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.
