The EHRC Report Into Antisemitism in the Labour Party - A Reply by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Dear Reader, "It is better to content oneself with other more modest and less exciting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." Primo Levi: The Truce. p 397. Those responsible for The EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party would have done well to have had Primo Levi's sentence printed on its first page and followed his sage advice word for word. Under it the EHRC needed to have stated clearly what they understood antisemitism to be and how it applied that understanding consistently when reaching what should have been carefully reasoned decisions in each and every one of the 70 cases it claims to have investigated. The British public got neither. Being a report into antisemitism there needed to be a clear statement as to what the EHRC take that to be. However, the first time The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is mentioned is on p 27. It is also described as being The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism something which it is not. It isn't discussed until Annex 3. And then in a limited way. In Annex 3 the EHRC say they, "explain: when the Labour Party is responsible for the conduct of its agents, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and its impact on our investigation." The key word, "Working" has again been dropped. To restore lost confidence the EHRC need to explain why they use the two interchangeably and to acknowledge Prof Stephen Sedley's observation that it fails the first test of any definition in being indefinite. (1) The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." "A certain perception." One can see what Prof Sedley means. The EHRC continue with, "The IHRA also provides illustrative and contemporary examples of antisemitism. Some concerns have been raised about aspects of the IHRA approach." "Some concerns?" This is hardly an honest appraisal of the huge controversy surrounding the resurrection of the IHRA working definition from the dustbin of history. Kenneth Stern's reasoned criticism of it is a good place to start. After all he wrote it (2). Others expressing far more than just, "some" concerns are; Independent Jewish Voices Canada (3) and Anthony Lerman (4) Why has the EHRC chosen to gloss over/downplay the issue of the fierce controversy surrounding the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism? Perhaps Kenneth Stern provided the answer when he said, "Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." This is the Jewish author of the Working Definition expressing far more than just, "some concerns" as the EHRC would have us believe. But why is the EHRC taking such a shortcut? And how does it affect the EHRC report? The report's biggest failing is that it does not do what it demands of the Labour Party. On p5 they state, "we have not seen all of the evidence on which the conclusions in the leaked report were based." Yet when it comes to the vast majority of the 70 cases the EHRC "investigated" we too - the public - have not seen all of the evidence on which the EHRC investigators base their judgements. The truth of the matter is that we hardly see any evidence at all. Only three cases are discussed in any sort of detail. They are those of: Ken Livingstone, Pam Bromley and Chris Williamson. But in the latter's case it is unclear as what exactly he is supposed to have done wrong. His name is mentioned. Holocaust Denial is mentioned as is supporting un-named suspended members. But what the exact link between Chris Williamson and antisemitism is - is never clearly stated. This simply isn't good enough. On p7 of the report it says, "We found that the complaints process was not properly resourced and those responsible for it were not trained to the necessary standard." (7) On p10 the EHRC criticises Labour for, "unclear decision-making by the NEC and NCC." But where is the clear decision making in 67 of the cases they spent 18 months investigating? It is conspicuous by its absence. We don't know who said what. However we do know where it was said - 59 of the cases were about allegations of antisemitism on social media. We know absolutely nothing about these cases. Were the un-named individuals who wrote the IHRA report, "trained to the necessary standard?" Or was it a conscious decision by the EHRC to deliberately withhold the information? Or both? The EHRC could have followed its own advice and anonymised the data as it demanded the Labour Party do. It didn't. Given that we have been provided with NO information on the bulk of the cases determined or how decisions were arrived at, it is safe to say the EHRC were themselves were not trained to the necessary standard. Because a necessary standard according to them requires clear, reasoned, transparent and consistent decisions. Decisions that be verified and demonstrated. On p9 we're told there was, "a lack of a clear and fair process for respondents." But where was the EHRC's clear and fair process when arriving at its decisions? The 68 remaining cases should have been presented like those of Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. Why weren't they? P10 and the complaint here is that there was, "poor record-keeping: this was evident in 62 of the 70 files in our sample." Yet in the vast majority of its cases there are no records at all. Just invisible people who have allegedly done invisible things. No small truths here that have been reasoned, demonstrated and verified. Only 2 out of the EHRC's 70 cases meet their own exacting standards. Or 2.8%. P13 and the EHRC say, "Rebuilding trust and confidence in antisemitism complaint handling The Labour Party must rebuild trust and confidence that antisemitism complaints are handled independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively." But has the EHRC itself handled all 70 cases, independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively? Apart from the 2.6% we don't know. Where's the evidence? They appear to have effectively buried it. They expect Labour to have in place, "what will be considered an appropriate sanction for different types of proven antisemitic conduct" and yet offer no examples of what that might entail. Each case could have been provided with just such an example. It is a failing of this report that they weren't. We discuss trust in the EHRC later in our reply to the report. The similarity with how Ombudsman Services:Property, "investigated" complaints is remarkable. What confidence can the public have in the EHRC when it has failed to clearly demonstrate, "proven antisemitic conduct" in the bulk of the cases it investigated? Legally, the Labour Party will be expected to, "Collect, analyse, and publish quarterly data." Once again we should like to ask, where is the analysis of the data the EHRC collected when compiling its report? How many cases of antisemitism have there been in total since 2015 and how did the EHRC's investigators categorise them? Of the 70 cases "investigated" by the EHRC how many were of Holocaust Denial? How many were ones of calling Zionists - "Zios?" We don't know because they don't say. The media are adamant - antisemitism is everywhere in the Labour Party. Yet in the EHRC report it was found it in 2.86% of cases. They also say, "We also highlighted the range and volume of antisemitic conduct across the complaint sample". (p32) Range and volume? Where? We've read the report twice and we can't find that information. It isn't collated in one place. There is no Annex dedicated to a statistical breakdown and analysis of the range and volume of antisemitic conduct the EHRC discovered. This is not efficiency. It's as if what little evidence they have found has been scattered around the report in order to confuse the reader. Perhaps that's what they mean by efficiency? P28 and the EHRC is at pains to stress that, "Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears. Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party." We have every confidence that Primo Levi would have wanted to verify that claim by resorting to a careful study of the evidence. The only problem is - The EHRC don't provide it. They have provided little or no data on who made the bulk of the complaints. For example - did these complaints of antisemitism come from lots of individuals or a small group? Given the enormity of what is at stake such an omission is beyond careless. P30. The EHRC claim, "Some of the unwanted conduct took place on social media." But according to the EHRC's own figures 59 of the 70 cases, "took place on social media." That's 82.49%. By our calculation that isn't, "some." That's "most." Why are the few statistics that were made available by the EHRC for scrutiny being distorted in this way? They, too, are shortcuts. But not to the truth. The report is constructed around sentences like this one, "An effective complaints process must be fair, impartial and transparent. Decisions on complaints should be made through specified formal processes, based on a fair and objective assessment of the facts." (p42) But we have no real idea as to how the EHRC arrived at its decisions. Instead we are expected to take what they say on trust. Shortcuts can also take the form of shadowy figures offering their unsubstantiated insights eg, "one former GLU staff member described Thomas Gardiner as ..." (p48) And, "although we have seem some evidence ... does not appear ... as extensive, systematic.." (54) This is a report paid for by the taxpayer. We need to know: who is the person - what is the evidence? We felt tempted at this point to claim that, "an EHRC panel member has told us - off the record - that the EHRC report was..." but as we hold the memory of Primo Levi in such high esteem, we didn't. We believe there are currently 166 Panel Members of the EHRC. They're named in alphabetical order. Yet the EHRC report doesn't say who was responsible for writing what is in it. Why the secrecy? As a regulator funded by taxpayers' money surely the public have a right to know who it was who carried out the first investigation of a British political party by a regulator with a Commissioner, Pavita Cooper, who donated money to the Conservative Party. A Regulator who decided not to investigate Boris Johnson's blatant Islamophobia or that of his party. (5) Then there's the remarkable revelation on p93 concerning The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism. The EHRC are highly critical of the Labour Party and its attempts to secure antisemitism training, "The Labour Party said it had been more complex and difficult for it to procure antisemitism training than sexual harassment training, and that discussions with the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (at Birkbeck) in spring 2018 ‘stalled later that year because of pressure applied on the Institute’. No further details were provided to us." What is extraordinary is that The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism should cave-in to, "pressure" and that the EHRC should make no attempt whatsoever to ascertain who applied that pressure and why. This was supposed to be a consistent, effective and fair investigation into antisemitism not a cover-up Birkbeck University of London's susceptibility to, "pressure." One of the charity's quoted in the EHRC report was the CST. Its Head of Policy is Dave Rich who is also an Associate at The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and an author of a book on Jeremy Corbyn and left antisemitism. The EHRC could have asked him who applied the pressure and why Birkbeck's courses aren't up to much. We did but got no response. The course Birkbeck (University of London) did provide was described as being unsatisfactory. Not a good day for the values of academic freedom or Birkbeck's ability to get the job done. We would recommend Durham University every time. The EHRC, having not troubled to ask any difficult questions, came to the conclusion that the Labour Party had committed unlawful discrimination in not providing adequate training from courses that didn't exist. In his testimony to Congress and on the subject of the IHRA Working Definition, Kenneth Stern asked it to, "Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist” be anti-Palestinianism? (6) With study, discussion and reasoning surely we should be able to arrive at a civilised conclusion? anti-Palestinianism - why not? anti-Leftism - why not? He also believed adoption of the IHRA Working Definition on Antisemitism would "chill" free speech. And he was right. Chillingly, the EHRC have now ruled that some speech is now unlawful harassment and therefore illegal. In truth, the EHRC report took too many shortcuts and did not demonstrate an ability to arrive at fair, reasoned decisions in the vast majority of the cases it investigated in its sub-standard report. A bit like the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman. Primo Levi would have been less-than impressed with both organisations. In Conclusion: At the start of the EHRC's investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party we contacted all but 5 of the then EHRC panel members starting with Adam Wagner (Doughty Street Chambers / Visiting Professor of Law Goldsmiths University / CAA charity and presenter of the file to the EHRC) to ask them: * Do you believe in universal Human Rights? * Do you believe the Palestinian People have the same Human Rights as their Jewish brothers and sisters? * Do you believe the Palestinian People should have the same right of return as their Jewish brothers and sisters? A sort of Hippocratic oath for barristers. Not a single EHRC panel member was prepared to climb the barristers' barricade, wave the banner and proclaim the need for universal Human Rights. We also asked the EHRC to investigate the CAA charity for its petition stating that Jeremy Corbyn was an antisemite and unfit to hold any public office: was this charitable work? What about his human rights? What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? (Now that Sir Starmer has said Jeremy Corbyn isn't antisemitic we would expect him to now be asking the same questions). And the CST charity for its hate-speech. One blog claimed all new members of the Labour Party "slither" and some cause a "stench" and asked: wasn't this discriminatory? Harassment? And how did it promote community harmony? We did not get a reply. Trust the EHRC? As for the impartiality of the EHRC we believe that was compromised by its refusal to investigate Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party's truly shocking Islamophobia and by its failure to consistently, effectively and fairly account for the antisemitism it claimed it investigated in the Labour Party. Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. 1) Prof Stephen Sedley Defining Anti-Semitism London Review of Books 3 May 2017. 2) Kenneth Stern: I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." Fri 13. 2019 The Guardian. "Armed with a [legal] determination that effectively says campus anti-Zionism is antisemitism, these professors will correctly see themselves at risk when they ask their students to read and digest materials deemed anti-Zionist, whether the writings of leading 20th century Jewish thinkers who were skeptical of Zionism, such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber, or of contemporary Palestinians. […] My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress — rather than answer — political speech they don’t like. The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer." Testimony of Kenneth Stern, original author of the text adopted for the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, given before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, November 7, 2017 3) Independent Jewish Voices Canada: How Not to Fight Antisemitism. A Critique of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. 4) Antony Lerman: Labour should ditch the IHRA Working Definition Altogether. Open Democracy. 5) Newsweek 15 June 2010. 6) See 2 above.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (73)

