SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (6) Page 8:

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM, An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (6) Page 8: "Methodology A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods were used: • Desk research, including a review of various reports about ombudsmen in recent years, and information from ombudsmen’s websites." There is no appendix. You do not list the reports you studied. For instance given the standout statistic on page 60 - 84% "unfairness" rate of property complainants - did you thoroughly examine DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports. These reports offer a remarkable insight into the shambolic nature of what the OFT had assured consumers would be a "fair," "speedy" and "totally independent" investigation of a consumer's often complex complaint. Did you examine the company's minutes? The OFT who approved and monitored this scheme on behalf of the taxpayer say that there is no requirement for the scheme to publish the minutes of its meetings. How does this sit with the requirement for such schemes to be accountable? How does it meet the requirements of the EU Directive on ADR? Did you scrutinise that report? If so you would have seen that this scheme would have fallen short of what was required. There is also no mention of the Ombudsman Associations' requirements for membership - notably its primary role: to investigate maladministration. How did the Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith, explain his scheme's maladministration of consumers' complaints? Your report doesn't say. It is also silent on the OFT's criteria and how the property ombudsman's habit of "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" meets the requirement to proceed following the principles of natural justice in all the instances. Had you matched this scheme's appalling performance in investigating consumers' complaints with the rules that were there to guide them then surely your report would have arrived at some very different conclusions. But it didn't. Would you care to comment now Martin Lewis? "• Background discussions and on the record fact-checking with organisations mentioned in this report. • Primary research in the form of an online survey conducted between 22 August and 11 September 2017. In total, 1,409 responses were recorded. Consumers were asked about their experiences with various ombudsmen that deal with consumer complaints. For the reasons outlined above, the survey focuses on ombudsmen, but there was space for consumers to submit their views on other similar services if they wished. Consumers also contacted us through social media and other means to share their experiences with us. o While surveyed, the Removals Industry Ombudsman Scheme results have not been included in any of the quantitative data because the number of respondents for this ombudsman was very low and not deemed statistically meaningful." There are no names. Your report doesn't say who you spoke with or what those individuals had to say. Lewis Shand Smith, Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association must surely have spoken about: * the maladministration * the property ombudsman who arrived at decisions in an illogical manner * the dramatic fall in the level of financial award * the investigator's inability to understand the nature of complaints * the misrepresentation of evidence * the erroneous conclusions * attempts by complainants to submit further evidence * refusal of the property ombudsman to ask her fee-paying members questions * her failure to disclose evidence * her failure to mediate in disputes * why when the scheme's rules precluded it from having a RICS member as an ombudsman did it have a RICS member as an ombudsman. Your report makes no mention of this. Why Martin Lewis do you still insist that you stand by it? How does it help protect consumers?