and Devonport.

2. A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property and the role played by The RICS in determining the "effective resolution of complaints.

3. Compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration and the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.

4. The setting up of a state-run, fair, independent, transparent and accountable system of ADR.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Ombudsman Services:Property Pt (4) The Full English Cover-Up 87: Our response to: R.M.Kirkham "The Ombudsman, tribunals and justice section: A 2020 vision for the Ombudsman Sector.

1) Foreword / Introduction / The Context in Which Administrative Justice Operates.

 

Dear Reader,

This is a response to R. M. Kirkham's 2016 "The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section: A 2020 Vision for the Ombudsman Sector. (Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 38 (1).

The article is an analysis of the growth of ombudsman schemes since 2010 and in the foreword it is suggested we need to, "guard against complacency."

In the Introduction the author believes that after a period of relative continuity - a continuity of Coalition Government Tory/Liberal Democrat austerity - that, "the shifts in focus within the system are becoming more embedded and the overall impact on the ombudsman sector easier to anticipate."

By 2016 The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign had been calling for a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property for 6 years. The Liberal Democrat politicians installed at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, notably Vince Cable and Jo Swinson, hadn't responded to a single email we'd sent them, DJS Research had lost the contract produce independent Customer Satisfaction Reports for the company and its CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith was able to proclaim, "a superb model of ADR."

Complacency appeared to be the order of the day.

Especially as DJS Research had reported in what was to be their last CSR that, "8.24: To  be effective SOS (later re-branded OS:P) must be seen  as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the consensus of opinion."  A year after DJS Research were replaced the new organisation was able to somewhat miraculously report that satisfaction levels were consistently high across all sectors. There was no separate CSR for Ombudsman Services:Property and "surveys" had been conducted by telephone.

We tried to point this out to the BIS. We were ignored. What was becoming "embedded" was a culture of aversion to transparency and accountability. 

As a direct result of the coalition government's political decision not to scrutinise the scheme they'd sanctioned on behalf of the taxpayer,  complainant dissatisfaction levels continued to grow. Had they'd done the job that we - the taxpayer - pay them to do things would have been dramatically different but they didn't and it wasn't.

R.M. Kirkham continues, "In terms of scrutiny and management of the overall system only in Scotland and Wales does there remain an enduring Government commitment to independent Holistic oversight."

In England there's the Administrative Justice Forum. But, "The Forum's true purpose or meaningful impact is unclear, as it has no powers to even report, let alone commission research." Set against a back-drop of austerity and buccaneering free-market-capitalism or captured capitalism or as we prefer to call the shambles; rigged market capitalism a watch-dog with rubber teeth was only to be expected.

NEXT TIME: The EU Directive 2013/11/EU - The Independent Assessor - a redefinition of "fair" and "independent."                                                                                                                                                                                          The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 

1) Answers from; Lewis Shand Smith former CEO, Chief Ombudsman of OS and Chair of the Ombudsman Association, Dame Janet Finch former Chair of Ombudsman Services, Jonathan May former Director of the OFT, Vince Cable former BIS Secretary of State, Jo Swinson former BIS Minister, Sajid Javid former Secretary of State for BIS, Steven Gould RICS Director of Regulation and OS Board Member, Yvonne Fovargue Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection, Dame Julie Mellor former Parliamentary and health services Ombudsman, Grant Shapps, 

2) A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before being re-branded) and the role of The RICS in its "effective resolution of disputes."                                                                    

3) Compensation for the victims of its executives' malaministration and its property ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.                                            

4) The setting up of a state-run; fair, independent, transparent and accountable system of administrative justice.                                                                                                                                                                          Yours sincerely,                                                                                                Stephen Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. 

                              

Ombudsman Services:Property - The Full English Cover-Up (86) Who Guards The Guardians? / Who Regulates The Regulates?

Ombudsman Services:Property - The Full English Cover-Up (86) Who Guards The Guardians / Who Regulates The Regulators?

Inbox

x

Ombudsmans61percent Campaign <shockingsurveys1@gmail.com>	6:09 PM (20 minutes ago)
to albert.owen.mp, alberto.costa.mp, alex.chalk.mp, business, business, craig.mackinlay.mp, christina.rees.mp, coopery, Jeremy, chopc, darren.jones.mp, diane.abbott.office, dtnews, dan.cardon.mp, enquiries, foreign, foreign, financial, guardian.letters, home.news, huffpostuk, inbox, info, international, justin.tomlinson.mp, luke.pollard.mp, lammyd, letters, lloyd.russellmoyle.mp, mirrornews, news, national, newsdesk, newsdesk, newsdesk, news, opinion, observer.letters, politics, policy, panorama.reply, patricia.gibson.mp, rebecca.longbailey.mp, submissions, strobes, stnews, skinnerd, trotmang, youandyours, yvonne.fovargue.mp

Met officers will not face action over VIP child abuse inquiry

Watchdog faces claims of whitewash over report on botched Scotland Yard investigation

Vikram Dodd Police and crime correspondent

Mon 7 Oct 2019 11.29 BSTFirst published on Mon 7 Oct 2019 11.10 BST

Shares

30

 Harvey Proctor attacked the police watchdog’s findings, saying: ‘This report shows the IOPC is worse than useless.’ Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA

Dear Reader,

We're told that:

The police watchdog has decided no officer should face disciplinary action over the botched Scotland Yard investigation into bogus claims of a VIP child abuse ring.