Sharper Teeth p8: The turnaround at OS:Property was mind-blowing. BMG reported, "strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling." Yet you report an 84% dissatisfaction rate. How do you explain this incredible difference? Your report doesn't say. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (72)

P8 Sharper Teeth: In return for govt. approval Ombudsman Services were required to produce an annual report for their Property scheme. This ceased for 2 yrs when DJS Research were replaced. When you, "fact-checked" this with the executives ruining the firm what did they say? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (71)

Page 8 Sharper Teeth: BMG reported "strong levels of satisfaction and high levels of advocacy of OS." Yet the year before DJS Research said OS:P performance had worsened on all categories measured. How do you explain this sudden transformation? Your report makes no mention of it. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (70)

Sharper Teeth p8: The new research firm at OS:P wrote, "verbatim comments showed largely positive findings." Yet the year before DJS had said satisfaction levels had fallen across all areas measured. How do you explain this too good to be true transformation Martin? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (68)

Sharper Teeth p8: When DJS Research were replaced their last CSR for Ombudsman Services stated that ALL areas they'd measured had seen a decline in customer satisfaction. The new firm did not include Property in its report Why not? And why wasn't this mentioned in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (61)

Sharper Teeth p8: There was NO Annual Property Report for Ombudsman Services the year after DJS Research - a truly superb and independent company - were replaced. This was in clear breach of the rules granting approval to the scheme by govt. Why wasn't this in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (60)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research were highly critical of what happened to consumers' complaints when they "investigated" by OS:P. "7.31 Supported by the available evidence VD 47% FD 16%." 63% thought the ombudsman's decisions weren't supported by the evidence. Not in your report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (52)

The government kept sending consumers to OS:Property - monitored by government - knowing its ombudsman gave out illogical decisions. Yet you recommend The BEIS set the gold standard in being an ombudsman! Is that professional or just plain dumb? Professional.... Dumb ..... The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (50)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research's CSR for Ombudsman Services say that the massive consumer dissatisfaction was due to: "errors in report (56%), the investigator did not understand, missed the point, misinterpreted the nature of my complaint." Why wasn't any of this in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (48)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research say this about the outcome of consumers' complaints. 7.31 Most 64% felt the outcome went against them." Up from 61%. The trend should have been clear for all to see - things were deteriorating rapidly for consumers. Why wasn't this in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (46)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research at 7.30 of their CSR stated, "The number satisfied that the report's conclusions were supported by the evidence has also fallen from 35% to 27%." An 73% dissatisfaction rate. Why wasn't this appalling failure of justice mentioned in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (46)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research's report for Ombudsman Services - Satisfaction With OS:Property Process - at 7.20 states, "Satisfaction levels have decreased in all of the areas that we measured." The writing was on the wall. So why didn't you see it? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (45)

Sharper Teeth p8: The following year DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report at 7.3 stated, "Satisfaction levels have dropped across all the attributes we measured." In short - a bad situation for consumers was getting worse. Why wasn't this in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (44)

