SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (3) Page 5:

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (3) Page 5. We agree with: Recommendation 1: All ombudsmen need a statutory basis as a foundation • Ombudsmen should havestatutory powers to ensure that firms are cooperative with processes and compliant with decisions that have real legal teeth. Recommendation 2: Oversight of ombudsmen must be boosted • Relevant Government Departments, the Ombudsman Association and Companies House should work to make sure that the performance of ombudsmen is consistently higher. We agree that the oversight of ombudsmen must be boosted but disagree with the recommendation that the Ombudsman Association should have such a role. The Ombudsman Association was formerly The British and Irish Ombudsman Association. It set out its own set of rules for membership. Page 5 should be read in conjunction with Chapter 3: TWITTER: Replying to @O61percentC @MartinSLewis and @GMB Chapter 3 of Sharper Teeth begins by telling us that The Ombudsman Association is - "self-regulatory." We'll return to the philosophy of self regulation later when discussing Consumer Focus / The RICS / and its regulation - or almost total lack of it - of its Members and Firms. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin's Ch 3 opens by saying that The Ombudsman Association principles, "state that the primary role of ombudsmen must be to handle complaints about maladministration." Let's be clear about this - their principle aim is handle complaints about maladministration. But do they? Maladministration and Whistleblowing Policies: TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB The BIOA / OA once required all participating member schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign phoned Ombudsman Services to ask if they had one. They didn't. We phoned the OA but didn't get an answer. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Your desk research will have revealed that the CO of Ombudsman Services was told by his board to have an "honest" look at the scheme's performance and that the Independent Assessor had been shocked at the maladministration she had uncovered. The CO of OS was on the board of OA. Here we have a situation where the Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services and Board member of The Ombudsman Association - whose primary purpose is to investigate maladministration - is investigating his own maladministration. There was NO intervention by The OFT. NO intervention by The Ombudsman Association and NO mention of it in Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. All talk of "fit+proper person," unimpeachable integrity and Gold Standard governance seems faintly ridiculous when no-one is regulating the regulators. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB The 2011 Annual Report states" But are we delivering the excellent service to which we aspire? This year the board has supported CO Lewis Shand Smith in taking a close and honest look at what we are actually delivering." Q. Martin where was the property report? So we have: shocking maladministration, an illogical ombudsman and a Chief Ombudsman who brags that the brand is marching on - superb - all singing and dancing when the evidence clears says otherwise. Q. Martin, why wasn't this in your report? This revelation - that the Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services was told he needed to take a "close" and Honest" look at what was being delivered at the company - needs to be linked with notions of a "fit+proper person" below and DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, you would have been aware of the Ombudsman Services:Property's maladministration and its property ombudsman's habit of "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner." (DJS Research) TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin the 2006 Articles of Association of OS Ltd under: Powers and Duties of the Board state it should: c) ensure that the CO satisfactorily administers the affairs and conduct of the business of the service Q. What conversation did you have about the scheme's maladministration? Q. Why do you recommend giving these people "Sharper teeth?" Their final report stated that the Chief Ombudsman's Property Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services combined not arriving at decisions "in a logical manner" with a strong complainant perception of partiality. Partiality towards the scheme's fee-paying members. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, you would have been aware of the Ombudsman Services:Property's maladministration and its property ombudsman's habit of "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner." (DJS Research) Q. Why do you recommend giving these people "Sharper Teeth?" Then there's the company's refusal to comply with their Association's stipulation that ALL schemes were required to have a Whistleblowing Policy. Fit and proper persons? TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, given that the CO of Ombudsman Services also sat on the board The Ombudsman Association - whose principle role was to handle complaints about maladministration - your on the record fact-check with him must have been a difficult one. Q. Why wasn't this in your report? TWITTER: Please answer the question.@O61percentC·Jul 25 Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Under: Governance - the organisation goes on to state, "If a scheme is to be credible, all stakeholders must have confidence in it and in the independence and effectiveness of the office holder in the role of investigating and resolving consumer or public service complaints." In reality the "governance" turned out to be: The Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services investigating instances of his own company's maladministration himself. And the Whistleblowing Policy? TWITTER: Please answer the question.@O61percentC·Jul 25 Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, The Ombudsman Association later removed the r requirement for participating schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. Employees are no longer protected. Q. Does this not breach Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Q. Martin, how does having a CO of Ombudsman Services who was also a board member (and chair) of The Ombudsman Association handling complaints about his own scheme's maladministration satisfy all those requirements listed in the previous tweet? Your report doesn't say. Q. Are these "fit+proper persons" doing "fit+proper things?" If schools can be subjected to the full rigours of an Ofsted inspection why not ombudsmen and their various nefarious schemes? The abject failure of certain APPGs to hold certain government departments to account is a worrying reflection of the crumbling twilight state of democracy in no-answers / post-Brexit / post transparency and post accountability Britain. Can we even trust Martin Lewis and his MSE empire? Given his refusal to work with us but instead stand by his misleading and inaccurate report the answer must sadly be - No. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, can you please explain to the British consumer why you "stand by" Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform's Recommendation 2? • Particular focus should be paid to: the ease of complaining; to the speed at which complaints are processed; and to the perception of fairness among those who complain to ombudsmen. • Ineffective ombudsmen must be stripped of the right to use the word in their title. • There should be a form of ‘fit and proper’ approved-persons test for people in senior roles in ombudsmen. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could approve such persons. We are strongly opposed to this recommendation. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign supports Recommendation3: Recommendation 3: The 8-week rule should be shortened and needs vital exceptions • Unless a deadlock letter is received, consumers generally need to wait 8 weeks before using an ombudsman (but it can be more). • If the complaint is about debt issues, payday loans, credit brokers or black marks on credit files, then waiting 8 weeks could leave consumers in crisis. • 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. That time should be reduced to somewhere between 2-4 weeks – as a blanket rule across all ombudsmen. • There should also be exceptions so people who are in crisis due to an unresolved complaint can escalate to an ombudsman sooner Please answer the question.@O61percentC·Jul 25 Replying to @O61percentC @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, why wasn't the requirement for ALL ombudsman schemes to have a whistleblowing policy in your list of recommendations? Given the self-regulation of maladministration by those at Ombudsman Services and The Ombudsman Association why was your report silent on this matter? RECOMMENDATION 4: ALL OMBUDSMAN SCHEMES MUST HAVE A WHISTLEBLOWING POLICY.