The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.Blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary at Business High Command:
For Clarity - Attempt 419.
419) No Man's Land 25th December 1914.
Dear Mr Javid,
We see that Frederick James Davies of Lampeter, Ceredigion wrote home to his family from the trenches of the First World War to tell them,
"We shook hands with them (the German soldiers). We gave them cigs, jam and corn beef. They also gave us cigars but they didn't have much food. I think they are hard up for it. They were fed up with the war." (BBC News - I day ago)
Under the heading, "The Troglodytes Come Out" we read of when,
"Then, very cautiously and with great courage unarmed German and Allied soldiers climbed out of their trenches and stand atop defences. Near Neuve Chapelle an Irish soldier brazenly walked across no-man's-land where he was greeted not with machine-gun fire, but with a cigar. His act of bravery inspired others in his troop to do the same. Similar scenes were repeated elsewhere as soldiers walked towards each others' trenches or simply meet half way.....
...Brigade HQ replied at 12.35 - Christmas day - saying: no communications of any sort to be held with the enemy nor is he allowed to approach our trenches under penalty of fire being opened." (www.gizmodo.com)
How could anyone not fail to be inspired by the courage, decency and heart-warming humanity of those extraordinary "ordinary" people.
What else might they have achieved if only High Command had not put a stop to the fraternisation between the two sides.
The Ombudsman Services Terms of Reference preclude any ombudsman having a background in the surveying sector. The ombudsman was subsequently appointed for her skills at, "mediation." DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports attempted to bring to the attention of the company's High Command the widespread dissatisfaction complainants had with the ombudsman's botched attempts at mediation.
Under appalling and unimaginable conditions of wartime horror, soldiers from opposing sides were able to organise a truce, shake hands, share gifts and play games of football - yet in peacetime an ombudsman cannot mediate between surveyors and their dissatisfied clients.
Lions misled by donkeys.
Q. Mr Javid, when a private redress scheme fails so dismally hasn't the UK taxpayer a right to expect its politicians to show some courage, backbone and leadership at such times and to act decisively or have you all capitulated to the narrow vested interests of The RICS and its inadequately marshalled surveyors?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nich Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from The RICS' malign influence.
Comment is still free! If you have a story or information you'd like to share please do.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 25 December 2015
Thursday, 24 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - "Fairtytale of New York" - The Pogues. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (418)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - Blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 418.
418) "Fairytale of New York" - The Pogues.
or "Fairytale of Warrington" - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign, perhaps.
Dear Mr Javid,
The RICS Firm of surveyors we employed wrote to us to say that there was little point in their coming to our home anymore, there was nothing further they could do for us - but it didn't prevent them coming anyway and unannounced and without our consent, photograph it - it was the time for them to implement their "no risk strategy" and as a result we were duly dispatched to their ombudsman, Gillian Fleming.
We knew our case was watertight - or at least we thought so - unlike the roof of our house.
And an OMBUDSMAN no less. What could possibly go wrong?
We each thought,
"I can see a better time,
when all our dreams come true."
And they did - for all of one sentence:
"Case ref: 510458 - After considering the evidence my view is Monk and Partners should take certain actions to resolve your complaint."
We were in complete agreement.
By the end of the report this had changed to Monk and Partners need,
"Take no further action."
We each thought,
"You took my dreams from me
when I first found you."
This in short, is, "The No Risk Strategy" for inadequately regulated RICS surveyors whose insurance policy would now appear to include lifetime cover for their incompetence. They simply use their platinum get-out-of-jail-free card: referral to their Ombudsman.
"You scumbag, you maggot
you cheap lousy faggot"
just doesn't begin to do it justice.
Q. Mr Javid, shouldn't you take certain actions to resolve the situation where a private redress scheme maladministers consumers' complaints or are you part of a culture that is totally lacking in integrity and choses to show no leadership in such matters?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Comment is free - please share your story or information. Cheers!
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 418.
418) "Fairytale of New York" - The Pogues.
or "Fairytale of Warrington" - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign, perhaps.
Dear Mr Javid,
The RICS Firm of surveyors we employed wrote to us to say that there was little point in their coming to our home anymore, there was nothing further they could do for us - but it didn't prevent them coming anyway and unannounced and without our consent, photograph it - it was the time for them to implement their "no risk strategy" and as a result we were duly dispatched to their ombudsman, Gillian Fleming.
We knew our case was watertight - or at least we thought so - unlike the roof of our house.
And an OMBUDSMAN no less. What could possibly go wrong?
We each thought,
"I can see a better time,
when all our dreams come true."
And they did - for all of one sentence:
"Case ref: 510458 - After considering the evidence my view is Monk and Partners should take certain actions to resolve your complaint."
We were in complete agreement.
By the end of the report this had changed to Monk and Partners need,
"Take no further action."
We each thought,
"You took my dreams from me
when I first found you."
This in short, is, "The No Risk Strategy" for inadequately regulated RICS surveyors whose insurance policy would now appear to include lifetime cover for their incompetence. They simply use their platinum get-out-of-jail-free card: referral to their Ombudsman.