Sharper Teeth p8: Alarmingly DJS Research warned at 6.28 of their report: "Overall complainant satisfaction was low with 42% very dissatisfied." That is a staggering number of people. Why wasn't this even mentioned in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (42)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research tell us at 6.23 that of those who complained about the result 91% felt it made no difference. Reasons: errors / investigator did not understand / missed the point .. Appalling. Why wasn't this in YOUR report Martin? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (40)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research's 2010 CSR stated at 6.22 "Outcome - most 61% felt the outcome went against them. 43% - completely against them." That is why we are The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. That wasn't in your report either. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (38)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research's CSR at 6.21 continued with its penetrating criticism of the ombudsman's approach to investigating consumers' complaints: "supported by the evidence: VD 45% FD 10." 55% believed the ombuds' recommendations were NOT supported by the evidence. NIYR. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (37)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research state at 6.21, "there was some level of strong dissatisfaction with the accuracy of content and the report's recommendations. Arrived at in a logical manner: VD 40% FD 15% Most thought the report was illogical. Why wasn't this in YOUR report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (36)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research state at 9.4 "Cases often took longer to reach a conclusion than complainants expected... cases tended to last 3-6 months or more." (71%) This was due to ombudsincompetence. Why wasn't this in YOUR report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (34)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research at 9.35 state, "Users of the service need to be educated on the limitations OS:P with regards to what can be delivered. However the situation has not improved since we began conducting a customer survey for OSP." Why wasn't this in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (33)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research state at 7.17, "Overall satisfaction levels were low with a high number very dissatisfied." Consumers were dissatisfied a with a staggeringly high number issues: speed, accuracy, awards, recommendations etc. Why was none of this in YOUR report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (32)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research CSR at 6.27 states, "Overall complainant satisfaction was low. This reflects the high proportion who felt the outcome of the complaint went against." But for the fee-paying members of this exclusive club. Why wasn't this in your whitewash report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (31)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS Research 6.22 "Over half went to the further representation process. These were submitted for a range of reasons. Most felt this did not change the outcome." Why not? Because the "outcome" was predetermined. Why was none of this in YOUR report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (29)

Sharper Teeth p8: DJS said at 6.21 of their CSR "..strong dissatisfaction with the accuracy of content and the report's recommendations." That was about the OS:P ombudsman - not you by the way. Why wasn't this in your disastrous (for consumers) report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of a truly; speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsmen.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (28)

P8 Sharper Teeth: When your desk research unearthed DJS' shocking revelation that - the consensus of opinion was that the OS:P ombudsman was NOT impartial - you must have been very annoyed indeed. Why wasn't it in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (24)

P8 Sharper Teeth: When you did your "review of various reports about ombudsmen" what did you make of the OS:P one who, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner?" Your report doesn't say. Weren't you as concerned as we are for consumers who've been cheated of justice? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of a truly; speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsmen.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. " A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (23)

P. 8 of Sharper Teeth states you did, "desk research including review of various reports about ombudsmen in recent years" When DJS Research were replaced there were NO property reports for Ombudsman Services for 2 yrs. Why isn't this mentioned in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compenasation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of a truly; speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsmen.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (22)

P. 5: "The Ombudsman Association should work to make sure the performance of ombudsmen is higher." Really? The OA once insisted that member schemes had a Whistleblowing Policy. Ombudsman Services didn't yet were still allowed to be members. Did you fact-check this with them? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of a truly; speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsmen.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. P 6 - Martin Lewis (21)

P5 cont. BEIS Ministers and civil servants monitoring the govt approved OS:Property failed consumers when they did nothing to prevent its ombudsman handing out appalling decisions. So who at the BEIS is a fit and proper person to decide who is a fit and proper person Martin? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of a truly; speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsmen.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. " A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (20)

"ineffective ombudsman must be stripped of the right to use the word in their title" Your good-guys the BEIS must have thought their OS:Property ombudsman was "effective" when doling out daft decisions Took no action whatsoever even though we pleaded with them to save consumers The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of a truly; speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsmen.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (18)

When you "fact checked" the property ombudsman's illogical but "effective" handling of consumers' complaints with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, how did he explain the illogicality? Why was this "effective?" Your report doesn't say. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of a truly; speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsmen.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (17)

Walter Merricks of The RICS was on the board of Ombudsman Services The RICS had a MoU with OS. Its ombudsman made illogical decisions. When you "fact-checked" this with OS what explanation were you given? Why was an illogical decision effective? Why wasn't it in your report?

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (16)

When you did your desk-top research you will have found that RICS: * had a MoU with OS:Property * monitored it to see if its decisions were "effective" Why is an illogical decision "effective?" Effective for whom - your report doesn't say. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services, compensation for ALL the victims of ombudsabuse and the setting up of a world-class, truly speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsman schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (15)

Page 5 states "ineffective ombudsmen must be stripped of the right to use the word in their title." Yet the BEIS knew the OS:P ombudsman was "ineffective" because we told them. They did nothing. Your recommendation that the BEIS decide who is an effective ombudsmen is crazy. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services, compensation for ALL the victims of ombudsabuse and the setting up of a world-class, truly speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsman schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For ombudsman Reform. A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (14)

Page 5 states, "ineffective ombudsmen must be stripped of the right to use the word in their title." So far so good. But the government monitors of this scheme knew the property ombudsman was "illogical" did yet nothing about it. Why wasn't this in your report? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services, compensation for ALL the victims of ombudsabuse and the setting up of a world-class, truly speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsman schemes.

Martin Lewis, Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (13)

Page 5 flagged-up consumers' "perception of (un)fairness" when it came to ombudsmen. "Fairness" is such an inappropriate word in the circumstances. Yet having NOT got to the bottom of their "unfairness" you propose to give them sharper teeth. This is absurd. Change the report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services, compensation for ALL the victims of ombudsabuse and the setting up of a world-class, truly speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsman schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (12)

Sharper Teeth on Pg 5 flags "the perception of fairness among those who complain to ombudsmen." Surely that's "unfairness" Nowhere in the report is there an attempt to understand or explain that unfairness among ombudsmen. Quite obviously there not on the side of complainants. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services, compensation for ALL the victims of ombudsabuse and the setting up of a world-class, truly speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsman schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Refrm." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (11)

Sharper Teeth Pg 5: The sharpest analysis of the data on Ombudsman Services and its property brand especially could lead to only one recommendation: 1) There needs to be a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services. Carried out by a fit and proper person. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services, compensation for ALL the victims of ombudsabuse and the setting up of a world-class, truly speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsman schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (10)

Page 5 Sharper Teeth: Recommendation 2 If fully implemented this recommendation would be a disaster for consumers. The BEIS + The Ombudsman Association had oversight of what was happening in the World of Ombudsmen. But did any of them stick by the rules they devised? No. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services, compensation for ALL the victims of ombudsabuse and the setting up of a world-class, truly speedy, fair and independent system of ombudsman schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (9)

Sharper Teeth page 4: Although Ombudsman Services:Property has one of the highest consumer dissatisfaction rates of all ombudsman schemes it isn't included in the table. This report doesn't link the links, follow the evidence, dot the i's or cross the t's. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services, Labour's part in its cover up and compensation for ALL the victims of ombudsabuse.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (8)

Sharper Teeth etc. Recap. This report DOESN'T say: * who was spoken to off the record. * who was spoken to when "fact-checking" took place. * which reports / surveys / minutes / criteria for approval were consulted. * which academic sources were mined for information. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services and compensation for the victims of ombudsabuse.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (7)

On page 3 of Sharper Teeth you state: "These issues are not academic." But they are.There's a whole world of research into ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse that your whitewash report ignores. Why did you ignore this body of knowledge? What do you know that they don't? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services and compensation for the victims of this ombudsabuse.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (6)

Page 3 of Sharper Teeth etc says what your research found. It doesn't say anything about WHY ombudsman "fail." It offers NO explanation for that failure and so ombudsmen will continue to "fail" in the future. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Services.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report by The Ombudsmans61percent campaign. Pt 6: Martin Lewis (5)

Also on page 2 of your report we're told that only 1 ombudsman scheme was seen by consumers as being, "fair." Nowhere in this report does it attempt to explain this unfairness. Why not? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into OS:Property.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6: Martin Lewis (4)

On page 2 of your report it states: "Only 31% said the ombudsman was neutral." Why doesn't your report go on to explain why ombudsmen aren't neutral and why the BEIS / Ombudsman Association didn't intervene to protect consumers? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice / abuse at Ombudsman Services:Property.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6: Martin Lewis (3)

The report (Sharper Teeth etc.) also fails to list: - Annual Reports studied - Customer Satisfaction Reports Studied - Company Minutes studied - Whether OFT Criteria (in the case of OS:P) were complied with or not. (They weren't - but that isn't in your report/whitewash). The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking a public inquiry into the ombudsinjustice/abuse at Ombudsman Services:Property.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewas Report. By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6: Martin Lewis (2)

Martin, your report, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform" fails to name ANY of the those you had, "off the record" discussions with. Time to put the record straight. Re-write your report and name names especially those at Ombudsman Services. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign: campaigning for justice for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6: Martin Lewis (1)

Martin you, "fact-checked" the maladministration at Ombudsman Services for your whitewash report: Sharper Teeth etc. Would you say the CEO was, "a fit and proper person" to head such a scandalous scheme? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign: campaigning for justice for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse.

