To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 473.
473) David Cameron And Fantastically Corrupt Countries. Companies. Cops. Conservative Election Expenses....
Dear Mr Javid,
President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria has said,
"What would I do with an apology? I need some thing tangible. I am not going to demand an apology from anyone. What I am demanding is a return of assets."
And President Buhari is of course quite right. What use is an apology?
Q. Mr Javid, the victims of Ombudsman Services maladministration don't even merit an apology. To do so would require the company's executives to acknowledge the maladministration for which they are responsible, They haven't. Isn't this corrupt and why haven't you or David Cameron done anything about it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 11 May 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property. Maladministration. The Ombudsman Association. (472)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 472.
472) Putting The Con Into Consumer.
Dear Mr Javid,
We saw in the previous Attempt at Clarity (471) how the key to conning the consumer was the fanciful claim made by executive ombudsmen that ombudsmen were in some way, "independent."
Independent from reality perhaps?
Ombudsmen like The Rev Smith (CEO and Chief Ombudsman and Chair of The Ombudsman Association) are clearly very busy men and yet he still finds the time to tell us that we live, "in the Age of the Ombudsman."
They even have their very own organisation to prove it - The Ombudsman Association - where they conference and network and can be important independent people.
I'd like to be, The Pasty Ombudsman. Do you think they'd admit me to their hallowed ranks?
We find it somewhat unsettling that these independent-minded individuals never seen to confront head on the strange anomaly that the RICS need to place their operatives on the Board of Ombudsman Services to ensure that The Rev Smith is indeed, independent.
We tried asking The Ombudsman Association's Secretary:
Q. 5: Wouldn't have been more accurate - for OS - to have told the consumer that, apart from the two RICS representatives sitting on the Board, they were entirely independent?
But we didn't get an answer to that one either.
Q. Mr Javid, with RICS' placemen sitting on the Board of Ombudsman Services, how can ombudsmen claim to be independent?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 472.
472) Putting The Con Into Consumer.
Dear Mr Javid,
We saw in the previous Attempt at Clarity (471) how the key to conning the consumer was the fanciful claim made by executive ombudsmen that ombudsmen were in some way, "independent."
Independent from reality perhaps?
Ombudsmen like The Rev Smith (CEO and Chief Ombudsman and Chair of The Ombudsman Association) are clearly very busy men and yet he still finds the time to tell us that we live, "in the Age of the Ombudsman."
They even have their very own organisation to prove it - The Ombudsman Association - where they conference and network and can be important independent people.
I'd like to be, The Pasty Ombudsman. Do you think they'd admit me to their hallowed ranks?
We find it somewhat unsettling that these independent-minded individuals never seen to confront head on the strange anomaly that the RICS need to place their operatives on the Board of Ombudsman Services to ensure that The Rev Smith is indeed, independent.
We tried asking The Ombudsman Association's Secretary:
Q. 5: Wouldn't have been more accurate - for OS - to have told the consumer that, apart from the two RICS representatives sitting on the Board, they were entirely independent?
But we didn't get an answer to that one either.
Q. Mr Javid, with RICS' placemen sitting on the Board of Ombudsman Services, how can ombudsmen claim to be independent?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 6 May 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property. The Rev Smith. Maladministration. The Ombudsman Association. (472)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 472.
472) Great Myths of the Early 21st Century - the Independence of the Ombudsman.
Dear Mr Javid,
Redress schemes such as the one operated by Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) are at pains to emphasis just how independent their ombudsmen are.
It's the key to the con.
If consumers didn't fall for it, weren't taken in by it, were able to see through it or had it exposed for what it is - a con - by Parliament, the press or media, these schemes (for that's what they are - schemes) would collapse and could then be replaced by something that was transparent, accountable, fair and just.
For an example of the con in practice one need look no further than OS:P - here 2 senior executives of the RICS sit on the Board to help ensure that their ombudsman is entirely independent from the RICS insistence that their ombudsman handles disputes, "effectively."
Rigged to perfection.
It's the rigged market in redress in action.
We tried asking the Ombudsman Association's Secretary:
Q. 4: How can it be correct for the company to say it is, "entirely independent" when at least 2 representatives of the organisation that, "approved" this company - the RICS - sit on the Board?
But we didn't get an answer.
Q. Mr Javid, if this Government approved and monitored scheme were truly independent shouldn't there be no RICS representatives sitting on the Board?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 472.
472) Great Myths of the Early 21st Century - the Independence of the Ombudsman.
Dear Mr Javid,
Redress schemes such as the one operated by Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) are at pains to emphasis just how independent their ombudsmen are.
It's the key to the con.
If consumers didn't fall for it, weren't taken in by it, were able to see through it or had it exposed for what it is - a con - by Parliament, the press or media, these schemes (for that's what they are - schemes) would collapse and could then be replaced by something that was transparent, accountable, fair and just.
For an example of the con in practice one need look no further than OS:P - here 2 senior executives of the RICS sit on the Board to help ensure that their ombudsman is entirely independent from the RICS insistence that their ombudsman handles disputes, "effectively."
Rigged to perfection.
It's the rigged market in redress in action.