"You scumbag, you maggot
you cheap lousy faggot"
just doesn't begin to do it justice.
Q. Mr Javid, shouldn't you take certain actions to resolve the situation where a private redress scheme maladministers consumers' complaints or are you part of a culture that is totally lacking in integrity and choses to show no leadership in such matters?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Comment is free - please share your story or information. Cheers!
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - Integrity - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (417)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 417
417) Integrity.
Dear Mr Javid,
Nadhim Zahawi, when talking about Tory regulation emphasized that,
"However competent regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail, that's why leadership and culture are so important."
(According to Wikipedia, Nadhim Fahawi's expenses claim for 2012-13 was £170.234p)
It seems that The RICS regulators are hopelessly flawed and fail all the time and yet, for some inexplicable reason, are still left unsupervised to determine what an effective resolution of a complaint is at Ombudsman Services:Property, their "appointed" company.
Their light-touch regulatory framework has proven to be a disaster - a shocking failure of leadership.
Integrity:
- "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles." (www.oxforddictionaries.com)
The culture of "light-touch" regulation - or inadequate regulation to the rest of us, has spawned a culture of "light-touch" leadership - or inadequate leadership to the rest of us.
The CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith stated in the Ombudsman Services Annual Report,
"She wanted to clarify the board's accountability and the power and responsibilities of its members ... The directors - myself included - have responsibilities for running the organisation under the Companies Act guaranteeing the independence of the ombudsman and the integrity of the service. We reviewed the Terms of Reference to ensure we had the power to do this and make our role clear."
The Rev Lewis Shand Smith - CEO / Chief Ombudsman / Leader - talks about the integrity of the service.
Q. Mr Javid, this service maladministers consumers' complaints - where is the integrity in that, where is the honesty and whatever happened to the strong moral principles needed to deliver, "civil justice?"
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman' illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Comment is free! please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 417
417) Integrity.
Dear Mr Javid,
Nadhim Zahawi, when talking about Tory regulation emphasized that,
"However competent regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail, that's why leadership and culture are so important."
(According to Wikipedia, Nadhim Fahawi's expenses claim for 2012-13 was £170.234p)
It seems that The RICS regulators are hopelessly flawed and fail all the time and yet, for some inexplicable reason, are still left unsupervised to determine what an effective resolution of a complaint is at Ombudsman Services:Property, their "appointed" company.
Their light-touch regulatory framework has proven to be a disaster - a shocking failure of leadership.
Integrity:
- "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles." (www.oxforddictionaries.com)
The culture of "light-touch" regulation - or inadequate regulation to the rest of us, has spawned a culture of "light-touch" leadership - or inadequate leadership to the rest of us.
The CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith stated in the Ombudsman Services Annual Report,
"She wanted to clarify the board's accountability and the power and responsibilities of its members ... The directors - myself included - have responsibilities for running the organisation under the Companies Act guaranteeing the independence of the ombudsman and the integrity of the service. We reviewed the Terms of Reference to ensure we had the power to do this and make our role clear."
The Rev Lewis Shand Smith - CEO / Chief Ombudsman / Leader - talks about the integrity of the service.
Q. Mr Javid, this service maladministers consumers' complaints - where is the integrity in that, where is the honesty and whatever happened to the strong moral principles needed to deliver, "civil justice?"
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman' illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Comment is free! please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 21 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - Nadhim Zahawi And Tory Regulation.The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (416)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 416.
416) Nadhim Zahawi And Tory Regulation.
Dear Mr Javid,
Did you stumble across Nadhim Zahawi's article in the Guardian -"Labour Bungled City Regulation. Here's How The Tories Are Putting It Right?" (www.guardian.commentisfree)
It's a year on and the article is revealing for the taken-for-granted assumptions it rests upon, what it carefully omitted to say and its failure to live up to what it advocated. It promised much but delivered very little - which is very much in keeping with Ombudsman Services' approach to what they call, "civil justice."
It seems inevitable that people like Nadhim Zahawi will make a career out of promising much but delivering very little which is also very much in keeping with the executives at Ombudsman Services.
He began with,
"we needed a system that protects savers and the taxpayer without undermining the free markets on which Britain's prosperity depends."
But what are "free" markets? What are they free to do? Did Santa bring them or as is the case with Scientology, apparently, did they come from outer space?
There are similarities - both are belief systems. Both take some explaining. Both are highly exploitative.
What we do know is that those "free" markets will only tolerate so much light-touch regulation before they start holding the country to ransom with their threats of picking up the level playing field and transporting it to a place where no one gives a second thought to regulation. It is the ultimate threat to a nation's prosperity and Trident will be no deterrent. Those who have captured the markets decide upon the rules - politicians like Nadhim Zahawi are there to do their bidding.
Nadhim Zahawi doesn't define his categories. Is that because to do so is too difficult or that to do so would undermine his own case? One which seems to be based solely on prejudice and the need to score political points. He states,
"Brown and Balls failed because they didn't understand free markets."