The report from the Independent Office for Police Conduct was released on Monday morning amid claims of a whitewash.

Sir Richard Henriques has every reason to believe that the IOPC is "unfit for purpose." Although if its purpose is to exonerate those responsible for the "investigation" of "Nick" and the alleged subsequent whitewash of that inept investigation, then it's very fit indeed.

"The IOPC said it had found 'shortcomings and organisational failings', with 16 recommendations made to change policing practice. It said it found no evidence officers had deliberately misled a district court judge when it applied for search warrants in February 2015 to raid the home of suspects who turned out to be innocent.

The IOPC inquiry began after the Metropolitan police referred five officers who had been involved in Operation Midland to the police watchdog."

What the IOPC said and what was said in Sir Richard Henriques Report are two quite different things and yet they were both  apparently examining the same evidence.

This bizarre approach to "looking at the evidence" and following it faithfully to wherever it might lead characterised the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman's approach to her work. A point repeatedly highlighted in DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports for the company. 

In their 2010 report DJS revealed that:

6.6: The majority disagreed that the ombudsman had helped sort out their problem / 6.22: Accuracy of content - 31% very dissatisfied. Report Recommendations: 48% very dissatisfied. Outcome of the Case: 61% felt the outcome was against them (hence: Te Ombudsmans61percent Campaign) with 43% feeling it was completely against them. 

Why did so many feel they had been so badly let down?

DJS Research at 8.24 reported: "to be effective the SOS (later rebranded as OS:P) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the general consensus of opinion." In other words the property ombudsman was biased towards her fee-paying members - otherwise things would have been different but they weren't.

So what happened? DJS Research was too hot to handle and they were quietly replaced by another independent research company whose approach to research was very different. We complained to Shehan Sadin Head of the Enquiries and Reporting Centre and were told, "I have investigated this matter and understand that OS:P has confirmed that the new company will ask the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OS:P website."

Really? For two years Ombudsman Services:Property released NO Customer Satisfaction Reports whatsoever.

The question as to why DJS Research were replaced by a company supposedly asking the exact same questions was never answered by government.

Quick guide

What was Operation Midland and how did it go wrong?

Show

Advertisement

"The high-profile Met investigation ran from 2014 to 2016 and hunted for establishment figures alleged to have been involved in a child sexual abuse and murder ring, which turned out to be based on lies from a fantasist.

A report commissioned for the Met and carried out by retired judge Sir Richard Henriques castigated the Met and found 43 errors. The key error, Henriques said, was that police misled a judge to get warrants to search suspects’ homes.

Michael Lockwood, director general of the IOPC, said: “Did the officers involved make mistakes? Yes. Could police processes have been improved? Almost certainly. But did they deliberately exclude information to secure the warrants? Our investigation found no evidence of that."

Here, there is no meaningful response by the General Director of the IOPC to the 43 "errors" or whether the Met Police acted unlawfully in order to get warrants to illegally search the homes of innocent people. Which mirrors what were and weren't told and comes straight out of The Full English Cover-Up Handbook - Rule 1: Whatever you say - say nothing.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you

Read more

“The IOPC is very clear that there must be accountability and assurance to the public that the weaknesses we have identified are addressed so these mistakes can never be repeated. Our report makes 16 recommendations for the MPS and other stakeholders in the police and criminal justice system."

One of the OFT's Criterion for approving the Ombudsman Services:Property ADR scheme on behalf of the taxpayer was it must report annually on its performance so when it didn't we tried asking the government monitors a) why hadn't it? b) why hadn't they - the monitors - acted to defend consumers? We didn't get a response. So no transparency there.

"One of those who was a target of Operation Midland, the former Conservative MP Harvey Proctor, attacked the police watchdog’s findings, saying: “This report shows the IOPC is worse than useless. It actually defends the police against the authoritative findings of Henriques because they wanted to boost public confidence in themselves."

Harvey Proctor could be talking about the government "monitors" of this government "approved" scheme. 

“The home secretary should remove the IOPC director general and the IOPC must be abolished and replaced by experts who are genuinely qualified to assess and to criticise police failings. We now know the police watchdog is blind...”

We repeatedly asked politicians how it was that The RICS, who the OFT had said couldn't adequately regulate the Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place could "appoint" Ombudsman Services:Property, have a MoU with their "appointed" company that enabled them to monitor the effective resolution of disputes brought against their inadequately regulated Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and find an 85% complainant dissatisfaction rate (Martin Lewis - Sharper Teeth the Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform) - "effective?"

No-one's bothered to answer. Not: Yvonne Fovargue Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on ADR nor Dame Helena Kennedy Chair of the EU Justice Sub-Committee.