We tried asking the Ombudsman Association's Secretary:
Q. 4: How can it be correct for the company to say it is, "entirely independent" when at least 2 representatives of the organisation that, "approved" this company - the RICS - sit on the Board?
But we didn't get an answer.
Q. Mr Javid, if this Government approved and monitored scheme were truly independent shouldn't there be no RICS representatives sitting on the Board?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 4 May 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property. The Rev Smith. Maladministration. The Ombudsman Association. (471)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 471.
471). One Monitor For Complaints About Estate Agents ....
Dear Mr Javid,
Once upon a time the OFT, apparently, monitored the scheme they had approved on behalf of the taxpayer - Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P). The consumer could in theory complain to them should they feel short-changed by the OS:P ombudsman who (mis)handled their complaint.
Whether the consumer would get anywhere should they choose to do so is highly unlikely.
The same ombudsman "investigates" consumer complaints about surveyors but thanks to the RICS' indomitable control of the scheme consumers cannot complain to the OFT when they get short-changed and their complaint goes terribly wrong.
We asked the Ombudsman Association's Secretary:
Q. 3: If the ombudsman did apply different criterion to the two categories of complaint wouldn't that go against the principles of natural justice?
We didn't get an answer to that one either.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS, apparently unable to adequately regulate their surveyors, "approved" the OS:P to investigate complaints about surveyors they apparently don't regulate and closely the monitor the OS:P for the, "effective" resolution of disputes that result from their inability to adequately regulate their surveyors in the first place. Is this fair and just - or just the ultimate example of how to rig markets for their own financial gain?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 471.
471). One Monitor For Complaints About Estate Agents ....
Dear Mr Javid,
Once upon a time the OFT, apparently, monitored the scheme they had approved on behalf of the taxpayer - Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P). The consumer could in theory complain to them should they feel short-changed by the OS:P ombudsman who (mis)handled their complaint.
Whether the consumer would get anywhere should they choose to do so is highly unlikely.
The same ombudsman "investigates" consumer complaints about surveyors but thanks to the RICS' indomitable control of the scheme consumers cannot complain to the OFT when they get short-changed and their complaint goes terribly wrong.
We asked the Ombudsman Association's Secretary:
Q. 3: If the ombudsman did apply different criterion to the two categories of complaint wouldn't that go against the principles of natural justice?
We didn't get an answer to that one either.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS, apparently unable to adequately regulate their surveyors, "approved" the OS:P to investigate complaints about surveyors they apparently don't regulate and closely the monitor the OS:P for the, "effective" resolution of disputes that result from their inability to adequately regulate their surveyors in the first place. Is this fair and just - or just the ultimate example of how to rig markets for their own financial gain?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Ombudsman Services:Property. Maladministration. The Ombudsman Association. (470)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 470.
470) "If it wasn't for double standards there'd be no standards at all."
(Sayings of The O61% Campaign: Vol 1)
Dear Mr Javid,
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) - which has now ceased trading - "approved" and "monitored" the estate agent bit of Ombudsman Services:Property on behalf of the UK taxpayer.
Apparently.
The larger and potentially more financially damaging piece (for surveyors) was left to the monitoring of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) an organisation which, again apparently, is unable to adequately regulate its surveyors adequately in the first place.
How convenient - one might conclude - for inadequately regulated RICS surveyors.
It's how the market in private redress is has been very effectively rigged in favour of shite RICS surveyors thus saving them thousands and thousands of ££s.
We asked the Secretary of the Ombudsman Association:
Q. 2: Does that mean the Omudsman Services:Property ombudsman could possibly view complaints brought by consumers about estate agents differently from those brought by consumers against surveyors?
Sadly, there was no answer from the Secretary.
Q. Mr Javid, in the interests of democracy and One Nation England, shouldn't political parties and the press and media be focusing their attention on how vested business interests are rigging the market in private justice in favour of their very own business interests at the expense of the rest of us?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 470.
470) "If it wasn't for double standards there'd be no standards at all."
(Sayings of The O61% Campaign: Vol 1)
Dear Mr Javid,
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) - which has now ceased trading - "approved" and "monitored" the estate agent bit of Ombudsman Services:Property on behalf of the UK taxpayer.
Apparently.
The larger and potentially more financially damaging piece (for surveyors) was left to the monitoring of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) an organisation which, again apparently, is unable to adequately regulate its surveyors adequately in the first place.
How convenient - one might conclude - for inadequately regulated RICS surveyors.
It's how the market in private redress is has been very effectively rigged in favour of shite RICS surveyors thus saving them thousands and thousands of ££s.
We asked the Secretary of the Ombudsman Association:
Q. 2: Does that mean the Omudsman Services:Property ombudsman could possibly view complaints brought by consumers about estate agents differently from those brought by consumers against surveyors?
Sadly, there was no answer from the Secretary.
Q. Mr Javid, in the interests of democracy and One Nation England, shouldn't political parties and the press and media be focusing their attention on how vested business interests are rigging the market in private justice in favour of their very own business interests at the expense of the rest of us?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 3 May 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property. Maladmanistration. The Ombudsman Association. (469)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 469.