It's "Brown and Balls" is it - so we'll call "Zahawi" Zahawi from now on then. Whether they failed because, "they didn't understand the markets" is a moot point but Zahawi still hasn't told anyone what a free market is.
It does, however seem to be to be a deeply held conviction - like the existence of the tooth fairy, little green men or our personal favourite: leprechauns. We once spotted eighteen driving from Limerick to Monks in Ballyvaughan. (for Mary, Michael and Bertie - weren't those happier days - steve)
Zahawi, a true believer believes,
"We on the other hand must never tire of making the case that it is supporters of capitalism that are best placed to make it work."
We suppose much in the same way as drug barons are best placed to make their expanding sector of free market capitalism work - with its light-touch regulatory framework. These are also very aspirational people indeed, no doubt with property portfolios to include central London. Westminster perhaps - with property adjacent to the Houses of Parliament. But we don't really know because the market isn't adequately regulated.
In Zahawi's scheme of things you are either a "supporter of capitalism" and thus, "best placed to make it work" or you are not. There is no place for a critical analysis of the true faith and the possible revelation that those best placed to make it work make it work for themselves to the detriment of the rest of us.
It was the reckless loans to people who couldn't afford them that caused the crash. History appears to be repeating itself and what is your government doing Zahawi? It's handing out bailouts to entice buyers into the property market.
But there were no bailouts for the steel workers.
As Dame Janet at Ombudsman Services has correctly pointed out - asserting your commitment to quality doesn't necessarily mean you've delivered that quality and this is how Zahawi would seem to make his case - by a series of unsubstantiated assertions.
Hugh Gravelle and Ray Rees offer a more realistic account of what a market is,
"A market is an institution in which individuals or firms exchange not just commodities (or services) but the rights to use them in particular ways for particular amounts of time. Markets are institutions which organise the exchange of control over commodities (and services) where the nature of the control is defined by property rights attached to the commodities (or services)." (From - Microeconomics)
What is important to the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is the market in surveying and private redress.
Joseph Stiglitz points out that,
"agents in the market can gain market power, allowing them to block other mutually beneficial firms from trade from occurring. This can lead to imperfect competition - ie monopolies."
and,
"An issue for analysis is whether a situation of market power is likely to persist if unaddressed by policy."
(Joseph Stiglitz)
What we are campaigning for is a public inquiry into how its become in any way acceptable for government policy - Zahawi's supporters of capitalism, those best placed to make capitalism work - to have deliberately developed a monopoly in private "civil justice" and where the maladministration of that "civil justice" is being, in any meaningful way, "civil justice."
Zahawi's messianic vision is that,
"This is about moving from the failed approach of complex prescriptive rules to one based on judgement."
So, complex prescriptive rules have, in Zahawi's judgement failed and are to be replaced by, "judgement." Judgement that somehow miraculously avoids any relationship to rules of logic or organised thinking.
Surely, if the rules are too complex for the geniuses running capitalism make them simpler. Or get more intelligent capitalists to run the show.
All of which is a bit like how the ombudsman at Ombudsman Services arrived her decisions - in an illogical manner. There were, apparently, no rules or regulations to guide her.
He goes on,
"Unlike an ever growing rule book this builds discretion into the system giving the regulators the flexibility they need to respond to ever changing economic circumstances."
So, alongside, "judgement" we are to have, "discretion." According to Zahawi, regulators will obviously need to be supporters of free market capitalism but they are also the ones best placed to make it work because they have judgement and discretion.
We don't quite know how to break it to him but it just doesn't work and we know it doesn't work thanks to Consumer Focus and what they said about the market in surveying. According to Consumer Focus, those best placed to make it work have ballsed it up and covered themselves in the brown stuff. They valiantly attempted to warn anyone who might be listening that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's 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."
Zahawi, what do you say to that?
The supporters of free market capitalism, those best placed to make it work are the REGULATORS of this market, they monopolise it and are creating another one in private redress which they also REGULATE and their judgement has discretely led them to hide any evidence of their performance in the market they have rigged so successfully. They have been able to achieve this monopolistic dominance thanks to their ability to politically influence those with a blind faith in free market capitalism - politicians such as yourself.
You say,
"It is under a conservative government that the most unethical firms will be driven out of business."
The evidence - a commodity that's becoming scarcer by the day - does not support that statement and in the rigged market in surveying this is simply not true. Here, inadequately regulated surveyors are gleefully lining up ever increasing numbers of dissatisfied clients and packing them off to their ombudsman whose questionable judgement discretely finishes them off - job done.
Those controlling the market in surveying and private redress have perfected the methods of exploiting it. It isn't a criminal conspiracy simply because those operating it have (not surprisingly) chosen not to pass any laws making it so. This is Zahawian "judgement" and "discretion" in action.
People are being driven by those politicians, civil servants and executives of the free market capitalist persuasion into attempting the impossible - the purchase and keeping of an unaffordable home - because there are no longer any viable alternatives. Buy or pay Rachman rents for the rest of your days.
Not to seek to purchase a home you cannot afford is seen as being, "unaspirational."
The crisis in the totally rigged property market is down to politicians "who know how free market capitalism works" controlling the number of homes being built. This could go on forever with the blame for the crisis being attributed to those who lack the aspiration to own what they could never afford.
