Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape by Lewis Shand Smith and Nial Vivian. A Review by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Dear Luke, Oxford University Faculty of Law Justice and Society and Monk and Partners, This is our review of, "Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape" by Lewis Shand Smith and Nial Vivian. We would be happy to answer any questions you will have, travel to Oxford to talk about it and see it published. Dedication 1: "It is better to content oneself with other more modest 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 - If This is a Man). Dedication 2: "We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor - please refer to the Surveyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eyewateringly 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." (Julia Hearnden.) Dedication 3: "He suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case..In hindsight I should have written to him after each visit." (David Monk MRICS of Monk and Partners) Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape by Lewis Shand Smith and Nial Vivian. A Review by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Far from being a salutary force for good one that brings rapid justice to consumers who in ever increasing numbers are being mugged in broad daylight, we regard certain ombudsmen and their shady schemes, as being more akin to a quasi-religious sect. A sect with its own language - ombudspeak. Its own arcane rituals - rituals such as creating commandments and then ignoring them the moment they become an inconvenience. And heralds of extravagant promises of heaven on earth to those brought low by Rip-off Britain Plc. Only to then abandon their stock of work by the wayside when they, the Ombuds, divine it's time to terminate their stocks' customer journeys. Despite having had our email accounts repeatedly hacked and a virus disguised as pornography dumped on our Blog we still have over 800 pages of information concerning Ombudsman Services and the various organisations associated with it. Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape has provided a useful template for the information we've gathered. One that could add far greater detail to the twenty-four subheadings below which we've deployed as part of our criticism of this policy brief. This policy paper is remarkable. Remarkable in the sense that the devil is - there is little or no detail. And no detail whatsoever of Lewis Shand Smith's time at Ombudsman Services where he referred to individual complainants as a "stock of work." 1 Self-regulation: "The civil justice landscape is undergoing a major shift in the UK. The courts, already costly and complicated, deter the individual from pursuing civil justice when the potential settlement of their dispute is dwarfed by the expenditure they will need to make and the time they will need to commit. Opportunities for business to self-regulate and improve practice are also impeded by the lack of a wider understanding of what causes complaints and a holistic view of consumer attitudes towards a product, service, or the contact they have with businesses." (our emphasis) RICS, the reluctant regulator, has been very business-like in seizing the opportunities self-regulation has to offer its Members and Regulated Firms. According to RICS they are incredibly effective "behind the scenes" lobbyists in Parliament. A fact Lewis Shand Smith will no doubt have been made fully aware of during his tenure as CEO / Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services when RICS members Steven Gould and Walter Merricks were closely involved with the scheme. The first ever meeting of Ombudsman Services:Property was at RICS headquarters, 12 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AD.A short stroll from Parliament. Where, "behind the scenes political influencing and engagement work" could proceed unhidered. The relationship between "the civil justice landscape" and the actual "justice" consumers occasionally get is never fully explored in the authors' brief. This often abusive relationship between Ombudsperson and Complainant is one that needs to be fully investigated and understood if consumers are ever going to get the fairness and the justice they deserve but all too often fail to ahceive. What exactly is "self-regulation?" And how do its many forms impact upon the consumer? Under, "Matters RICS cannot investigate" RICS state: "we cannot award compensation or force Members or Regulated Firms to do anything or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules or Regulations." So much for RICS Rules and Regulations. Unsurprisingly, their self-regulating Firms acted accordingly, consumers suffered as a result, got referred to the RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property and suffered again. Something Lewis Shand Smith should be fully aware of. Firms like Monk and Partners, who made an agreement to carry out essential repairs to our home. The stress of being kept waiting 226 days for repairs that never happened was horrendous. "I believe David should honour his commitment now it has been given. I will therefore request that David instruct the builder in writing this week to carry this out at our expense." Letter from Simon JH Cook BSc. Monk and Partners then really did keep us waiting 226 days, failed to live up to their promise and then packed us off to their appointed ADR scheme, Ombudsman Services:Property. It was their, "no risk strategy." Something Lewis Shand Smith will also be fully aware of as we tried asking him to answer 100 questions of complaint. But without success. Consumer Focus also shone a light on this self-regulatory black hole when they reported: "Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the consumers' interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in the RICS' apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms." RICS' inadequately regulated Members and Regulated Firms can't even be persuaded to keep and maintain a proper professional Case File. Far too much regulation as far as they're concerned, whereas it's what teachers, nurses and doctors are expected to do morning noon and night. Sadly for consumers, Consumer Focus was closed down. RICS' inadequately regulated Members seized the opportunity, honed those business practices that were not working in the public interest and laughed all the way to the bank after first depositing their clients at their, "appointed" ADR scheme, Ombudsman Services:Property. Here their bewildered clients all-to-often experienced mind-numbing incompetency before being told they were free to find a solution that suited them better - elsewhere. In short, this was the Complainant's consumer journey. One business practice Monk and Partners deployed was to tell us they would no longer phone or visit our home, as apparently there was no longer any point in doing so, and then do just exactly that - visit it without our knowledge or consent. Photograph it without our knowledge or consent. Probably enter it also without our knowledge or consent and then send the "evidence" they had secretly gathered off to their waiting Property Ombudsman who saw nothing remotely wrong with this whatsoever. So, truth be known and it always should, there was a purpose after all: to save on the expense of actually carrying out the repairs to our home we were promised months previously. There was an agreement to repair our home. We didnt break it. We complained to Gillian Fleming, their appointed Property Ombudsman who couldn't bring herself to criticise her fee-paying Member. Her explanation for the 226 day delay went beyond all known logic and is part of those 800 pages of additional information. 