"Police also targeted former military chief Edwin Bramall and former home secretary Leon Brittan. The Met now accepts that Lord Bramall, Lord Brittan and Proctor are innocent and falsely accused by Carl Beech, who in July was jailed for 18 years for his lies.

Henriques also criticised the IOPC’s findings before the police watchdog published its report, writing in the Daily Mail: “Maintenance of law and order depends upon the effective oversight of those invested with power. Who guards the guards themselves? A malfunctioning police force has not received the necessary oversight.”

Here Sir Richard Henriques could be talking about a) The RICS - who regulates the regulator (The Privy Council - so why don't they?) and b) Ombudsman Services:Property (The RICS and taxpayer funded government "monitors" - so why didn't they?)

Henriques claimed the IOPC investigator who conducted the case “informed me she had no legal training [and] was not fully aware of the process for obtaining warrants

The retired judge added: “The investigative process itself was minimal, unprofessional and the decision-making was flawed.”

DJS Research's CSRs also shone light on what passed for a OS:P "entirely independent investigation" of a case. In their 2011 Report they found 7.31: Most 64%  felt the outcome was against them. Why? a) because there were; errors in the report b) 56% felt the investigator did not understand / missed the point / misinterpreted the nature of the complaint c) was not arrived at in a logical manner d) was not supported by the available evidence and e) was not fair and reasonable.

Although the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman was appointed because of her mediation skills many respondents believed she failed to do just that - mediate.

We were told by the OS:P ombudsman that she did not routinely ask her fee-paying Members and (Un)Regulated Firms questions. How anyone can carry out a "fair and independent" investigation of a complaint without bothering to ask questions was never explained.

"The IOPC defended itself from Henriques and said: “As Sir Richard writes ‘no subject should be tried without proper investigation’. And, as he acknowledges in his own review, the IOPC is the right and correct authority to do this. Our investigation was both independent and impartial. "

Rule 2 of The Full English Cover-Up Handbook is quite explicit. It states - Always answer a question by taking the question and repeating it. Alter as few as words as possible. Their ludicrously titled Independent Assessor believed that it was easy to feel things had gone wrong when you didn't get the decision you wanted. We tried pointing out that we - and at that time 64% of complainants - just wanted justice. Although 83% took their complaint to The Further Representation Process most failed to get their illogical decision overturned.

In his first Foreword for the company the present Chair of Ombudsman Services, Lord Tim Clement-Jones, believed for some his best efforts would never be good enough. He seemed to be unaware of the findings contained in Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform where almost 85% of property complainants were described as being "dissatisfied" with the outcome of their case.

"Of the five officers referred to the police watchdog after the Henriques report, two were exonerated by the IOPC at the first stage, including the former deputy assistant commissioner Steve Rodhouse, who oversaw the latter stages of Operation Midland. Three detectives faced investigations, of whom two declined to answer oral questions and attend face-to-face interviews with IOPC investigators. The watchdog said it did not have the power to compel them to do so because they were retired at that point, so it accepted written answers. The third detective was interviewed face to face."

Rule 3 of this well thumbed and highly over-used Handbook is depressingly cynical. Rule 3 - waste as much time as possible and then a little more.

"The home secretary, Priti Patel, has asked the inspectorate of constabulary to check the Met is carrying out reforms recommended by both the IOPC and Henriques.nds"

As usual another rule-bending MP offering too little too late.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Time for a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property.

Ombudsman Services Pt 4: The Full English Cover-Up (85) Send For Inspector Montalbano.

Ombudsman Services Pt 4: The Full English Cover-Up (85) Send For Inspector Montalbano.

Dear Reader,

With; government departments acting as if they were mafia-inspired .... a National Frame-Up for Continuing Health Care that closely resembles a mafia-run extortion racket ...RICS the regulator behaving like the Carruso family ... surveyors who deliberately fail to keep meaningful logs and who destroy evidence ... Anonymous NHS Livewell Southwest Desk Top Reviewers arriving at decisions, "beyond all known logic" ... regulators who don't actually regulate ... Parliamentary committees who refuse to listen to the public ... civil servants and politicians who are in the pocket of the RICS mob ....a Parliamentary and Health Service ombudsman who threatens to prosecute complainants ... ADR CEOs and Chairmen who act like mafia dons ...and an Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman who, "arrives at decisions in an illogical manner" logic dictates that it's time to send for Inspector Montalbano and his team to sort out the whole carousel of corruption.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

We're seeking:
1. A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Association until being rebranded) and the role of the RICS in determining, "the effective resolution of complaints."
2. Compensation for the victims of this company's ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and executives' maladministration.
3. The setting up of a state-run, fair. independent, transparent and accountable ADR scheme.

About This Website

RADIOTIMES.COM

Inspector Montalbano - S5 - Episode 1: Carousel

Find out when Inspector Montalbano is on TV, including Series 5-Episode 1: Carousel. Episode guide, trailer, review, preview, cast list and where to stream it on demand, on catch up and download.

Like

CommentShare

Comments

Write a comment...