We know that,
"Much of the increase in wealth stemmed from an increase in the value of real estate....the rise in value can represent competition among the rich for potential goods... a house on the beach." (Joseph Stiglitz)
The rich - whose acquisition of wealth is never questioned - simply buy more and more property thus making it less and less affordable to those whose income is always under scrutiny. The property market has become a shady place for shady people.
Joseph Stiglitz said,
"Markets, of course, do not exist in a vacuum. There have to be rules to the game and these are established through political processes." (www8.jsb.columbia.edu/chazzan)
The UK taxpayer, in funding Zahawi's political career in politics, is paying to perpetuate a crisis in housing brought about by a coalition of vested interest who, as supporters of rigged market capitalism and who know how it works, have seized control of the property market and exploit it for all it is worth.
We are told by Zahawi,
"However competent the regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail. That's why leadership and culture are so important."
Zahawi, there is no leadership. The culture is a one rule culture: do whatever you want, don't get caught but if you do Ombudsman Services will bail you out.
Q. Mr Javid, when RICS the regulator regulates complaints brought against its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and then determines what are satisfactory resolutions to those complaints, isn't that an example of a market operating in a vacuum where there are no rules to the game because political processes have rigged it that way?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinsom.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service until undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Comment is free. Please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 416.
416) Nadhim Zahawi And Tory Regulation.
Dear Mr Javid,
Did you stumble across Nadhim Zahawi's article in the Guardian -"Labour Bungled City Regulation. Here's How The Tories Are Putting It Right?" (www.guardian.commentisfree)
It's a year on and the article is revealing for the taken-for-granted assumptions it rests upon, what it carefully omitted to say and its failure to live up to what it advocated. It promised much but delivered very little - which is very much in keeping with Ombudsman Services' approach to what they call, "civil justice."
It seems inevitable that people like Nadhim Zahawi will make a career out of promising much but delivering very little which is also very much in keeping with the executives at Ombudsman Services.
He began with,
"we needed a system that protects savers and the taxpayer without undermining the free markets on which Britain's prosperity depends."
But what are "free" markets? What are they free to do? Did Santa bring them or as is the case with Scientology, apparently, did they come from outer space?
There are similarities - both are belief systems. Both take some explaining. Both are highly exploitative.
What we do know is that those "free" markets will only tolerate so much light-touch regulation before they start holding the country to ransom with their threats of picking up the level playing field and transporting it to a place where no one gives a second thought to regulation. It is the ultimate threat to a nation's prosperity and Trident will be no deterrent. Those who have captured the markets decide upon the rules - politicians like Nadhim Zahawi are there to do their bidding.
Nadhim Zahawi doesn't define his categories. Is that because to do so is too difficult or that to do so would undermine his own case? One which seems to be based solely on prejudice and the need to score political points. He states,
"Brown and Balls failed because they didn't understand free markets."
It's "Brown and Balls" is it - so we'll call "Zahawi" Zahawi from now on then. Whether they failed because, "they didn't understand the markets" is a moot point but Zahawi still hasn't told anyone what a free market is.
It does, however seem to be to be a deeply held conviction - like the existence of the tooth fairy, little green men or our personal favourite: leprechauns. We once spotted eighteen driving from Limerick to Monks in Ballyvaughan. (for Mary, Michael and Bertie - weren't those happier days - steve)
Zahawi, a true believer believes,
"We on the other hand must never tire of making the case that it is supporters of capitalism that are best placed to make it work."
We suppose much in the same way as drug barons are best placed to make their expanding sector of free market capitalism work - with its light-touch regulatory framework. These are also very aspirational people indeed, no doubt with property portfolios to include central London. Westminster perhaps - with property adjacent to the Houses of Parliament. But we don't really know because the market isn't adequately regulated.
In Zahawi's scheme of things you are either a "supporter of capitalism" and thus, "best placed to make it work" or you are not. There is no place for a critical analysis of the true faith and the possible revelation that those best placed to make it work make it work for themselves to the detriment of the rest of us.
It was the reckless loans to people who couldn't afford them that caused the crash. History appears to be repeating itself and what is your government doing Zahawi? It's handing out bailouts to entice buyers into the property market.
But there were no bailouts for the steel workers.
As Dame Janet at Ombudsman Services has correctly pointed out - asserting your commitment to quality doesn't necessarily mean you've delivered that quality and this is how Zahawi would seem to make his case - by a series of unsubstantiated assertions.
Hugh Gravelle and Ray Rees offer a more realistic account of what a market is,
"A market is an institution in which individuals or firms exchange not just commodities (or services) but the rights to use them in particular ways for particular amounts of time. Markets are institutions which organise the exchange of control over commodities (and services) where the nature of the control is defined by property rights attached to the commodities (or services)." (From - Microeconomics)
What is important to the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is the market in surveying and private redress.
Joseph Stiglitz points out that,
"agents in the market can gain market power, allowing them to block other mutually beneficial firms from trade from occurring. This can lead to imperfect competition - ie monopolies."
and,
"An issue for analysis is whether a situation of market power is likely to persist if unaddressed by policy."
