SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (2) Page 3:

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (2) Page 3: We agree with the following: "• On average, 53% of people who had used an ombudsman said they were put off using an ombudsman again, even a different one. Our research also found: • The current ombudsman landscape is complicated for consumers to navigate. In some sectors there are competing ADR schemes and in other areas there is a lack of ombudsman provision, or ombudsmen with few members. • It can take too long to escalate a complaint to an ombudsman. The 8-week rule was created in a non-digital age, but in this digital age with instant credit-scoring and decisions, 8 weeks is simply too long and should be reduced. • Even when a complaint reaches the ombudsman, consumers feel their complaints are dealt with slowly. • Currently firms are required to say what the approved ADR scheme is in their sector even if they will not work with it, thus giving false hope to consumers. This rule is a farce." "This mixed bag of experiences with ombudsmen devalues the term, and means consumers cannot rely on them as they should be able to. While use of the word ‘ombudsman’ is restricted, we do not believe it is restricted enough." "With the growth of ADR, ombudsmen should be regarded as the gold standard. Only those who meet that gold standard should be called ombudsmen." We disagree: Britain left the gold standard in 1931. What is needed is a transparent and accountable system of democratic accountability. The APPG on Consumer Protection chaired by Yvonne Fovargue refused us permission to address the group The EU Justice Sub-Committee chaired by Baroness Kennedy did likewise. Both committees were supposedly there to protect the consumer. Both seemed more intent on protecting a Chief Executive who needed to take an "honest" look at what he was achieving. This information was available to the public. Why didn't MSE make use of it? Had they done so surely their conclusions would have been radically different and more importantly consumers would have been afforded - protection. "These issues are not academic – they affect real consumers with real disputes. When ombudsmen fail, consumers lose: substantial reform is urgently needed." We beg to differ. These issues are academic. A great deal of valuable, scholarly work exists on the subject of ombudsmen and their schemes and yet MSE makes no mention of it. Steven E Aufrecht: Evaluating Ombudsman Systems 2000: "An ombudsman's job is to investigate and evaluate others. Ombudsmen must be subject to evaluation." The two Parliamentary committees we approached disagree. Trevor Bruck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson: The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice 2011: "The ombudsman is an institution endowed with remarkable power and itself needs to be called to account. Not only can an ombudsman fail due to error or incompetency, but an ombudsman can also fail through timidity." DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services suggest all three were present at this particular scheme.