"Watching The Watchers Watch The Ombuds Watchers Watch The Ombudsmen." A Reply To - "Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds." (Creutzfeldt N. + Gill C.) Social and Legal Studies by: The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 5: Academics 1.

"Watching The Watchers Watch The Ombuds Watchers Watch The Ombudsmen:" A reply to - "Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds." (Creutzfeldt N, + Gill C.) Social and Legal Studies by: The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Dear Friend, The speed, fairness and independence of a nation's justice system is a measure of the health its democracy. Judging by the short reign of chaos, denial and terror at the government approved and "monitored" Ombudsman Services:Property one pillar of the justice establishment has spectacularly imploded and is now beyond repair. But where are the politicians? Where is the political will to radically overhaul a failed system of administrative justice? If RICS the regulator and the government monitors of the government approved Ombudsman Services:Property had done the jobs they were paid to do then there would have been no need for us to write this reply. But they didn't. And so we are. We were inspired to respond to Creutzfeldt N+Gill C's article by: Huw Beynon's, Working For Ford / Get Up Stand Up | Playing For Change | Song Around The World (13.769.897 views) / Eyal Weizman +Fazal Sheikh: "The Conflict Shoreline, Surprise and Disappointment" / that private sector ombuds were excluded from this article / a difficulty with the terms, "Against the law" and "With the law / a disagreement with the authors over some of their conclusions and continued focus on the watchers and not the watched / a need for a rigorous understanding of ombuds and how and why they operate in the way they do and an objection to being labelled a, "watcher." "Watcher: a person who watches television or films - Cambridge English Dictionary." Or, "Watcher: a person who closely follows or observes someone or something - Merriam-Webster Dictionary." The second definition is slightly less demeaning. "Watchers," if our experience is anything to go by, do a great deal more than just watch. Perhaps "activists" or "protesters" would be a far more suitable word for their hours of voluntary unpaid activism and banging of heads on doors that never seem to want to open. There is no lottery funding or charitable status available for the likes of us. The authors seem to acknowledge this on p. 33 in their section: A Collective Approach to Gaming and the Communal Dynamics of Protest. Collective "protest" being "the means through which complainants rendered helpless could regain a voice" rather than being "shut out in the cold." "Protester" or "activist" seem far more appropriate lables to be given. The authors begin by stating, "The article argues that legal consciousness provides an appropriate theoretical lens for studying user experiences of ombuds processes and a useful framework for understanding the ways in which people make sense of experiences, construct ideas about justice and make decisions about what action to take in response to dissatisfaction." Is it not also a political consciousness? Isn't the whole process of being systematically denied justice by the state and its civil servants and politicians - political? Especially when the financial stakes are so high as they were at Ombudsman Services:Property. We're not talking about a kettle that refused to boil. The Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, Gillian Fleming was moved to write that the financial implications of a £25K award made against her fee-paying members could be crippling especially at a time of financial constraint. She forgot to mention the financially crippling effects of NOT making such an award to complainants at just such a time. They were, after all, the aggrieved party. The link between fee-paying members who fund the "service" and ombuds' decisions and their pro-business ombudspeak could be easily followed until 2011 when DJS Research were suddenly replaced and the company minutes disappeared from it website. However, for future researchers of ombuds schemes such a line on enquiry is surely essential if academics are serious about understanding the political-economy of ombuds in rigged (or captured) market economies in the early 21st century. (2) The approach adopted by Huw Beynon's in, "Working For Ford" was markedly different and succeeded in giving the production line workers he surveyed a sense of worth and dignity. They were able to forge a collective response something that we accept is denied to complainants. Perhaps a buddy/advocacy network needs to be established so that already stressed complainants have somebody (or body) to help through their "customer journey?" The workers at Fords responses to the situation they'd been placed in and how they sought to assert control over a work load imposed by an assertive management are - explained. The "ombuds" in Creutzfeldt +Gills' paper remain shadowy figures. The starring actors never set foot on the stage. Many people who turn to these "ombuds" - a wide range of individuals all with varying skills (some with very few) - but all sharing that same ridiculous name - are often desperate and vulnerable people. Their experiences of the Byzantine / Kafkaesque / mind-numbingly idiotic processes and ombudspeople they come up against in their hours of greatest need can be - and often are -traumatic. Especially so when handed an eye-wateringly ludicrous decision for all their trouble. And no hope of appeal. The "Final Decision." It sounds eerily like something out of Germany between the two world wars especially when The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman kept referring to the people he was sitting in judgement on as: a stock of work. Each given a number and then summarily dispatched. There is no in-depth analysis of what led ombuds watchers / activists / protesters to fight back. No Weberian "ideal-type" ombuds or Gold Standard as Martin Lewis (1) erroneously insists upon from which named ombus all-too regularly diverge or what led to that divergence. And which caused some to fight back. With Huw Beynon you knew why the good guys were good and why the bad guys were bad. The workers were most certainly going to stand up for their rights. When we were promised by Jonathan May of the then OFT a "speedy" fair" and "independent" "investigation" of our complaint by Gillian Fleming the then property ombudsman At Ombudsman Services:Property that is what we expected. When we got the opposite we too decided to stand up for our rights. How did this particular ombuds diverge from an ideal type of ombuds - one that is: fair, speedy and truly independent? Please see: www.blogger.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. But surely it is the ombuds who should be being placed under the researcher's array of theoretical templates and probed by their investigational tool-kit and not just those victims who chose to fit back? In: "The Ombudsman Enterprise + Administrative Justice" (2011) by Buck t, Kirkham R and Thompson B Ch 6 "Accountability" - we read that the ombudsman enterprise is an, "unelected institution employed to provide assurance to Parliament and the wider population as to the efficacy of Government - the interaction of these different bodies is important if the most effective form of accountability is to be achieved. The ombudsman is an institution endowed with remarkable power that itself needs to be called to account. Not only can an ombudsman fail due to error or incompetency, but an ombudsman can fail through timidity." We believe the ombuds we came up against - the one who DJS Research described as: "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" who didn't "routinely ask her members questions" or answer ours is ably described by the above authors. Perhaps their - error / incompetency / timidity schema could form a grid into which all ombuds can be allocated according to their proneness for: error, incompetency and timidity? We also had some difficulty understanding Figure 3: An integrated legal consciousness model for analysing interactions between citizens and ombuds systems. (p20) It seems that after being fitted-up by the ombuds responsible for their injustice the activist/protester is then being fitted into a grid - a grid which really doesn't seem go far in explaining the causes of that injustice in the first place. It would be interesting to know if they were indeed victims of: error / incompetency / timidity or a combination of all three? And we are talking about ombuds injustice on an industrial scale. A production-line of injustice. With assertive ombuds all spouting ombudspeak. Much of which makes little or no sense. How can Lewis Shand Smith's "superb model of ADR" at Ombudsman Services need to be "closely and honestly looked at" if it truly were, "superb?" Do we want empirical scholarship for empirical scholarship's sake when thousands of anonymous individuals are being mugged by largely unregulated and unaccountable ombuds? Ombuds who routinely fail Buck Kirkham and Thompson's need to be held to account? When citing Hertogh's, "anonymous people who have lost confidence in the law" shouldn't the focus of attention be on: * the decisions that caused those people to lose confidence? * the individuals/ombuds who caused them to lose their confidence? In a modern democracy worthy of its name ALL such decisions must be digitalised and put on the internet for public scrutiny. That would help to resolve the accountability and transparency deficit. A standardised form, scrutinised regularly by a combination of MPs. consumer groups and protester/activists. We would question why in the low grid/low group individual dissent section such individuals are described as being "with the law." If you are resisting the law how can you be, "with the law?" The idea that individuals, "Defer" to appalling ombuds decisions is also problematic. The authors claim: "Alternatively, deference may have a more positive form as individuals feel personally aggrieved, but recognise the the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome and need to defer to community values." Why would individuals feel the need to be personally aggrieved if the outcome is legitimate? Or how can you combine feeling, "personally aggrieved" at an appalling miscarriage of justice and accept that a shockingly bad decision is, "legitimate?" Placing people somewhere on a grid comes at a cost. The words we use to describe who we are and what we attempt to do are enormously important - it's what helps make watchers / activists / protesters: watchers / activists / protesters. The words Creutzfeldt and Gill use to describe us and what we do seem at times remote. We agree that the, "law's hegemonic role in sustaining domination" (Morgan Kuch 2015) is in urgent need of understanding given we are now living through what one former ombudsman has called, "the Golden Age of the Ombudsman." So that these "Golden People" can be suitably regulated, held to account and perhaps even have some of the shine taken off them when imprisoned. That would in itself require a radical understanding of the historical context in which these new Sun Gods came to flourish: a time when British capitalism dominated by a free market ideology demanded de-regulated markets and a bonfire of the regulations. A time when rigged or "captured" markets (Piketty) gave rise to rigged and captured redress. Or as one Ombudsman Services Annual Report put it - our members want to see that their money is being spent wisely - that we are adding value to their business practices. No mention of complainants' practices. Their "outcomes" certainly did add that value. It's how ombuds made redress: "Good For Business." Huw Beynon's use of structured interview surveys in, "Working For Ford" might have been helpful in the research and on page 21 the authors admit as much. They say, "This would have allowed us to deepen our analysis of ombuds watchers legal consciousness." But what of their political consciousness? An examination of ombuds legal/political/economic consciousness would be timely and interesting especially