2 Christopher Hamer (the former Property Ombudsman) - Why Not Stop Things Going Wrong in the First Place? Now this is the sort of logic we've come to admire. It's in pitiful short supply. RICS have a Royal Charter and in return for which are expected to, "work for the public good." One wonders how failing to abide by agreements and then monitoring and subjecting their clients to some sort of surveillance is for the public good. We did try asking The Rev Sand Smith for his thoughts on this distressing behaviour but he didn't respond to this either. RICS, in return for their Royal Charter, hand a substantial amount of their day to day running to the Privy Council. This involves a group of senior politicians meeting in secret. And this is supposed to be a democracy. Clearly, the Privy Council find RICS Members' development of practices that did not work in consumers' interests to be of no concern to them otherwise they would have acted to protect consumers and the public good. We tried raising this with Nick Clegg's office when he was masquerading as Deputy Prime Minister but we didn't get a response from him either. You cannot but fail to notice an alarming pattern of behaviour emerging here. The clam-like mentality of those in positions of power and their steadfast refusal to grace a straightforward question with an honest, carefully reasoned answer. Individuals in our dying democracy are still free to raise questions with those in positions of power. They just shouldn't expect to get an answer anytime soon. This is what we have come to understand as the political economy of redress. At the present time the civil justice landscape is most certainly, "Good for Business" but, "Alarmingly Bad for Justice and Democracy." 3 A, "wider understanding of complaints?" And what does an Ombuds' investigation of a complaint entail? DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports provided a detailed analysis of consumers' experiences of RICS' business practices, what caused consumers to complain and their widespread dissatisfaction with how Ombudsman Services:Property had handled their cases. Complaints about surveys and evaluations rose year on year. Just like Consumer Focus, DJS Research were silenced and lost the contract to continue to report independently on the scheme's woeful performance in handling complaints from their fee-paying, self-regulating Members and Regulated Firms. Although for RICS, and those RICS Members monitoring the Memorandum of Understanding between RICS and its "appointed" ADR scheme, this performance must have been seen as being, "effective" as nothing was done to change it. Our complaint, like so many others who unsuccessfully complained to Ombudsman Services, was about the poor quality of Monk and Partners' Full Structural Survey. No-one at this ADR scheme was prepared to comment on their fee-paying Members' professional conduct. To do so would not have been good for their Members' business practices. Or, "added value to them." The whole pro-Member ethos of those Ombudshelpers running the scheme for their RICS paymasters is there to see in the company's minutes and Annual Reports. All you had to do was read it. Yet the Terms of Reference are quite specific on this matter. At 10 b) it states that the duty of the ombudsman is, "to report to the RICS Regulatory Body any cases which involve serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by RICS Member Firms." We asked Lewis Shand Smith why this hadn't happened but did not get a reply. The "holistic" view was one of widespread increasing consumer dissatisfaction. 4 Persons of Interest: Professor Dame Janet Finch, Sociologist and Chair of Ombudsman Services: Prof. Dame Janet Finch wrote, "But are we delivering the excellent service to which aspire? Asserting our commitment to excellence is not the same as delivering this in practice." (Annual Report 2011) DJS Research had already provided the answer to the sociology professor's question. It was a resounding: NO. She continued with, "This year the board has supported Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith in taking a close and honest look at what we are actually achieving." In the previous Annual Report, Lewis Shand Smith had less than honestly described the ombudshambles at Warrington as being a superb model of ADR. It was anything but and tragically for consumers and for transparency and accountability, those who were actually taking that really close and honest look at was going on at this scheme - DJS Research - were replaced. A close honest look? On the subject of Professor Finch, the TES 3rd Feb 2011 reported, "Rejected candidate says appointment process was shambles from start to finish.." and Professor Wheeler added, "This is hardly a 21st century standard of accountability or a great start for a process that depends upon trust or confidence. Did Janet Finch run Keele like this? If she did, I have no doubt that it was an interesting experience? We've often pondered - who exactly is a person of unimpeachable integrity and do such people still exist in our decaying democracy. If so, in what numbers? This barren landscape of little trust or complainant confidence is not the one envisioned by the authors of the 2013 Directive. At 31) They state: "ADR entities (should) resolve disputes in a manner that is fair, practical and proportionate ..on the basis of an objective assessment of the circumstances in which the complaint is made." How can this possibly be expected to happen when one paragon of virtue is extolling another to take an honest look at what they're actually achieving? Or a landscape populated by abandoned complainants, refugees from British justice, whose only permitted word of protest was, "dissatisfaction." A view inadvertently supported by Martin Lewis' error-strewn report for Yvonne Fovargue's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection, Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform, when it revealed that close on 84% of consumers were now dissatisfied with the performance of the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman's performance in mis-handling their complaints and up from 61% when we had begun our complaint. A 23% climb in complainant dissatisfaction. DJS research's data was removed from the public record. The question we've been asking is why did those in positions of power choose to not to act on its recommendations but to hide it from the public record? No-one in a position of power has been prepared to provide an answer. Certainly not Professor Dame Janet Finch or Lewis Shand Smith. It became the sociology of silence. "Private sector ombudsman schemes can bridge this gap, but much of the sector still operates without one. As a result, an uncharted, though by all estimates large, number of consumer disputes are deprived of the option to seek out-of-court resolution." Our solicitors advised us not to pursue a course of legal action against Monk and Partners as it could financially ruin us but to do so against the roofing contractors who had done a job on our home. This proved to be good advice. It took us five years but eventually we won and were awarded costs. 5 Directive 2013/11/EU - A Beacon of Hope in a Regulatory Brexit Wasteland: Directive 2013/11/EU, due for implementation before the next UK general election in 2015, requires Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities, the wider group to which ombudsman schemes belong, to be available for all business-to-consumer disputes. This provides a huge opportunity for consumers to obtain a route to justice across the aspects of daily life in which it has so far been difficult for most to access. If successfully implemented, the Directive will allow for a greater visibility of the functioning of the free market, and so for better regulatory action and business practice. A, "route to justice?" For the unsuspecting complainant full of hope and high expectations as they eagerly set forth on their "customer journey," the route to justice at Ombudsman Services:Property was uphill all the way. The flashing hazard warning signs so carefully erected by DJS Research were hastily dismantled and ditched. The Firm that replaced DJS Research would have consumers believe there was a safe, well-lit, well-maintained road ahead but (and against OFT stipulations) there were no further in-depth DJS-like Property Reports. For two years there was no report whatsoever and the truly damaging data so carefully compiled by DJS Research never again appeared in any subsequent Customer Satisfaction Report. Surveys on the Ombudsman Services website only go back to 2016. As a sociologist