(Joseph Stiglitz)
What we are campaigning for is a public inquiry into how its become in any way acceptable for government policy - Zahawi's supporters of capitalism, those best placed to make capitalism work - to have deliberately developed a monopoly in private "civil justice" and where the maladministration of that "civil justice" is being, in any meaningful way, "civil justice."
Zahawi's messianic vision is that,
"This is about moving from the failed approach of complex prescriptive rules to one based on judgement."
So, complex prescriptive rules have, in Zahawi's judgement failed and are to be replaced by, "judgement." Judgement that somehow miraculously avoids any relationship to rules of logic or organised thinking.
Surely, if the rules are too complex for the geniuses running capitalism make them simpler. Or get more intelligent capitalists to run the show.
All of which is a bit like how the ombudsman at Ombudsman Services arrived her decisions - in an illogical manner. There were, apparently, no rules or regulations to guide her.
He goes on,
"Unlike an ever growing rule book this builds discretion into the system giving the regulators the flexibility they need to respond to ever changing economic circumstances."
So, alongside, "judgement" we are to have, "discretion." According to Zahawi, regulators will obviously need to be supporters of free market capitalism but they are also the ones best placed to make it work because they have judgement and discretion.
We don't quite know how to break it to him but it just doesn't work and we know it doesn't work thanks to Consumer Focus and what they said about the market in surveying. According to Consumer Focus, those best placed to make it work have ballsed it up and covered themselves in the brown stuff. They valiantly attempted to warn anyone who might be listening that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's 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."
Zahawi, what do you say to that?
The supporters of free market capitalism, those best placed to make it work are the REGULATORS of this market, they monopolise it and are creating another one in private redress which they also REGULATE and their judgement has discretely led them to hide any evidence of their performance in the market they have rigged so successfully. They have been able to achieve this monopolistic dominance thanks to their ability to politically influence those with a blind faith in free market capitalism - politicians such as yourself.
You say,
"It is under a conservative government that the most unethical firms will be driven out of business."
The evidence - a commodity that's becoming scarcer by the day - does not support that statement and in the rigged market in surveying this is simply not true. Here, inadequately regulated surveyors are gleefully lining up ever increasing numbers of dissatisfied clients and packing them off to their ombudsman whose questionable judgement discretely finishes them off - job done.
Those controlling the market in surveying and private redress have perfected the methods of exploiting it. It isn't a criminal conspiracy simply because those operating it have (not surprisingly) chosen not to pass any laws making it so. This is Zahawian "judgement" and "discretion" in action.
People are being driven by those politicians, civil servants and executives of the free market capitalist persuasion into attempting the impossible - the purchase and keeping of an unaffordable home - because there are no longer any viable alternatives. Buy or pay Rachman rents for the rest of your days.
Not to seek to purchase a home you cannot afford is seen as being, "unaspirational."
The crisis in the totally rigged property market is down to politicians "who know how free market capitalism works" controlling the number of homes being built. This could go on forever with the blame for the crisis being attributed to those who lack the aspiration to own what they could never afford.
We know that,
"Much of the increase in wealth stemmed from an increase in the value of real estate....the rise in value can represent competition among the rich for potential goods... a house on the beach." (Joseph Stiglitz)
The rich - whose acquisition of wealth is never questioned - simply buy more and more property thus making it less and less affordable to those whose income is always under scrutiny. The property market has become a shady place for shady people.
Joseph Stiglitz said,
"Markets, of course, do not exist in a vacuum. There have to be rules to the game and these are established through political processes." (www8.jsb.columbia.edu/chazzan)
The UK taxpayer, in funding Zahawi's political career in politics, is paying to perpetuate a crisis in housing brought about by a coalition of vested interest who, as supporters of rigged market capitalism and who know how it works, have seized control of the property market and exploit it for all it is worth.
We are told by Zahawi,
"However competent the regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail. That's why leadership and culture are so important."
Zahawi, there is no leadership. The culture is a one rule culture: do whatever you want, don't get caught but if you do Ombudsman Services will bail you out.
Q. Mr Javid, when RICS the regulator regulates complaints brought against its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and then determines what are satisfactory resolutions to those complaints, isn't that an example of a market operating in a vacuum where there are no rules to the game because political processes have rigged it that way?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinsom.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service until undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Comment is free. Please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 20 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - From, "No Such Thing As Society" To "No Such Thing As Transparency Or Accountability." The O61% Campaign (415)
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com
For Clarity - Attempt 415.
415) From, "No Such Thing As Society" To "No Such Thing As Transparency Or Accountability."
To the Business Secretary,
Dear Mr Javid,
David Cameron said of Tony Blair, "You were once the future."
It was a statement of intent and implied that the New Labour Brand had run its predictable course and that he, David Cameron, was about to sweep the stable clean and deliver a new golden age of property owning prosperity underpinned by transparent and accountable government.
Francis Maude, the Cabinet Secretary waxed lyrical on the subject of "transparency."