469) Ombudsman Services:Property. Maladministration. The Ombudsman Association.
Dear Mr Javid,
We wrote to the Secretary of the Ombudsman Association:
"Dear Secretary,
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign wishes to bring to your attention our concerns about Ombudsman Serives:Property. OS:P is a member of your Ombudsman Association.
We would appreciate the Ombudsman Association's views on this company as we believe it fails to meet the requirements your organisation stipulate for member ship as set out in: 'Governance - principles of Good Governance: Independence, Openness and Transparency, Accountability, Integrity, Clarity of Purpose.'
Because these categories seem to us to overlap we've put our questions to the OA with that in mind.
You are no doubt already aware that OS:P (or The SOS as it was formerly known), was originally set up by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) to, 'investigate' complaints brought by consumers about its Members or Regulated Firms.
The RICS have at least 2 of their members - that we are aware of - sitting on the Board of Ombudsman Services and yet the literature this company sends to consumer s and potential complainants maintains that it is, 'entirely' independent.
Since the 1st October 2008 the OFT gave its approval to OS ltd., to run a redress scheme for estate agents but not surveyors.
It set out 16 criteria for the operation of the scheme run by an, 'independent' ombudsman. The same ombudsman adjudicates in complaints brought by consumers about both estate agents and surveyors. In the interests of natural justice one would expect the ombudsman to apply the same criterion to both estate agents and surveyors.
Q1. Why do you think the OFT approved a scheme for estate agents but not surveyors, is it because the company running it was set up by the RICS, the surveyors professional body?"
The Secretary of the Ombudsman Association didn't answer.
Q. Mr Javid, is it in the interests of natural justice for no-one involved with the RICS to answer questions about the RICS apparent inability to regulate its Members or Regulated Firms and the close relationship it has with the company it, "appointed" to resolve its disputes, "effectively?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 469.
469) Ombudsman Services:Property. Maladministration. The Ombudsman Association.
Dear Mr Javid,
We wrote to the Secretary of the Ombudsman Association:
"Dear Secretary,
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign wishes to bring to your attention our concerns about Ombudsman Serives:Property. OS:P is a member of your Ombudsman Association.
We would appreciate the Ombudsman Association's views on this company as we believe it fails to meet the requirements your organisation stipulate for member ship as set out in: 'Governance - principles of Good Governance: Independence, Openness and Transparency, Accountability, Integrity, Clarity of Purpose.'
Because these categories seem to us to overlap we've put our questions to the OA with that in mind.
You are no doubt already aware that OS:P (or The SOS as it was formerly known), was originally set up by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) to, 'investigate' complaints brought by consumers about its Members or Regulated Firms.
The RICS have at least 2 of their members - that we are aware of - sitting on the Board of Ombudsman Services and yet the literature this company sends to consumer s and potential complainants maintains that it is, 'entirely' independent.
Since the 1st October 2008 the OFT gave its approval to OS ltd., to run a redress scheme for estate agents but not surveyors.
It set out 16 criteria for the operation of the scheme run by an, 'independent' ombudsman. The same ombudsman adjudicates in complaints brought by consumers about both estate agents and surveyors. In the interests of natural justice one would expect the ombudsman to apply the same criterion to both estate agents and surveyors.
Q1. Why do you think the OFT approved a scheme for estate agents but not surveyors, is it because the company running it was set up by the RICS, the surveyors professional body?"
The Secretary of the Ombudsman Association didn't answer.
Q. Mr Javid, is it in the interests of natural justice for no-one involved with the RICS to answer questions about the RICS apparent inability to regulate its Members or Regulated Firms and the close relationship it has with the company it, "appointed" to resolve its disputes, "effectively?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 1 May 2016
Ombudsman Services. The Rev. Smith. Maladministration. Civil Justice. (468)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 468.
468. "Is a Buy-to-let bubble the next scandal in housing?"
(The Telegraph: 1st May 2016)
Dear Mr Javid,
The Telegraph wants to know if the next scandal in housing is the buy-to-let bubble.
For years we've been trying to tell them otherwise and that its the RICS, "apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms" and its insistence that its "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property - CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Smith, handles the subsequent complaints, "effectively."
We at the Ombudsmans61percent campaign take, "effectively" to mean getting RICS inadequately regulated members off the hook.
Q. Mr Javid, isn't the next scandal in housing RICS' apparent inability to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms and the subsequent maladministration of complaints by the Rev Smith and his team of maladministrators?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 468.
468. "Is a Buy-to-let bubble the next scandal in housing?"
(The Telegraph: 1st May 2016)
Dear Mr Javid,
The Telegraph wants to know if the next scandal in housing is the buy-to-let bubble.
For years we've been trying to tell them otherwise and that its the RICS, "apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms" and its insistence that its "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property - CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Smith, handles the subsequent complaints, "effectively."
We at the Ombudsmans61percent campaign take, "effectively" to mean getting RICS inadequately regulated members off the hook.
Q. Mr Javid, isn't the next scandal in housing RICS' apparent inability to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms and the subsequent maladministration of complaints by the Rev Smith and his team of maladministrators?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)