Professor Dame Janet Finch seemed to have had a mortal fear of statistics, a condition now officially recognised as "statistics anxiety." The bad news was buried. With the departure of DJS Research, everything appeared to be sweetness and light. A truly miraculous turnaround achieved by the simple expedient of replacing a team of researchers who researched with one that didn't look too hard for fear of what they might find and who avoided a paper trail opting instead to phone Complainants at home. There were no in-depth Property Reports. Something the OFT had insisted on when first approving the scheme on behalf of the British taxpayer. However, a careful appraisal of the scant data that was made available for public scrutiny reveals a year-on-year decline in the amount of so-called "financial award" given to complainants by the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman at a time when property prices were quickly going in the other direction. The Directive 2013/11/EU did indeed provide a huge opportunity for consumer justice. So why wasn't it seized on by Ombudsman Services or the Parliamentary Group chaired by Dame Helena Kennedy? A group to which Lewis Shand Smith made his observations (June 2017) and one to which we offered to make ours. We even offered to pay our own way there and back. An offer that Dame Helena Kennedy simply ignored. We're coming to the conclusion that Parliament exists soley for important people not for ordinary individuals with real grievances who struggle to live in a real world increasingly populated by self-regulating businessmen with ever sharper business practices that are most certainly not working in the consumers' interests. "The purpose of this policy brief is to illustrate how new and existing private sector ombudsman schemes can ensure that, in the implementation of the Directive and beyond, the best outcomes for consumers, business, and the wider market can be achieved, with ombudsman schemes established as an essential component within the continuum of administrative and civil justice." We sent Dame Helena Kennedy a series of questions about the EU Directive in response to Lewis Shand Smith's appearance. 32) of Directive 2013/11/EU: states, "The independence and integrity of ADR entities is crucial in order to gain Union Citizens' trust. The ADR mechanisms will offer a fair and independent outcome The natural person or collegial body in charge of ADR should be independent of all those who might have an interest in the outcome and should have no conflict of interest which could impede him or it from reaching a decision in a fair, impartial and independent manner." We tried asking Dame Helena Kennedy: a) How can Ombudsman Services:Property comply with that requirement for independence when Steven Gould, Director of Professional Regulation for RICS, is a Board Member? b) Or when RICS have a Memorandum of Understanding with their appointed ADR scheme? c) Or when are in "regular close contact" to ensure the "effective" resolution of disputes? d) How can a "decision not arrived at in a logical manner" (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports) be fair, impartial or independent? Dame Helena Kennedy did not reply. The court system has long seemed inappropriate for the financially trivial consumer dispute, because consumers feel that their issues are insignificant for such an expensive and time-consuming procedure in what is such an unfamiliar arena. This is the context in which ombudsman schemes are now operating. At Lewis Shand Smith's Ombudsman Services the Property "brand" appointed by RICS and micromanaged by RICS for its "efficient" resolution of their Members' disputes set an arbitrary figure of £25K as the maximum pay-out Complainants could hope for if they won the lottery of successfully negotiating the minefield that comprised of an OS:Property "investigation" of a case and avoided an ombudsman's decision that, "was not arrived at in an illogical manner." (DJS Research) The company's minutes for the 15 Dec 5.8 state, "There had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards." And so, the Property Ombudsman duly lowered them "significantly." Cleary, it wasn't the Complainant who was expressing this concern - their concerns were that the Property Ombudsman was misrepresenting the nature of their cases and arriving at illogical Final Decisions. So, the concern must have been expressed those representing the interests of the fee-paying Members and poorly Regulated Firms. Members who according to the Independent Advisor needed to know those operating the scam were "spending their money wisely" and "lending real value to their business practices." We tried asking; Dame Janet Finch, Lewis Shand Smith, Jonathan May, Yvonne Fovargue MP and Dame Helena Kennedy how any of this met with the 2013/11/EU Directive 32) stipulation that schemes should be independent of all those who might have an interest in the outcome and should have no conflict of interest which could impede him or it from reaching a decision in a fair, impartial and independent manner." But again, no-one replied. It has been suggested that administrative and civil justice as provided by the state is in a crisis. Access to justice is difficult, and for many effectively denied. At the same time, reviews by the Public Administration Select Committee and the Cabinet Office, along with the EU Directive on ADR, mean that both public and private sector ombudsman schemes in the UK are under intense scrutiny. Really? When Lewis Shand Smith's "superb model of ADR" was subjected to DJS Research's intense scrutiny the property ombudsman was found not to be impartial, arrived at decisions in an illogical manner and caused a majority of Complainants to resort to the Further Representation Process where they again failed to achieve justice. (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports) 6 Intense Scrutiny? When we sought to bring these issues to the attention of the OFT, BIS, The All Party Group on Consumer Protection and Dame Helena Kennedy to name but a few, there was no - scrutiny. So why not scrutinise it now? And stop RICS accredited surveyors like David Monk of Monk and Partners from visiting his clients' homes without their knowledge or consent and photographing them? Or making agreements and then not keeping them? Or never committing to anything in writing? Why not stop things going wrong in the first place? And why after all this time does the question still need to be asked? "Alongside this, the growing role of ombudsmen in resolving consumer disputes in the private sector, has demonstrated that another avenue to justice is available. In providing timely, impartial resolutions, addressing the imbalance between the individual on the one hand, and an often powerful business on the other, private sector ombudsmen are providing justice in a modern, real sense." DJS Research and later and inadvertently, Martin Lewis' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Consumer Reform showed that the avenue to justice available at Ombudsman Services:Property was in fact a cul de sac. It was slow, not impartial but an excellent vehicle for RICS fee-paying Members to improve their business models. Where are all the examples of these excellent ombuds schemes? Harmonizing the Consumer Landscape continues with this, "By collating and analysing the data which the resolution of complaints provides, ombudsmen are able to inform the market, regulatory bodies, governments, and businesses alike, and so bring an improvement to the consumer landscape as a whole." The evidence gathered by DJS Research for Lewis Shand Smith's Ombudsman Services clearly states otherwise. Under, Members' Survey 10.41) we're told, " ...just over a half dissatisfied with accepting complaints when appropriate, training, guidance on compiling a case file, efficiency of handling a case file and speed of case resolution." Which was exactly our experience with Monk and Partners and the Case File they kept - or more accurately didn't keep - concerning our complaint. A professionally kept and maintained case file would contain valuable evidence and as such it's anathema to certain RICS surveyors as it would contain evidence that could and should be used against them at some future date. The presence of Steven Gould, RICS Director of Professional Regulation and Consumer Protection, on the Board couldn't, it seems, make his members more professional when it came to the basics of keeping a Case File and thereby afford consumers some modicum of protection. For consumers the consumer landscape closely resembled a minefield. One where no prisoners were taken. Our questions 98 and 99 to Lewis Shand Smith were specifically about the failure of RICS Members to keep professional Case Files and his organisation's abject failure to do anything about it. The Chief Ombudsman did not reply. 