given their habit of: error / incompetency and timidity. But what about the validity of the activists' campaigns? And why isn't there a grid or continuum being devised into which ombuds and their schemes can be placed to publicly account for their: fairness, speed and independence in resolving complainants' disputes. As well as their: error / incompetency and/or timidity? And one also for the regulators which would help explain why regulators regularly don't get it right in the first place. The question as to why the formal justice system should cause so many to question - and some to resist it - never seems to get asked. We are told on page 16 "They eventually dissent from the wider system of political and legal redress which they come to see as complicit in preserving an unjust status quo. Importantly, that status quo is understood by the ombuds watchers as legally sanctioned, with ombuds being a part of the legal and political system that is, in the words of one of the groups, 'corrupt by design.'" Isn't it corrupt by design? If it wasn't wouldn't it look very different? If it actually did all the things it said on its tin we wouldn't be here would we. But we are. Surely, an analysis of its design couldn't but show it was designed - for it members benefit: to add value to their business practices? Having Gillian Fleming lower so-called financial awards "significantly" could only add to that "benefit." One ombuds, "benefit" is another protester's, "corruption." The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, former Chief Ombudsman and CEO at Ombudsman Services, liked to describe his, "superb model of ADR" as being, "Good For Business." This seems to be as good a starting point as any: Good For Business. Why not deploy it as an ideal type and one to measure ADR schemes against? This could be contrasted with a: Good For Consumers ideal type and a league table of ombuds schemes produced quarterly. Those responsible for their scheme's performance could be held to account by a panel of MPs and ombuds watchers / activists / protesters. With quarterly League Tables of ombuds performance published in the Daily Mail. For example: * Do they offer fee-paying members, "value for money? * Do they add value to their members' business practices? * Do they cut financial awards when asked to do so? * Do they hand out illogical decisions? Or * Do they offer complainants speedy justice? * Do they offer the right financial compensation? * Do they raise financial awards when asked to do so? * Do they allow the complainant the right to challenge those decisions? Is the ombuds: * prone to error * prone to incompetency * prone to timidity or a combination of the above. We should like to suggest academics use Ombudsman Services:Property as a case study. How did it go from being a superb model of ADR to bust in less than a decade? Where was government whilst this happened? Where were the MPs? You are welcome to use the information gathered at www.blogger.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone percent to help you. Ombudsman Services have removed the data detailing the calamity that was its Property "brand" from the historical record. OS:Property could become an "ideal type." The ultimate ombuds case study of the early 21st century. And where did the Ombudsman Services executives attribute blame for its spectacular failure? The system of course. Its new Chair, Tim Clement Jones even blamed complainants for complaining when his "best efforts" were seen by many of them as simply not being good enough. No mention of the individuals it failed or the "detriment" those nameless but numbered individuals suffered. We are - and remain: Case 510458 of The Rev Lewis Shand Smith's workload. One recipient of an OS:Property decision, "Not arrived at in a logical manner" was Julia: "We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor to our complaint - please refer to the Surveyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eye-wateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues. I really do want to tell my story if for nothing more than to help other people" Isn't now time for academic scholarship/research to cease being a "no risk strategy?" Isn't it time it came down off the fence and helped the victims? It's as if The Good Samaritan is being rebuked for failing to administer open-heart surgery or a brain scan in the case of the OS:P ombuds. What is needed is access to the 84% of dissatisfied complainants at Ombudsman Services:Property and a structured survey of their own experience. Something that DJS Research were doing until their contract was mysteriously terminated. We asked the OFT about this. We were told by the HEAD OF ERC@OFT Our ref EPIC/ENQ/E/138617 - "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." This simply didn't happen. Why? Again Buck, Kirkham and Thompson's Ch 6 is important. Who is holding this powerful institution to account? Just ombuds activists and Buck, Kirkham and Thompson it would seem Q. Why replace DJS Research with another research firm that was going to ask the same questions? When this didn't happen - when the same questions weren't being asked - and when there were NO Property CSRs an innocent bystander couldn't help but come to the conclusion that the executives were intent on breaking the downward spiral of their mishandling of consumer complaints. We wrote to and phoned Ombudsman Services and asked for the contact details of all those property complainants who had unaccountably NOT been asked the same questions but were told that the information we sought was covered by the Data Protection Act. It seems that the law really does protect those who least deserve it. The Chair of Ombudsman Services at that time, Dame Janet Finch, a Professor of Sociology, seemed to have a phobia for statistics and questions concerning her Property brand. We would like to recommend that Chairs of ombuds schemes should be the subject of far greater scrutiny too. Huw Beynon gave us a lasting statement of workers' experiences when on the production line a Ford Motor Co. He didn't sit on the academic fence. The mass production of appalling decisions by legal and quasi-legal ombudsman schemes has all but succeeded in doing the opposite - the victims' experiences are deliberately not being recorded. Their stories aren't being told. Silence is the order of the day. Apart, that is, from the efforts of ombuds watchers / activists / protesters. And Julia. And where ARE the politicians and academics in all of this? Our appeals to Labour's Yvonne Fovargue and Helena Kenndy's committees fell on deaf ears. Three times we contacted all Labour MPs with an email and twice all members of The House of Lords. Baroness Stowell was the only respondent. It seems that no matter what their stated political orientation is when it comes to holding ombuds to account they all stampede for the exit. Career ending issues? ombuds and anything to do with ombuds. We found it difficult to fully understand the second type of Deference mentioned by Creutzfeldt and Gill- "Alternatively, deference may have a more positive form, as individuals feel personally aggrieved, but recognise the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome and need to defer to community values." Again, why would individuals feel personally aggrieved if the outcome of their case was fundamentally legitimate? On p.20 we're told, "In terms of resistance, this may initially take the form of individual dissent, where legal appeals and other strategies (such as writing to MPs or newspapers) are designed to address a perceived injustice." Why is the injustice, "perceived?" It's either an injustice or it isn't. Our appeals for help to our MPs - one Conservative, Oliver Colvile, and one Labour, Luke pollard - are case studies in themselves and show the enormity of the problem. When a Labour Party MP is less helpful than his Conservative counterpart there really is a mountain to climb. Which is why Eyal Weizman and Fazal Sheikh's The Conflict Shoreline and what happened at al-Araqib a historic Bedouin site is so inspirational. Bulldozed more than ninety times the several dozen residents still return and - with help from Israeli activists - rebuild their homes and their lives. Taking on the ombuds establishment is a walk in the park in comparison. Although some help wouldn't go amiss. On page 24 there's a: Critique of the Ombuds' Inquisitorial + Bureaucratic Justice. They say, "The inability to satisfy complainants they have received a fair hearing is important to the watchers' critique who argue (in line with procedural justice theory - Lind+ Tyler 1988) that it should be possible to satisfy the parties even when the outcome is unfavourable: If the SPSO delivers a quality report, both sides should be satisfied). If it's a quality report it will be unfavourable to one side. Why at Ombudsman Services:Property was it 84% of the times unfavourable to those bringing the complaint? Why was the ombuds' decision 84% of the time in favour of fee-paying members? This is akin to complainants rolling the dice 100 times and getting 1: 84 times. Yes the dice IS loaded. It would seem that the ombuds was insufficiently inquisitorial on a great many occasions. You could be forgiven for believing it was the fee-paying member who was complaining about their client such was their rate of success. Inquisitorial? We were told by the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman Gillian Fleming she, "Did not routinely ask questions." So we asked her - how can you conduct an investigation of a complaint if you don't answer questions? She didn't answer the question. We asked her for a face-to-face meeting (as was our human right). This was refused on the grounds that had she thought such a meeting necessary she would have ordered one at the time. She might have, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner" (DJS Research) but wasn't illogical enough to risk a face-to-face meeting with us. We have pages of this sort of stuff. One wonders what one is supposed to do in a democracy in which ombudsman don't ask or answer questions, MPs most certainly don't and the media doesn't either. Nor it seems do academics. Mortgages and careers are at stake. What Is To Be Done? We're too old and peace-loving for the armed struggle. Our final area of disagreement is with what is found on page 32. Creutzfeldt and Gill say that the second position adopted by some ombuds activists is, "interestingly naïve" and "given the cynicism which the watchers express about the judicial system and its involvement with maintaining the status quo." Yet on page 28 we're told by (LW- a watcher / activist / protester) that, "The political establishment is ... very reluctant to call into question the integrity of the institution." Just ask Yvonne Fovargue and Helena Kennedy and ALL Labour Party members / members of the House of Lords. Please do. We have but without success. Rather than falling into the trap of being, "interestingly naïve" the authors opt for option 1. An informal, people-friendly arrangement of local committees. Which begs the one big question - why would the hegemonists of the state/quasi-state political-economic-judicial system relinquish their power and be held to account for their corruption, cover-ups and calumny by groups of public spirited, sandal wearing vegetarians? (we include ourselves in this appropriate stereotype) The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: * Answers from; Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Jonathan May, Lewis Shand Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Grant Shapps, Nick Clegg, Steven Gould, Greg Cark, Francis Maude, Gillian Fleming, Andrea Leadsom, Sir Tim Clement Jones, Clive Maxwell, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy, Chuka Umunna. * A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The Surveyors Ombudsman Service or SOS) and the role of The RICS in its "effective resolution of disputes." * Compensation for the victims of illogical Final Decisions. * The setting up of a truly: fair, speedy and independent ADR scheme. 1) Martin Lewis: Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. For Yvonne Fovargue's APPG. 2) Thomas Piketty: Capital i