Most notably at Lancaster House, London on the 15th June 2013 when he announced to the world,
"We are at the beginning of a global movement towards transparency."
Global world transparency!
But sadly for the consumer, not at Ombudsman Services, where the world transparency movement by-passed them at Warrington - and China come to think of it, Russia isn't too hot on transparency either, it is non-existent at the CHC Hub in Plymouth and as for North Korea...
And if that wasn't impressive enough for Francis Maude, he continued with,
"Transparency is at the heart of the UK's reforming agenda."
Really? When we tried putting his fine words to the test by writing to him to complain about The RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property absolutely nothing happened. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he failed to deliver on his promise of a Tory governmental reforming agenda on transparency - he simply didn't reply. So no transparency there. Ombudsman Services executives just went on with their maladministration of consumers' complaints as if nothing had happened and that was because nothing had happened to stop them.
There was no heart - just a swinging brick.
His Lancaster House speech seems to have been the beginning, middle and end of Tory transparency and now apparently because of troublesome journalists all making Freedom of Information Act requests in forlorn attempts to uncover what on earth is going on at Ombudsman Services, FoA requests are to become a thing of the past having once been such an important part of Tony Blair's future.
On the one hand Prince Charles has access to highly sensitive cabinet documents okayed by the Cabinet Secretary on the other our Freedom of Information Act request concerning Ombudsman Services, was refused.
There really is one law for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us.
The lamps are going out all over Whitehall we shall not see them lit again in the lifetime of David Cameron's government. The RICS' "political influencing" and "engagement work" - or lobbying to the rest of us - is set to become a blueprint for those opaque vested interests wishing to operate "behind the scenes" and away from any scrutiny, transparency and accountability whatsoever.
We agree with the Cabinet Secretary that the world's democratic future really should be about global transparency and internationally agreed standards of corporate governance and business integrity. Otherwise markets will continue to be rigged at will and the easy profits spirited away to be hidden in off-shore bank accounts only to be re-invested in the world's hottest property markets such as London.
It makes finding a home and keeping it that much harder for the rest of us.
David Cameron, the man who bottled out of the live televised debates in the lead-up to the last election (after his Cabinet Secretary had trumpeted to the world the incredible transparency of the UK government) and who then went on to sneeringly accuse those who disagreed with his contradiction riddled case for bombing Syria - as terrorist sympathisers - has certainly redefined the meaning of "integrity." (yet another new word for the dictionary Ricky Tomlinson sent him for Christmas)
Hilary "Bomber" Benn, these people hold our democracy in contempt - new speech please.
Q. Mr Javid, for clarity, should we now redirect our complaint about Ombudsman Services' maladministration of consumers' complaints and contempt for civil justice to HRH Prince Charles?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable,
- answers from Nick Clegg,
- answers from Francis Maude,
- Answers from Mark Prisk,
- answers from Jo Swinson,
- answers from Sajid Javid,
- a public inquiry into the working of Ombudsman Services (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services) and the role of The RICS,
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment or share your stories or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 415.
415) From, "No Such Thing As Society" To "No Such Thing As Transparency Or Accountability."
To the Business Secretary,
Dear Mr Javid,
David Cameron said of Tony Blair, "You were once the future."
It was a statement of intent and implied that the New Labour Brand had run its predictable course and that he, David Cameron, was about to sweep the stable clean and deliver a new golden age of property owning prosperity underpinned by transparent and accountable government.
Francis Maude, the Cabinet Secretary waxed lyrical on the subject of "transparency."
Most notably at Lancaster House, London on the 15th June 2013 when he announced to the world,
"We are at the beginning of a global movement towards transparency."
Global world transparency!
But sadly for the consumer, not at Ombudsman Services, where the world transparency movement by-passed them at Warrington - and China come to think of it, Russia isn't too hot on transparency either, it is non-existent at the CHC Hub in Plymouth and as for North Korea...
And if that wasn't impressive enough for Francis Maude, he continued with,
"Transparency is at the heart of the UK's reforming agenda."
Really? When we tried putting his fine words to the test by writing to him to complain about The RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property absolutely nothing happened. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he failed to deliver on his promise of a Tory governmental reforming agenda on transparency - he simply didn't reply. So no transparency there. Ombudsman Services executives just went on with their maladministration of consumers' complaints as if nothing had happened and that was because nothing had happened to stop them.
There was no heart - just a swinging brick.
His Lancaster House speech seems to have been the beginning, middle and end of Tory transparency and now apparently because of troublesome journalists all making Freedom of Information Act requests in forlorn attempts to uncover what on earth is going on at Ombudsman Services, FoA requests are to become a thing of the past having once been such an important part of Tony Blair's future.
On the one hand Prince Charles has access to highly sensitive cabinet documents okayed by the Cabinet Secretary on the other our Freedom of Information Act request concerning Ombudsman Services, was refused.
There really is one law for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us.
The lamps are going out all over Whitehall we shall not see them lit again in the lifetime of David Cameron's government. The RICS' "political influencing" and "engagement work" - or lobbying to the rest of us - is set to become a blueprint for those opaque vested interests wishing to operate "behind the scenes" and away from any scrutiny, transparency and accountability whatsoever.