7 Recommendation 1: For all RICS Members and Regulated Firms a professionally kept and maintained Case Files must be mandatory. Clearly, for consumers, the self-regulation model is a costly failure. What we find concerning is that no-one operating in ombudsland seems prepared to make the case for mandatory regulation. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), in determining redress for the many people affected by payment protection insurance (PPI); communicating the failings back to the companies, thereby providing the opportunity to change and improve practice; and in notifying the Financial Services Authority, is a specific example of an ombudsman providing an alternative to the courts. Over the years Private Eye spoke far more authoritatively on the Fundamentally Supine Authority than we can ever do. So, can ombudsmen fill the vacuum now created? Can they provide the necessary access to justice, ensuring that individuals are properly heard, that the evidence is appropriately scrutinized, and that the result is fair? Judging by Ombudsman Services:Property's own woeful performance, NO would be the honest answer to that. What Lewis Shand Smith needs to explain to consumers is why after taking that honest look at what he was actually achieving DJS Research were replaced by another organisation who a) used a totally different way of gathering information b) didn't carry out a Customer Satisfaction Report on the property landscape and yet c) found satisfactory satisfaction levels across the sectors. Or why no reports are available for public scrutiny before 2016. Or why OFT "monitors" of this government approved scheme went along with this injustice. The EU ADR Directive sets the requirement of comprehensive private sector ADR provision, and presents schemes with the opportunity to bridge the gaps in the modern justice system. If this impetus is successfully grasped by ombudsman schemes, measurement of the results that follow will set a strong case for expansion of ombudsman practice into other sectors, and strengthening what already exists, thereby potentially providing a springboard from which to revolutionize the justice landscape in the UK. For ADR in the UK, though, a number of obstacles exist that must first be overcome if we are to realize these goals. If ombudsman schemes are to fill the vacuum created, they must become known as the route to justice, and it must be apparent that the outcomes are just. DJS Research set out a strong case for a public inquiry into maladministration and ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Service at the time when decisions were being made by Dame Janet Finch, Lewis Shand Smith and Gillian Fleming. A key collective decision they took being not to answer our questions. Which in itself breaks their organisation's Terms of Reference. They did not give reasoned reasons for their decisions. One word you will not find in DJS reports is, "harmony." Our honest look at Lewis Shand Smith's superb model of ADR led us to conclude it actually created a route to injustice. A rigged market in ADR. 8 Appearance and Reality: The OmdudsBrand Played on and on and on: With the current plethora of schemes and methods, consumers are confronted with a confusing set of options in pursuing ADR, and Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape 2 . HARMONIZING THE OMBUDSMAN LANDSCAPE schemes will need to cooperate, to advertise the brand, and to construct loyalty to that brand, in order to send clear messages to consumers. By streamlining and simplifying access, people will know where to go, and the route to justice will be simple. By harmonizing process, people will know what to expect, when to bring a complaint, and transparency of this process can foster trust. This is trumpet blowing gone mad. We saw what the process was at Ombudsman Services:Property and DJS Research set out its many failings. There were no checks or counterbalances. Regulators didn't regulate and OFT monitors didn't monitor. Complainants were left at the mercy of an ombudsman who was illogical and one who was proselytising. "The route to justice will be simple?" You would indeed need to be very simple to believe that for even just one moment. Lewis Shand Smith was also the Chair of the Ombudsman Association. At that time, The Ombudsman Association had as one of its criteria for membership the need for schemes to have a Whistleblowing Policy. Ombudsman Services, of which he was CEO and Chief Ombudsman did not have a Whistleblowing Policy. We asked the Chief Ombudsman why this was the case but didn't get a reply. Transparent processes that you can trust? Sadly, not in our experience or that of the overwhelming majority of complainants who placed their trust in this shabby scheme. 9 The Gauntlet of Justice: This policy brief will expand on these ideas, with the goal of encouraging ombudsman schemes, as ADR bodies, to take up the gauntlet of justice in the British Isles. Implementing the Directive The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has consulted on the transposition and implementation of the Directive, which is expected to happen before the next general election in May 2015. It is unlikely that legislation will be introduced with the aim of rationalizing the current patchwork landscape in the near future. We wrote to Clive Maxwell (OFT) to throw down the gauntlet, "Under a Freedom of Information Act request - Our ref: IAT/FIOA/134116 I obtained an email sent to the OFT and addressed to Jonathan may in which we sought answers to 100 questions of complaint with both the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Dame Janet Finch and the CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith. The original was lost to us when our email account was hacked into for the second time this year. So far, we have complained to; the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Dame Janet Finch, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith, The OFT and the BIS who transferred our correspondence - without our knowledge - back to the OFT." When different individuals in different organisations are asked the same questions and fail to answer them isn't that the definition of a cover-up? "We agree with the then Prime Minister David Cameron, when he said on the Andrew Marr Show, 'I think transparency is a key tool so we can all see what's happening." If that is indeed the case - that transparency is a key - why then is there none when it comes to answering questions about the Surveyors Ombudsman Service later rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property? Why did we not receive a response from the OFT to our original complaint? Why haven't we received a response to the issues we sought to raise with the BIS and sent to you by Margaret Housden?" Clive Maxwell, didn't stoop to pick up the gauntlet. The OFT were closed down. Clive Maxwell was appointed Second Permanent Secretary of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in 2022. One very sound political-industrial strategy is to talk about transparency to the British public most especially at election times and then do absolutely nothing about it once you are elected. Civil servants bid their time, steadfastly fail to answer career-threatening questions, rock no boats and then move as of right, up to the next rung on the ladder. Or two if they're particularly diligent in making troublesome queries by members of the public disappear.. 