The "Ombuds watchers": Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds. (Creutzfeldt N + Gill C) Social and Legal Studies. "Watching The Watchers Watch Ombuds Watchers Watch Ombudsmen And Ombudswomen. A reply by The Ombudsmens61percent Campaign.

The "Ombuds watchers": Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds. (Creutzfeldt N, + Gill C.) Social and Legal Studies. "Watching The Watchers Who Watch The Ombuds Watchers Watch Ombuds*" A reply by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Dear Friend, The speed, fairness and independence of a nation's justice system is a measure of the health its democracy. Judging by the short reign of terror at the government approved and "monitored" Ombudsman Services:Property it is now on life-support: "Ombuds watchers": Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds. (Creutzfeldt N, + Gill C.) Social and Legal Studies. "Watching The Watchers Who Watch The Ombuds Watchers Watch Ombuds*" A reply by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. If RICS the regulator and the government monitors of the government approved Ombudsman Services:Property had done the jobs they were paid to do then there would have been no need for us to write this reply. But they didn't. And so we are. We were inspired to respond to Creutzfeldt N+Gill C's article by: Huw Beynon's, Working For Ford / Get Up Stand Up | Playing For Change | Song Around The World (13.769.897 views) / Eyal Weizman +Fazal Sheikh: "The Conflict Shoreline, Surprise and Disappointment" / that private sector ombuds were excluded from this article / a difficulty with the terms, "Against the law" and "With the law / a disagreement with the authors over some of their conclusions and continued focus on the watchers and not the watched / a need for a rigorous understanding of ombuds and how and why they operate in the way they do and an objection to being labelled a, "watcher." "Watcher: a person who watches television or films - Cambridge English Dictionary." Or, "Watcher: a person who closely follows or observes someone or something - Merriam-Webster Dictionary." The second definition is slightly less demeaning. "Watchers," if our experience is anything to go by, do a great deal more than just watch. Perhaps "activists" or "protesters" would be a far more suitable word for their hours of voluntary unpaid activism and banging of heads on doors that never seem to want to open. There is no lottery funding or charitable status available for the likes of us. The authors seem to acknowledge this on p. 33 in their section: A Collective Approach to Gaming and the Communal Dynamics of Protest. Collective "protest" being "the means through which complainants rendered helpless could regain a voice" rather than being "shut out in the cold." "Protester" or "activist" seem far more appropriate lables to be given. The authors begin by stating, "The article argues that legal consciousness provides an appropriate theoretical lens for studying user experiences of ombuds processes and a useful framework for understanding the ways in which people make sense of experiences, construct ideas about justice and make decisions about what action to take in response to dissatisfaction." Is it not also a political consciousness? Isn't the whole process of being systematically denied justice by the state and its civil servants and politicians - political? Especially when the financial stakes are so high as they were at Ombudsman Services:Property. We're not talking about a kettle that refused to boil. The Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, Gillian Fleming was moved to write that the financial implications of a £25K award made against her fee-paying members could be crippling especially at a time of financial constraint. She forgot to mention the financially crippling effects of NOT making such an award to complainants at just such a time. They were, after al, the aggrieved party. The link between fee-paying members who fund the "service" and ombuds' decisions and their pro-business ombudspeak could be easily followed until 2011 when DJS Research were suddenly replaced and the company minutes disappeared from it website. However, for future researchers of ombuds schemes such a line on enquiry is surely essential if academics are serious about understanding the political-economy of ombuds in rigged (or captured) market economies in the early 21st century. (2) The approach adopted by Huw Beynon's in, "Working For Ford" was markedly different and succeeded in giving the production line workers he surveyed a sense of worth and dignity. They were able to forge a collective response something that we accept is denied to complainants. Perhaps a buddy/advocacy network needs to be established so that already stressed complainants have somebody (or body) to help through their "customer journey?" The workers at Fords responses to the situation they'd been placed in and how they sought to assert control over a work load imposed by an assertive management are - explained. The "ombuds" in Creutzfeldt +Gills' paper remain shadowy figures. The starring actors never set foot on the stage. Many people who turn to these "ombuds" - a wide range of individuals all with varying skills (some with very few) - but all sharing that same ridiculous name - are often desperate and vulnerable people. Their experiences of the Byzantine / Kafkaesque / mind-numbingly idiotic processes and ombudspeople they come up against in their hours of greatest need can be - and often are -traumatic. Especially so when handed an eye-wateringly ludicrous decision for all their trouble. And no hope of appeal. The "Final Decision." It sounds eerily like something out of Germany between the two world wars especially when The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman kept referring to the people he was sitting in judgement on as: a stock of work. Each given a number and then summarily dispatched. There is no in-depth analysis of what led ombuds watchers / activists / protesters to fight back. No Weberian "ideal-type" ombuds or Gold Standard as Martin Lewis (1) erroneously insists upon from which named ombus all-too regularly diverge or what led to that divergence. And which caused some to fight back. With Huw Beynon you knew why the good guys were good and why the bad guys were bad. The workers were most certainly going to stand up for their rights. When we were promised by Jonathan May of the then OFT a "speedy" fair" and "independent" "investigation" of our complaint by Gillian Fleming the then property ombudsman At Ombudsman Services:Property that is what we expected. When we got the opposite we too decided to stand up for our rights. How did this particular ombuds diverge from an ideal type of ombuds - one that is: fair, speedy and truly independent? Please see: www.blogger.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. But surely it is the ombuds who should be being placed under the researcher's array of theoretical templates and probed by their investigational tool-kit and not just those victims who chose to fit back? In: "The Ombudsman Enterprise + Administrative Justice" (2011) by Buck t, Kirkham R and Thompson B Ch 6 "Accountability" - we read that the ombudsman enterprise is an, "unelected institution employed to provide assurance to Parliament and the wider population as to the efficacy of Government - the interaction of these different bodies is important if the most effective form of accountability is to be achieved. The ombudsman is an institution endowed with remarkable power that itself needs to be called to account. Not only can an ombudsman fail due to error or incompetency, but an ombudsman can fail through timidity." We believe the ombuds we came up against - the one who DJS Research described as: "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" who didn't "routinely ask her members questions" or answer ours is ably described by the above authors. Perhaps their - error / incompetency / timidity schema could form a grid into which all ombuds can be allocated according to their proneness for: error, incompetency and timidity? We also had some difficulty understanding Figure 3: An integrated legal consciousness model for analysing interactions between citizens and ombuds systems. (p20) It seems that after being fitted-up by the ombuds responsible for their injustice the activist/protester is then being fitted into a grid - a grid which really doesn't seem go far in explaining the causes of that injustice in the first place. It would be interesting to know if they were indeed victims of: error / incompetency / timidity or a combination of all three? And we are talking about ombuds injustice on an industrial scale. A production-line of injustice. With assertive ombuds all spouting ombudspeak. Much of which makes little or no sense. How can Lewis Shand Smith's "superb model of ADR" at Ombudsman Services need to be "closely and honestly looked at" if it truly were, "superb?" Do we want empirical scholarship for empirical scholarship's sake when thousands of anonymous individuals are being mugged by largely unregulated and unaccountable ombuds? Ombuds who routinely fail Buck Kirkham and Thompson's need to be held to account? When citing Hertogh's, "anonymous people who have lost confidence in the law" shouldn't the focus of attention be on: * the decisions that caused those people to lose confidence? * the individuals/ombuds who caused them to lose their confidence? In a modern democracy worthy of its name ALL such decisions must be digitalised and put on the internet for public scrutiny. That would help to resolve the accountability and transparency deficit. A standardised form, scrutinised regularly by a combination of MPs. consumer groups and protester/activists. We would question why in the low grid/low group individual dissent section such individuals are described as being "with the law." If you are resisting the law how can you be, "with the law?" The idea that individuals, "Defer" to appalling ombuds decisions is also problematic. The authors claim: "Alternatively, deference may have a more positive form as individuals feel personally aggrieved, but recognise the the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome and need to defer to community values." Why would individuals feel the need to be personally aggrieved if the outcome is legitimate? Or how can you combine feeling, "personally aggrieved" at an appalling miscarriage of justice and accept that a shockingly bad decision is, "legitimate?" Placing people somewhere on a grid comes at a cost. The words we use to describe who we are and what we attempt to do are enormously important - it's what helps make watchers / activists / protesters: watchers / activists / protesters. The words Creutzfeldt and Gill use to describe us and what we do seem at times remote. We agree that the, "law's hegemonic role in sustaining domination" (Morgan Kuch 2015) is in urgent need of understanding given we are now living through what one former ombudsman has called, "the Golden Age of the Ombudsman." So that these "Golden People" can be suitably regulated, held to account and perhaps even have some of the shine taken off them when imprisoned. That would in itself require a radical understanding of the historical context in which these new Sun Gods came to flourish: a time when British capitalism dominated by a free market ideology demanded de-regulated markets and a bonfire of the regulations. A time when rigged or "captured" markets (Piketty) gave rise to rigged and captured redress. Or as one Ombudsman Services Annual Report put it - our members want to see that their money is being spent wisely - that we are adding value to their business practices. No mention of complainants' practices. Their "outcomes" certainly did add that value. It's how ombuds made redress: "Good For Business." Huw Beynon's use of structured interview surveys in, "Working For Ford" might have been helpful in the research and on page 21 the authors admit as much. They say, "This would have allowed us to deepen our analysis of ombuds watchers legal consciousness." But what of their political consciousness? An examination of ombuds legal/political/economic consciousness would be timely and interesting