Ombudsman Services Pt. 4: The Full English Cover-Up (72) The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign's View on Privatising ADR: A Foreseeable Disaster Ignored And Quietly Covered-Up.

Ombudsman Services Pt 4: The Full English Cover-Up (72) The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign's View on Privatising ADR: A Foreseeable Disaster Ignored And Quietly Covered Up.

Dear Reader,

We apologise unreservedly for the sudden decline in the standard of language used in our most recent blogs. This is due entirely to the corrosive influence of the i-Liberal UnDemocrats' "Bollocks to Brexit" campaign.

A party who when in coalition quickly capitulated to the will of their masters and who servilely did as they were bid. No more so than at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills where had they had the bollocks - sorry - steely determination, to act on DJS Research's devastating Customer Satisfaction Reports, consumers would have been spared the nightmare of an Ombudsman Services property ombudsman's illogical Final Decision and its attendant costs both financially and in health terms.

Instead, they chose to ignore the reports and our emails. DJS Research were quickly replaced and surprise surprise the new company's reports positively glowed with radiant good news. A modern-day miracle due entirely to telephone surveys. Extraordinary. However, consumers' dissatisfaction rates rocketed.

Strangely, this wasn't reported. All was good news.

When we first began our campaign the complainant dissatisfaction rate with the property ombudsman at Ombudsman Services stood at 61% (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report). DJS Research went on to say that the property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."

Before attempting to raise this with politicians and the press and media we contacted DJS to confirm this statistic and the disturbing finding that the property ombudsman was illogical. True and true.

That was over 10 years ago.

Nearly a decade later Martin Lewis and his MoneySavingExperts report for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection uncovered a figure of nearly 90%. And yet neither he nor anyone else for that matter - certainly not the Committee or those politicians and civil servants at the BEIS monitoring the scheme - found this remotely troubling.

This is troubling. Those responsible for this injustice blamed the system. That was even more troubling. Yet more troubling than that is the fact that they appear to have gotten away with it - with a little help from their friends.

The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is seeking:

1. Answers from Lewis Shand Smith, Gillian Fleming, the ridiculously named Independent Advisor, Jonathan May, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Andrea Leadsom, Francis Maude, Dame Julie Mellor, Yvonne Fovargue, Martin Lewis, The Ombudsman Association. Dame Helena Kennedy, the government monitors of this government approved scheme etc.etc.

2. A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before being rebranded) and the role of the RICS in determining the effective resolution of complaints.

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

4. The setting up of a state-owned, state-run, fair, independent, transparent and accountable system of ADR fit for a modern 21st century democracy.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.