10 Competent: The Directive does, however, set out a number of requirements: A competent authority or authorities will approve new and existing schemes, and can remove those that are not up to the required standard. We've already seen that the OFT set out criteria for the Ombudsman Services' Property "brand" and that the Ombudsman Association had rules of membership which included having a Whistleblowing Policy. So, what happens when the rules get broken and policies ignored? Nothing it would seem. Apart from people deliberately ignoring complaints and thereby covering-up the wrongdoing. The OFT told us that although they had approved the scheme, they had no power to remove that approval or close approved schemes down. Joseph Stiglitz phrased the problem this way, "The main question confronting us today is not really about capital in the twenty first century. It is about democracy in the twenty first century." What could be more undemocratic in the 21st century than ombuds chemes that refuse to be transparent and refuse to be held accountable for the decisions they make? Susannah Hughes 04/06/2013 wrote, "Jonathan May has had sight of our email but you raise issues about which he has no responsibility or knowledge. I know you have also previously written to and had a response from the Consumer Futures Chief Executive, Mike O'Connor. The issues you raise are issues which neither Mr May nor Consumer Futures are involved with. Mr May left the OFT in 2020 having had the most minimal involvement with the codes work while he was there." Although Jonathan May had had sight of our letter, the fact that he had had only the most minimal involvement in setting out the criteria for the scheme he had so carelessly approved on behalf of the British taxpayer in itself needs investigating. In a world where standards are being stood on their head, that's actually very competent. It's competency in covering-up incompetency. But a million miles from the intentions of the EU Directive 2013/11/EU. And an European mainland that's only 20 short miles away. We tried asking Lewis Shand Smith why after taking that hard honest look at what he was actually achieving he didn't remove himself from both the Ombudsman Association or Ombudsman Services. But we still didn't get an answer. 12 EU Directive cont: An outcome to the dispute in question is to be provided within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the full case file by the ADR entity, and if a dispute is to be rejected by the ADR entity this is to be communicated within three weeks. n An ADR entity must meet a strict set of access criteria, which will be assessed and enforced by the new competent authority. Businesses will be required to indicate, if a complaint remains unresolved, whether they use an accredited ADR body. If not, or if an organization uses an unaccredited ADR body, they will be required to highlight what the approved ADR scheme would be in that sector. These requirements present a number of challenges to private sector ombudsman schemes. Merely meeting the minimum requirement of the Directive, though, will be a wasted opportunity to achieve fully functional, cross-sector ADR provision and address the problems that consumers experience when accessing justice. Those problems consumers experienced when not accessing justice were carefully outlined by DJS Research. Problems such as the ombudsman/investigator not understanding the nature of the complaint. Or its complexity. Or misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting the evidence. Or communicating far more frequently with the fee-paying Member than with the Member's complaining client. Or lowering the level of financial awards when pressurised to do so. Ombudsman Services:Property - for the vast majority of complainants - didn't even meet the minimum requirements of the EU Directive. 12 Education: ...this figure had fallen for the first time in many years as a result of their efforts in advertising their role and purpose. It is clear, then, that consumers need to be aware of the availability of ombudsman schemes, and their processes should be transparent, with consumer experience widely shared, to encourage people to come forward without assistance. Consumers also need to be educated in what an ombudsman does and what they can investigate, to encourage a consumer who has an eligible complaint to come forward. For a true picture of the market to be drawn, and for truly inclusive access to justice to be provided, it must become second nature in the consciousness of the consumer to bring a complaint to an ombudsman. A true picture of the Ombudsmarket is indeed an education. The total annual number of consumer complaints is staggering. And vast amounts of money are being saved by incompetent/corrupt BritainPlc simply by referring their complaining clients to their "appointed" ADR schemes. Julia's, "No risk strategy." The investigation of our complaint and that of 84% of others by the time of Martin Lewis' whitewash report Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform, was indeed an education. A true picture of the rigged market in ADR which was originally drawn by DJS Research. The Lewis Report's recommendations, if implemented would be calamitous for consumers. 13 The Conned Consumer Experience: Ombudsabuse / Ombudsinjustice. At Ombudsman Services the consumer experience went from: "overall complainant satisfaction was low" (DJS Reseach 6.28) to, "verbatim comments showed largely positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Services. Results were consistent by sector." (BMG) Only the new researchers had failed to investigate the Property sector. The best way to do this is to standardize the nomenclature; if all bodies approved by the competent authority are called ombudsman schemes, then the ‘ombudsman’ brand can be advertised effectively. This advertising can then be harnessed to make it known what an ombudsman is, what an ombudsman will do, and how to contact one. If the Directive is to be transposed effectively, it will be necessary to help both businesses and consumers learn and understand what it means for them, what they can expect from ADR, how they can access the entity, and what their rights are in doing so. At present, even if someone knows an ADR scheme exists, finding the right one is not easy. A single portal for access, under a single descriptor, should be adopted to make sure that complainants do not have to spend their resources navigating the landscape, but find the process simple and transparent. That being the case, why then did so many property complainants have to exhaust their scant resources jumping through Lewis Shand Smith's Further Representation Process only to yet again fail in their forlorn quest for justice? If consumers and businesses are to trust the process, they should expect to receive a similar outcome to other complaints with a similar content. Ombudsman schemes must publish data which includes decisions on particular cases or types of cases, the process by which they are reached, the reasons for those decisions, and any recommendations or actions required. DJS Research reported that the property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner." Logic would dictate that in the interests of justice the ombudsman should have been sacked. To this day and in line with their approach to transparency and accountability, the executives at Ombudsman Services have never given reasoned reasons for retaining the services of an illogical ombudsman and one required to take an honest look at was being achieved, but dispensing with those of a very competent DJS Research. 