especially given their habit of: error / incompetency and timidity. But what about the validity of the activists' campaigns? And why isn't there a grid or continuum being devised into which ombuds and their schemes can be placed to publicly account for their: fairness, speed and independence in resolving complainants' disputes. As well as their: error / incompetency and/or timidity? And one also for the regulators which would help explain why regulators regularly don't get it right in the first place. The question as to why the formal justice system should cause so many to question - and some to resist it - never seems to get asked. We are told on page 16 "They eventually dissent from the wider system of political and legal redress which they come to see as complicit in preserving an unjust status quo. Importantly, that status quo is understood by the ombuds watchers as legally sanctioned, with ombuds being a part of the legal and political system that is, in the words of one of the groups, 'corrupt by design.'" Isn't it corrupt by design? If it wasn't wouldn't it look very different? If it actually did all the things it said on its tin we wouldn't be here would we. But we are. Surely, an analysis of its design couldn't but show it was designed - for it members benefit: to add value to their business practices? Having Gillian Fleming lower so-called financial awards "significantly" could only add to that "benefit." One ombuds, "benefit" is another protester's, "corruption." The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, former Chief Ombudsman and CEO at Ombudsman Services, liked to describe his, "superb model of ADR" as being, "Good For Business." This seems to be as good a starting point as any: Good For Business. Why not deploy it as an ideal type and one to measure ADR schemes against? This could be contrasted with a: Good For Consumers ideal type and a league table of ombuds schemes produced quarterly. Those responsible for their scheme's performance could be held to account by a panel of MPs and ombuds watchers / activists / protesters. With quarterly League Tables of ombuds performance published in the Daily Mail. For example: * Do they offer fee-paying members, "value for money? * Do they add value to their members' business practices? * Do they cut financial awards when asked to do so? * Do they hand out illogical decisions? Or * Do they offer complainants speedy justice? * Do they offer the right financial compensation? * Do they raise financial awards when asked to do so? * Do they allow the complainant the right to challenge those decisions? Is the ombuds: * prone to error * prone to incompetency * prone to timidity or a combination of the above. We should like to suggest academics use Ombudsman Services:Property as a case study. How did it go from being a superb model of ADR to bust in less than a decade? Where was government whilst this happened? Where were the MPs? You are welcome to use the information gathered at www.blogger.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone percent to help you. Ombudsman Services have removed the data detailing the calamity that was its Property "brand" from the historical record. OS:Property could become an "ideal type." The ultimate ombuds case study of the early 21st century. And where did the Ombudsman Services executives attribute blame for its spectacular failure? The system of course. Its new Chair, Tim Clement Jones even blamed complainants for complaining when his "best efforts" were seen by many of them as simply not being good enough. No mention of the individuals it failed or the "detriment" those nameless but numbered individuals suffered. We are - and remain: Case 510458 of The Rev Lewis Shand Smith's workload. One recipient of an OS:Property decision, "Not arrived at in a logical manner" was Julia: "We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor to our complaint - please refer to the Surveyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eye-wateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues. I really do want to tell my story if for nothing more than to help other people" Isn't now time for academic scholarship/research to cease being a "no risk strategy?" Isn't it time it came down off the fence and helped the victims? It's as if The Good Samaritan is being rebuked for failing to administer open-heart surgery or a brain scan in the case of the OS:P ombuds. What is needed is access to the 84% of dissatisfied complainants at Ombudsman Services:Property and a structured survey of their own experience. Something that DJS Research were doing until their contract was mysteriously terminated. We asked the OFT about this. We were told by the HEAD OF ERC@OFT Our ref EPIC/ENQ/E/138617 - "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." This simply didn't happen. Why? Again Buck, Kirkham and Thompson's Ch 6 is important. Who is holding this powerful institution to account? Just ombuds activists and Buck, Kirkham and Thompson it would seem Q. Why replace DJS Research with another research firm that was going to ask the same questions? When this didn't happen - when the same questions weren't being asked - and when there were NO Property CSRs an innocent bystander couldn't help but come to the conclusion that the executives were intent on breaking the downward spiral of their mishandling of consumer complaints. We wrote to and phoned Ombudsman Services and asked for the contact details of all those property complainants who had unaccountably NOT been asked the same questions but were told that the information we sought was covered by the Data Protection Act. It seems that the law really does protect those who least deserve it. The Chair of Ombudsman Services at that time, Dame Janet Finch, a Professor of Sociology, seemed to have a phobia for statistics and questions concerning her Property brand. We would like to recommend that Chairs of ombuds schemes should be the subject of far greater scrutiny too. Huw Beynon gave us a lasting statement of workers' experiences when on the production line a Ford Motor Co. He didn't sit on the academic fence. The mass production of appalling decisions by legal and quasi-legal ombudsman schemes has all but succeeded in doing the opposite - the victims' experiences are deliberately not being recorded. Their stories aren't being told. Silence is the order of the day. Apart, that is, from the efforts of ombuds watchers / activists / protesters. And Julia. And where ARE the politicians and academics in all of this? Our appeals to Labour's Yvonne Fovargue and Helena Kenndy's committees fell on deaf ears. Three times we contacted all Labour MPs with an email and twice all members of The House of Lords. Baroness Stowell was the only respondent. It seems that no matter what their stated political orientation is when it comes to holding ombuds to account they all stampede for the exit. Career ending issues? ombuds and anything to do with ombuds. We found it difficult to fully understand the second type of Deference mentioned by Creutzfeldt and Gill- "Alternatively, deference may have a more positive form, as individuals feel personally aggrieved, but recognise the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome and need to defer to community values." Again, why would individuals feel personally aggrieved if the outcome of their case was fundamentally legitimate? On p.20 we're told, "In terms of resistance, this may initially take the form of individual dissent, where legal appeals and other strategies (such as writing to MPs or newspapers) are designed to address a perceived injustice." Why is the injustice, "perceived?" It's either an injustice or it isn't. Our appeals for help to our MPs - one Conservative, Oliver Colvile, and one Labour, Luke pollard - are case studies in themselves and show the enormity of the problem. When a Labour Party MP is less helpful than his Conservative counterpart there really is a mountain to climb. Which is why Eyal Weizman and Fazal Sheikh's The Conflict Shoreline and what happened at al-Araqib a historic Bedouin site is so inspirational. Bulldozed more than ninety times the several dozen residents still return and - with help from Israeli activists - rebuild their homes and their lives. Taking on the ombuds establishment is a walk in the park in comparison. Although some help wouldn't go amiss. On page 24 there's a: Critique of the Ombuds' Inquisitorial + Bureaucratic Justice. They say, "The inability to satisfy complainants they have received a fair hearing is important to the watchers' critique who argue (in line with procedural justice theory - Lind+ Tyler 1988) that it should be possible to satisfy the parties even when the outcome is unfavourable: If the SPSO delivers a quality report, both sides should be satisfied). If it's a quality report it will be unfavourable to one side. Why at Ombudsman Services:Property was it 84% of the times unfavourable to those bringing the complaint? Why was the ombuds' decision 84% of the time in favour of fee-paying members? This is akin to complainants rolling the dice 100 times and getting 1: 84 times. Yes the dice IS loaded. It would seem that the ombuds was insufficiently inquisitorial on a great many occasions. You could be forgiven for believing it was the fee-paying member who was complaining about their client such was their rate of success. Inquisitorial? We were told by the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman Gillian Fleming she, "Did not routinely ask questions." So we asked her - how can you conduct an investigation of a complaint if you don't answer questions? She didn't answer the question. We asked her for a face-to-face meeting (as was our human right). This was refused on the grounds that had she thought such a meeting necessary she would have ordered one at the time. She might have, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner" (DJS Research) but wasn't illogical enough to risk a face-to-face meeting with us. We have pages of this sort of stuff. One wonders what one is supposed to do in a democracy in which ombudsman don't ask or answer questions, MPs most certainly don't and the media doesn't either. Nor it seems do academics. Mortgages and careers are at stake. What Is To Be Done? We're too old and peace-loving for the armed struggle. Our final area of disagreement is with what is found on page 32. Creutzfeldt and Gill say that the second position adopted by some ombuds activists is, "interestingly naïve" and, "given the cynicism which the watchers express about the judicial system and its involvement with maintaining the status quo." Yet on page 28 we're told by (LW- a watcher / activist / protester) that, "The political establishment is ... very reluctant to call into question the integrity of the institution." Just ask Yvonne Fovargue and Helena Kennedy and ALL Labour Party members / members of the House of Lords. Please do. We have but without success. Rather than falling into the trap of being, "interestingly naïve" the authors opt for option 1. An informal, people-friendly arrangement of local committees. Which begs the one big question - why would the hegemonists of the state/quasi-state political-economic-judicial system relinquish their power and be held to account for their corruption, cover-ups and calumny by groups of public spirited, sandal wearing vegetarians? (we include ourselves in this appropriate stereotype) The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: * Answers from; Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Jonathan May, Lewis Shand Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Grant Shapps, Nick Clegg, Steven Gould, Greg Cark, Francis Maude, Gillian Fleming, Andrea Leadsom, Sir Tim Clement Jones, Clive Maxwell, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy, Chuka Umunna. * A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The Surveyors Ombudsman Service or SOS) and the role of The RICS in its "effective resolution of disputes." * Compensation for the victims of illogical Final Decisions. * The setting up of a truly: fair, speedy and independent ADR scheme. 1) Martin Lewis: Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. For Yvonne Fovargue's APPG. 2) Thomas Piketty: Capital in the 21st Century.