We agree with the Cabinet Secretary that the world's democratic future really should be about global transparency and internationally agreed standards of corporate governance and business integrity. Otherwise markets will continue to be rigged at will and the easy profits spirited away to be hidden in off-shore bank accounts only to be re-invested in the world's hottest property markets such as London.
It makes finding a home and keeping it that much harder for the rest of us.
David Cameron, the man who bottled out of the live televised debates in the lead-up to the last election (after his Cabinet Secretary had trumpeted to the world the incredible transparency of the UK government) and who then went on to sneeringly accuse those who disagreed with his contradiction riddled case for bombing Syria - as terrorist sympathisers - has certainly redefined the meaning of "integrity." (yet another new word for the dictionary Ricky Tomlinson sent him for Christmas)
Hilary "Bomber" Benn, these people hold our democracy in contempt - new speech please.
Q. Mr Javid, for clarity, should we now redirect our complaint about Ombudsman Services' maladministration of consumers' complaints and contempt for civil justice to HRH Prince Charles?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable,
- answers from Nick Clegg,
- answers from Francis Maude,
- Answers from Mark Prisk,
- answers from Jo Swinson,
- answers from Sajid Javid,
- a public inquiry into the working of Ombudsman Services (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Services) and the role of The RICS,
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment or share your stories or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 18 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - Ch. 2: For Clarity - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (414)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogspot.com
To The Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 414.
414. For Clarity.
Dear Mr Javid,
In the same correspondence (11/09/2010) the ombudsman, in responding to the issue of professional and business integrity, (The RICS "gold standard" of "excellence" and "integrity") informed us that;
"For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or any of my colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means that we have refused to answer that question."
Whichever way you cut it, an ombudsman's failure to answer a complainant's question remains just that - a failure to answer a question.
It makes a mockery of the company's claims to investigate a consumer's complaint, fairly, independently and in a transparent manner. You cannot in any meaningful way "investigate" a complaint without asking and answering questions - unless, that is, you:
- maladminister them,
- misrepresent the nature of the complainant's complaint,
- fail to mediate,
- do not understand the complexity of property complaints,
- withhold information from complainants,
- arrive at decisions in an illogical manner,
- deny complainants their Human Right to a face to face meeting,
and,
- have a pre-set agenda to effectively rubbish complainants' complaints thereby saving your members money.
All of which appear to occur on a regular basis at Ombudsman Services:Property according to DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports.
The RICS Director of Professional Regulation, who sits on the company's Board, must see all of the above as meeting The RICS criterion for the, "effective resolution of complaints" otherwise he would have intervened to put a stop to it, only he didn't.
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch,
Q. 93: If this is a working definition of clarity is it any wonder that the majority of complainants are so dissatisfied with the outcome of their case"
The Chair of Maladministration didn't reply. She didn't give an answer to our question either. Not answering questions has been allowed to become standard practice at this private redress scheme.
Q. Mr Javid, a private redress scheme that fails to answer complainants' questions is a failure and not fir for purpose. It came off any "gold standard" the minute it maladministered complaints and thereby eviscerated its "integrity" and authority to dispense "civil justice." Do you as Business Secretary still assure consumers that when they take their complaints to Ombudsman Services they will be investigated, "fairly" and "independently?"
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable,
- answers from Nick Clegg,
- answers from Mark Prisk,
- answers from Jo Swinson,
- answers from Sajid Javid,
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (accompany which formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment or share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To The Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 414.
414. For Clarity.
Dear Mr Javid,
In the same correspondence (11/09/2010) the ombudsman, in responding to the issue of professional and business integrity, (The RICS "gold standard" of "excellence" and "integrity") informed us that;
"For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or any of my colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means that we have refused to answer that question."
Whichever way you cut it, an ombudsman's failure to answer a complainant's question remains just that - a failure to answer a question.
It makes a mockery of the company's claims to investigate a consumer's complaint, fairly, independently and in a transparent manner. You cannot in any meaningful way "investigate" a complaint without asking and answering questions - unless, that is, you:
- maladminister them,
- misrepresent the nature of the complainant's complaint,
- fail to mediate,
- do not understand the complexity of property complaints,
- withhold information from complainants,
- arrive at decisions in an illogical manner,
- deny complainants their Human Right to a face to face meeting,
and,
- have a pre-set agenda to effectively rubbish complainants' complaints thereby saving your members money.
All of which appear to occur on a regular basis at Ombudsman Services:Property according to DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports.
The RICS Director of Professional Regulation, who sits on the company's Board, must see all of the above as meeting The RICS criterion for the, "effective resolution of complaints" otherwise he would have intervened to put a stop to it, only he didn't.
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch,
Q. 93: If this is a working definition of clarity is it any wonder that the majority of complainants are so dissatisfied with the outcome of their case"
The Chair of Maladministration didn't reply. She didn't give an answer to our question either. Not answering questions has been allowed to become standard practice at this private redress scheme.