14 Competent Authorities? The competent authority or authorities, alongside the Ombudsman Association, should work with ADR bodies to align the practice and processes that they use. For the best possible effect, this should be done with the core model of an ombudsman scheme in mind: for the transparency of process it affords; for the simplification of the landscape; for the benefit of justice for the consumer; for the uniformity of decision; and for the benefits the gathered data can provide to regulation, government, and the consumer. It is clear that a single point of contact would enable increased consumer engagement and would simplify the process for many. We tried asking Lewis Shand Smith, to give a reasoned answer as to why his organisation, Ombudsman Services, didn't have a whistleblowing policy when the Ombudsman Association, of which he was a member and board member, demanded such a policy as condition of membership? But failed to get a reply. We also wrote to the Secretary of the Ombudsman Association to ask him the same question along with a number of others. He said that regrettably he was unable to help us to which we replied that was help enough. He had fulfilled our expectations. Our expectations of candour had by this time all but vanished. People in position of power don't like to answer questions. Max Weber would have described this as a crisis of legitimacy facing those in positions of authority. And where is the competency, transparency and justice in that? 15 Recommendation 2: All ADR Schemes Must Have a Whistleblowing Policy. As the ADR Directive requires the establishment of a helpdesk, this could also be the single point of contact, forwarding complaints to the relevant scheme, which would then complete the contact and begin the investigation processes. With greater harmonization of scheme processes this initial gathering of information could be much more integrated. Working together to achieve greater cooperation and understanding through shared knowledge and process would provide numerous benefits for all stakeholders in the ADR landscape. DJS Research attempted to share their knowledge with British consumers so why did Lewis Shand Smith chose to replace them? Sharing of knowledge gained from complaints is a significant issue for all parties involved in consumer transactions. Recent issues with doorstep selling across the energy sector and poor sales practice in finance have highlighted areas in which regulatory and redress bodies need to liaise fully to enable early warning signs to be spotted, consumer detriment to be halted, and proactive regulatory guidance and government action to be formulated. That being the case, why didn't The RICS adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place and put a stop to those practices that were not working in the consumers' interests, then there would there would have been no need for the charade that was Ombudsman Services:Property? 16 Questionably Independent Schemes: The streamlining of reporting methods on the part of ombudsmen would allow for greater interaction between schemes and regulators, and schemes and other schemes, to take place, and so to coordinate action. The presence of other forms of non-binding or questionably independent schemes within the private sector framework would not allow this joined-up picture of the market to be formed. When we discovered RICS had "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property as their ADR scheme, placed Walter Merricks and Steven Gould on its board, imposed a Memorandum of Understanding on the organisation, was in close and regular contact with those operating the scheme to ensure it "effectively" resolved complaints and did nothing when ombudsman Gillian Fleming significantly lowered the levels of so-called "financial awards," we questioned its independence. The replies we did manage to extract were never actual answers to our questions but either a rephrasing of the question or an evasion. No-one ever gave a reasoned response. This is an alarming trend within the Ombudshood and toxic for democracy. And suggests Joseph Stiglitz was right in suggesting the future of democracy is indeed the big question at the beginning of the 21st century. Nancy Fraser in Crisis Politics, believes, "a relentless push to extend and de-regulate markets is everywhere wreaking havoc" and wonders why, "political elites fail to champion regulatory projects aimed at saving the capitalist economic system from the ravages of out of control markets?" We would add why do certain ombuds schemes exacerbate the situation? 17 Sustained Political Commitment: Consumer demand and business uptake The ADR Directive does not demand mandatory membership, and if the current environment does not allow for the creation of mandatory ADR above the requirements imposed by the Directive, it will be essential for consumers to be encouraged to actively seek out a business which utilizes an approved ADR scheme and so drive businesses towards membership, and ultimately better practice. Easy-to-access, transparent, and trustworthy ombudsmen schemes, available for all consumer transactions and advertised under a single banner, would greatly encourage consumer usage and provide for simple consumer education on the part of consumer interest groups. The requirement to indicate whether a business utilizes an ADR scheme is designed to incentivize a large proportion of companies to adopt an approved ADR scheme, without requiring mandatory provision for one. Although companies need only inform customers of whether they use approved ADR when a dispute remains unresolved, it is to be expected that consumers will begin to act before they commit to contract for the supply of goods and services. As ADR will not be mandatory for much of the consumer landscape, successful implementation of the Directive will rely on business acceptance and consumer pressure to ensure seamless provision. The EU Directive 2013/11/EU will have been anathema to the Conservative Right-wing free-market fundamentalists who preach a, "bonfire of the regulations" and urge a Singaporean freedom for businesses to develop practices that would ensure profits before the interests of their consumers are ever taken into consideration. Most especially the Directive at:10 when it suggests: "The successful implementation of these schemes requires sustained political commitment and support from all actors, without compromising the affordability, transparency, flexibility, speed and quality of decision-making by the ADR entities falling within the scope of this Directive." The compromise had already happened at Ombudsman Services and seems to have spread rapidly throughout Ombudsland - a portal into ombudsoblivion with thousands of Alices falling down hundreds of rabbit-holes. Day after day. Year after year. Where is the Labour Party in all of this? We tried approaching two Parliamentary Committees chaired by Labour politicians; Yvonne Fovargue and Dame Helena Kennedy. But got nowhere. 18 Business Practice Improvement: To encourage uptake by consumers and businesses requires an ADR sector which is visible and easy to access, and which provides trusted, impartial decisions. Consumers will need to press companies for clarification about whether a business utilizes an ADR scheme that is approved by the competent authority. Ombudsman schemes have reported that in general, participating companies have been positive about the resulting benefits it affords them in terms of consumer loyalty and business practice improvement. The evidence from DJS Research strongly suggests otherwise and that RICS Members' business practices - surveys/valuations/keeping professional case files - remained as unprofessional as ever. A view echoed by Julia Hearnden when she took the time to write to us saying, "We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor - please refer to the Sureyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eyewateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues." 19 "We must ensure the Members know that we are spending their money wisely": The German Schlictungstelle fuer den Oeffentlichen Personenverkehr (SOeP) reported a general refusal by airlines to participate in its voluntary ADR scheme, which relies upon the participating company to accept the proposed resolution. Some of the initial views expressed by the airlines were that the process adds no value to the industry, that the technical knowledge required of the industry is too complex for the scheme to handle, that the process gave undue weight to the perspective of the consumer, and that airlines themselves are service-minded and know how to satisfy their customers best. Once airlines joined, perspectives shifted dramatically. Airlines began to show an eagerness to refer unresolved disputes to the body, and although the decisions are not legally binding on companies, 80% of remedies were implemented. Consumers actively searching out a company with an accredited ADR scheme will in turn push companies to take the initial step of signing up to an approved ombudsman or ADR body; once part of a scheme, the clear benefits of belonging will reinforce and streamline access, which, together with a harmonized process, will drive this consumer action. In this scheme 20% or 1 in 5 remedies were not implemented and the ombudsman's decisions are not legally enforceable which is an improvement on Ombudsman Services and its property brand. At Ombudsman Services, more and more complainants received less and less civil justice yet they complained more and more. Once again, a careful examination of the Annual Reports and Accounts offers an insight into the loyal pro-member mentality of those operating the scheme with a sect-like devotion to their paymasters. Richard Brown revealed that, "money comes from annual membership subscriptions and case files .... we must ensure that the members know that we are spending their money wisely and that they have a well-run, efficient service that adds real quality to their own business processes." But hang on a minute what about the victim, the complainant like Julia who was expecting an independent, well-run and efficient service to thoroughly investigate her complaint without fear or favour? What about her business practices? What about her health needs? Didn't the system abuse her? This is what we mean by Ombudsabuse. Perhaps Roger Jefferies inadvertently provided the 61% rising to 84% of dissatisfied Complainants with the answer, "Likewise, some complainants consider the redress awarded by the Ombudsman is insufficient because it does not provide an incentive for the firm to improve its performance. In other words, a complainant wants to see a Firm penalised when a financial award is made. It is quite clear however from the Terms of Reference that any financial award made by the Ombudsman is intended to compensate the complainant and is not intended to be, and may not be, a penalty." This is a remarkable insight into the thought processes of those taking the decisions at Ombudsman Services. Perhaps the redress is insufficient because it's - insufficient? Hasn't the data shown Ombudsman Services failed in its stated objective of improving their Members' business practices? And why is Mr Jefferies linking what he and his colleagues considered to be overly generous compensation with - a penalty? Quite clearly, Roger Jefferies and Ombudsman Services are so bent over backwards beavering away to accommodate their fee-paying Members that they've completely lost sight of the Complainant. Is it any wonder Members like Monk and Partners' operate in the way they do? At Ombudsman Services:Property, it was very much a case of, "We're paying your rather comfortable salaries so do as your told." Or as we chose to put it - this is the political economy of rigged Alternative Dispute Resolution in action. As we said at the time - in a truly fair and independent ADR scheme, all awards would be made on the merits of each and every individual case. 20 Rip-Off Britain With its Rip-Off Ombudsman Scams: The potential effect of this seamless provision, in a harmonized and streamlined landscape, is likely to have additional benefits beyond providing consumers with access to justice and improving business practice. Case law is built up through the courts and the establishing of precedence. This is an area where ombudsman schemes have no determinations on cases that fall under the remit of one scheme, yet sharing significant elements with cases falling under the jurisdiction of another. Decisions based on these determinations already inform regulatory and government decisions, through reporting of systemic failure and complaint figures and types. The constantly shifting environment and immediacy of digital communications and online service provision in the modern age is at odds with the delays inherent in lengthy court cases before a decision is reached. Given the ability of ombudsman schemes to reach their conclusions relatively rapidly, they enable action to be taken in what is as close as possible to a real-time basis. Analysis of patterns of behaviour across sectors and the conclusions drawn by ombudsman schemes could support additional proactive action by regulatory bodies. There wasn't just one elephant in the room at Ombudsman Services - a RICS Director of Regulation - but a whole herd of them. No wonder the Complainant was crowded out. In the above paragraph the idea that ombudsman schemes such as Ombudsman Service:Property had an ability to, "reach conclusions relatively rapidly" would be laughable if it weren't for systematic injustice each and every victim was made to suffer at the hands of an illogical ombudsman, a proselytising ombudsman in search of his honesty. a Chair in mortal fear of crummy statistics and a group of maladministrating executives for bad measure. As Lewis Shand Smith was writing, "Our reputation hinges upon our ability to resolve complaints quickly and accurately ... our decisions are our product ... we have a superb model that provides high quality outcomes to consumer complaints.." DJS Research were reporting, "8.24, To be effective the SOS (later rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the general consensus of opinion." Clearly, there never was any harmony here. 21 Myths of the Early 21st Century - The Fair and Independent Ombudsman: It is time to recognize that the ombudsman is no longer an alternative to the courts, but an essential and integral part of the justice system. As such it is time to come of age. To lift the public profile of ombudsman schemes so that people know who they are and what they are; to simplify access for those using ombudsman schemes; to harmonize processes and standards so that members of the public know what to expect; and to feed back findings to influence and change policy and practice. We think the time is long overdue for a truly fair and independent close and honest look at the disharmony, dysfunction and disinformation that surrounded this particular ombuds scheme so that what really happened can be properly appraised. From the Complainant's perspective the rhetoric was off the scale and the performance standards, abysmal. While they take law, regulation, and legal decisions into account, it is not for them to interpret or determine points of law. With the reduction in the number of cases being heard by courts and tribunals, this essential element of our judicial system is weakened, and the rule of law compromised. What could be more compromising to the rule of law than an ombudsman scheme that is judged not to be impartial by independent researchers? For ombudsman schemes, this presents a problem in that they will not be able to draw on legal decisions as one of the cornerstones of the dispute resolution they practise. Is there anything ombudsmen can do to mitigate? Yes, in a limited but influential way. By receiving, investigating, and resolving the individual cases brought, ombudsmen gain a unique knowledge. They can influence behaviour and decision-making by publishing what they find, by feeding back on poor performance, and by issuing guidance on how to improve. Through DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports that unique knowledge of poor decision making and poor performance gave the ombudsmen at Ombudsman Services a unique knowledge of just how bad they were and so they did the opposite to what's stated above. They hid the evidence. What a carefully nurtured shambles. A shambles that is, "Good for Business" but seriously, "Bad for Justice and Democracy." 