Q. Mr Javid, a private redress scheme that fails to answer complainants' questions is a failure and not fir for purpose. It came off any "gold standard" the minute it maladministered complaints and thereby eviscerated its "integrity" and authority to dispense "civil justice." Do you as Business Secretary still assure consumers that when they take their complaints to Ombudsman Services they will be investigated, "fairly" and "independently?"
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable,
- answers from Nick Clegg,
- answers from Mark Prisk,
- answers from Jo Swinson,
- answers from Sajid Javid,
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (accompany which formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment or share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 17 December 2015
Ombudsman Services:Property - The RICS And Its "Effective Resolution of Complaints." The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (413)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign:
For Clarity - Attempt 413.
413. The Effective Resolution of Disputes.
To the Business Secretary, Mr Javid:
Having appointed those maladministrators at Ombudsman Serviices:Property to "investigate" consumer complaints brought against its inadequately regulated surveyors, The RICS also have a Memorandum of Understanding with the company - effectively their company - so that everyone there can be in no doubt as to what an effective resolution of a complaint looks like.
For a RICS surveyor, the effective resolution of a complaint will look totally different to the one expected by their dissatisfied client - the aggrieved party. For The RICS surveyor there is absolutely no incentive to settle disputes before they are escalated tot he ombudsman stage because in return for their fees and subscriptions surveyors expect that those at the company will; spend their money wisely and add real value to their business practices. (quotes taken from the company's minutes)
Their dissatisfied clients on the other hand were once led to believe that financial compensation of up to £25K was achievable after their complaint had been "fairly" and "independently" investigated.
The statistical data gathered on the effective resolution of complaints by Ombudsman Services:Property and the accompanying explanation for those statistics, is pathetic. One would have expected more form Dame Janet Finch - Professor of Sociology.
In 2014-15 there were 5265 contacts. This dwindled to 934 "resolved" cases once the maladministrators had set about them. 95% of those "resolved" cases were "resolved" by the ombudsman. Only 4% were resolved by mutual agreement.
5265 x £25K comes to a potential £131.5M.
934 x £25K comes to a potential £13.3M.
However, (and after probably having had their complaint maladministered) roughly 50% of complainants were awarded a derisory £100 or 467 x £100. That's just £46.700.
From £131M down to a potential £13M down to an actual £46.700 - that really is driving "costs" down and is what we assume The RICS means by the, "effective resolution of complaints."
Q. Mr Javid, Business Secretary, when the Director of Professional Regulation sits on the Board of Ombudsman Services and each year his Members and (Un)Regulated Firms send more and more of their dissatisfied clients to The RICS ombudsman, doesn't this just serve to confirm what the late Consumer Focus had said all along - that RICS inability to adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms has led to practices that do not work in the customer's interests - practices like handing their dissatisfied clients £100 for a wrecked dream?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company that formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment. Please share your story or information - just write to the blog. Thanks.
For Clarity - Attempt 413.
413. The Effective Resolution of Disputes.
To the Business Secretary, Mr Javid:
Having appointed those maladministrators at Ombudsman Serviices:Property to "investigate" consumer complaints brought against its inadequately regulated surveyors, The RICS also have a Memorandum of Understanding with the company - effectively their company - so that everyone there can be in no doubt as to what an effective resolution of a complaint looks like.
For a RICS surveyor, the effective resolution of a complaint will look totally different to the one expected by their dissatisfied client - the aggrieved party. For The RICS surveyor there is absolutely no incentive to settle disputes before they are escalated tot he ombudsman stage because in return for their fees and subscriptions surveyors expect that those at the company will; spend their money wisely and add real value to their business practices. (quotes taken from the company's minutes)
Their dissatisfied clients on the other hand were once led to believe that financial compensation of up to £25K was achievable after their complaint had been "fairly" and "independently" investigated.
The statistical data gathered on the effective resolution of complaints by Ombudsman Services:Property and the accompanying explanation for those statistics, is pathetic. One would have expected more form Dame Janet Finch - Professor of Sociology.
In 2014-15 there were 5265 contacts. This dwindled to 934 "resolved" cases once the maladministrators had set about them. 95% of those "resolved" cases were "resolved" by the ombudsman. Only 4% were resolved by mutual agreement.
5265 x £25K comes to a potential £131.5M.
934 x £25K comes to a potential £13.3M.
However, (and after probably having had their complaint maladministered) roughly 50% of complainants were awarded a derisory £100 or 467 x £100. That's just £46.700.
From £131M down to a potential £13M down to an actual £46.700 - that really is driving "costs" down and is what we assume The RICS means by the, "effective resolution of complaints."
Q. Mr Javid, Business Secretary, when the Director of Professional Regulation sits on the Board of Ombudsman Services and each year his Members and (Un)Regulated Firms send more and more of their dissatisfied clients to The RICS ombudsman, doesn't this just serve to confirm what the late Consumer Focus had said all along - that RICS inability to adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms has led to practices that do not work in the customer's interests - practices like handing their dissatisfied clients £100 for a wrecked dream?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Jo Swinson.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company that formerly traded as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment. Please share your story or information - just write to the blog. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)