22 A Free Market a Market Rigged in Favour of Business? Directive 2013/11/EU, due for implementation before the next UK general election in 2015, requires Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities, the wider group to which ombudsman schemes belong, to be available for all business-to-consumer disputes. This provides a huge opportunity for consumers to obtain a route to justice across the aspects of daily life in which it has so far been difficult for most to access. If successfully implemented, the Directive will allow for a greater visibility of the functioning of the free market, and so for better regulatory action and business practice. The purpose of this policy brief is to illustrate how new and existing private sector ombudsman schemes can ensure that, in the implementation of the Directive and beyond, the best outcomes for consumers, business, and the wider market can be achieved, with ombudsman schemes established as an essential component within the continuum of administrative and civil justice. A few hours research will reward the careful researcher with a clear vision of how The RICS mantra of "self-regulation" in a free-from-meaningfully regulated market really does lead to the most consumer unfriendly practices. Even the basics aren't there, like professionally maintained case files. The idea that ombudsman schemes like Ombudsman Services:Property were an essential component of administrative and civil justice is a total nonsense as was so eloquently demonstrated by DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports. 23 A Disintegrating Justice System in Rigged Market Capitalism: The landscape Increasingly, using administrative and civil courts and tribunals is not a viable option for citizens and consumers. The Woolf reforms, as implemented, mean that mediation and other forms of ADR should be attempted or at least considered before proceeding to the judicial process. The drastic cuts effected in legal aid mean that the risks of using courts and tribunals are greater, with complainants choosing to represent themselves in an unfamiliar arena, leading to cases taking longer and with greater chance of failure. Employment tribunal applications between January and March this year have fallen by 67%1 compared with the same period last year, with up-front payment for access introduced in July 2013. This whole process has been described as the 'privatisation of civil and administrative justice', and the potential for rationalizing and improving administrative justice has been considerably weakened by the abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. And what better example of this disintegrating justice system than RICS and its rigged ADR scheme - where "scheme" appears to be the operative word: Ombudsman Services:Property? Max Weber, would have described it as an Ideal Type. That the further away from this model those designing a new one could get the better that would be for consumers and for justice. Karl Marx, would have described it as an example of how capitalist power captures and controls the justice system to serve its own ends - one of which is the unfettered accumulation of wealth. And Emile Durkheim on reading what we have read would have seriously reconsidered suicide. A rigged market in so-called justice to accompany a deregulated rigged market in surveying. The bad-cop, bad-cop scenario. The court system has long seemed inappropriate for the financially trivial consumer dispute, because consumers feel that their issues are insignificant for such an expensive and time-consuming procedure in what is such an unfamiliar arena. This is the context in which ombudsman schemes are now operating. For Ombudsman Services:Property complainants the disputes were far from being financially trivial. The issues, as Julia reminded anyone who cared to listen, were far from being trivial, a point seemingly lost on the Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming. In the Annual Report 2011, she wrote, "However, an award may not be enough for the consumers who can only see that something has gone wrong and they are out of pocket. As reported last year, making a direct connection between the two is not always straightforward especially in surveying complaints." Earlier we saw that there was no such hesitancy when it came to the Members knowing that their money was being spent, "wisely." So, why weren't awards enough? And why were these experts struggling to make a direct connection between a sub-standard Monk and Partners Full Structural Survey and the amount their client happened to be out of pocket? And, most importantly, where is the independence? Once again, DJS Research provided important insights. As does the 2011 Annual Report where the Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming wrote, "We have worked with the enquiry team - the first point of contact for consumers - to improve their knowledge so that they understand the complexity of property complaints." Our correspondence with the Property Ombudsman was something else - a journey into a region beyond all known logic - not only echoing Julia's eyewateringly ludicrous experience but DJS Research's 6.21 observation that the Property Ombudsman's decisions were, "not arrived at in a logical manner." We didn't even get an award for our troubles. It has been suggested that administrative and civil justice as provided by the state is in a crisis. Access to justice is difficult, and for many effectively denied. Over a decade ago, DJS Research presented the case that the "civil justice" provided by Ombudsman Services was in a crisis - how could consumers access justice when those supposedly investigating their complaint didn't routinely ask their Members difficult questions, kept messages from Members undisclosed, misrepresenting what they - the Complainant - was saying, failed to hand them Members' evidence, sent them into Further Representation Processes and then, if they were lucky, fobbed them off with a fiver for their troubles? They couldn't. As was revealed by 84% of those responding to the Lewis' Report. To lift the public profile of ombudsman schemes so that people know who they are and what they are; to simplify access for those using ombudsman schemes; to harmonize processes and standards so that members of the public know what to expect; and to feed back findings to influence and lift the public profile of ombudsman schemes so that people know who they are and what they are; to simplify access for those using ombudsman schemes; to harmonize processes and standards so that members of the public know what to expect; and to feed back findings to influence and change policy and practice. We should like to close by lifting the public profile of the Utilities Adjudicator, George Harrington, who in response to our complaint about gaslighting by British Gas came up with this gem: "as the Complainant has failed to secure a remedy above that which was offered by the Respondent, I determine the Claimant's claim fails." This is British civil justice at its most absurd. It's an example of just how the rigged market in redress is allowed to operate in rigged market capitalism. In this system power resides securely with business and is laundered through a cleaning service provided loyal and devoted ombudsacolytes who endlessly chant the mantras of "superb ADR," "happy customer journeys" and "contented consumer landscapes" but are sharp enough to never lose sight of the economic reality that it's business who's paying their salaries. In George Harrington's particular corner of Ombudsland, a Complainant will always fail to secure a remedy above that which has been offered by a Respondent because the Respondent already knows that the Utilities Adjudicator will always determine that their remedy is sufficient in the first place and so why offer more? Conclusion: Alternative Dispute Resolution really is Good For Business. But alarmingly Bad for Justice and Democracy. 24 Recommendation 3: There is an urgent need for a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services at the time of Lewis Shand Smith, Dame Janet Finch and Gillian Fleming. Thank you for taking the time to read our review and for ombudssing it. Anyone who approaches the subject objectively is an ombudsperson as set out in the Directive 2013/11/EU. Children make excellent ombudssers. Please join with us in seeking a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services at the time of Lewis Shand Smith, Dame Janet Finch and Gillian Fleming. Peace and justice to all in 2023. Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsman61percent Campa