To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 500.
500) OS:Property/The Labour Party: Logic? Where's Spock When You Need Him?
Dear Mr Javid,
The Labour Party has just tied itself in knots over just what exactly its own Rules actually mean. It took 6 hours, lots of people, two m'learned friends but no sandwiches to arrive at a decision: 18-14. So much for the "Rules."
Why didn't the genius writing them simply add: and the incumbent leader automatically goes on the ballot? That would have been sensible. Would have saved a lot of time and heartache.
The Rule said;
"Where there is no vacancy nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party Conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."
As Mr Corbyn isn't challenging himself he doesn't need the support of 20% of PLP and EPLP members. Logical and straightforward. Or so you'd think.
Not so logical or straightforward was what Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman wrote in response to our complaint that she avoided answering our questions;
"For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or any colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means we have refused to answer that question."
That's clarity?
We tried asking the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch, if she could shed some light on the logic behind this statement. She couldn't. A sad case of one expert apparently not being able to interpret what another expert says.
You could fill a room with lots of people, two m'learned friends, hand them sandwiches and 6 hours and they'd probably arrive at a majority decision that whatever way you looked at it - the ombudsman still hadn't answered the question or given a satisfactory reason for not doing so.
We live in a world where those in positions of power - whether it be Prime Ministers at Prime Minister Question Time, OS:Property with its executives and ombudsmen, local government or Livewell Southwest Ltd simply believe themselves to be above answering questions. It's beneath their dignity.
If that's democracy I'm Captain Kirk.
Spock, would probably said of all this that;
"Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth." (And The Children Shall Lead 1968)
Q. Mr Javid, how can the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman investigate complaints, "fairly" and "independently" when she avoids answering a complainant's questions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 13 July 2016
Tuesday, 12 July 2016
Regulators Help Rig "Justice" in Rigged Market Capitalism. (499)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 499.
499) Regulators Help Rig "Justice" in Rigged Market Capitalism.
Or how The establishment looks after its own.
Again. And Again. And again and again and again.
Soft on Crime. Soft on the causes of Crime.
Dear Mr Javid,
"HSBC escaped the money-laundering charges after UK intervention."
(www.guardian.co.uk 12 June 2016)
This seems to be yet another example of Telegraph journalist Juliet Samuel's devious politicians/civil servants/regulators fixing things behind the scenes.
She approves of this sort of thing.
The Guardian article stated;
"The US government decided not to pursue criminal charges against HSBC for allowing terrorists and drug dealers to launder millions of dollars after George Osborne and the UK banking regulator intervened to warn that prosecuting Britain's biggest bank could lead to a financial disaster."
No doubt a sizeable chunk of the laundered-money ended up in the London Property Market helping to further inflate house prices and heap more stress and misery on the dispossessed trying to cope with the bedroom tax. Or just trying to put a roof over their head.
Government colluding with organised crime to prop organised crime in the form of banking.
The article continued;
"The report said the FSA (Financial Services Authority) was, 'problematic,' 'weighed in very strongly' and caused a, 'firestorm' which led the then Attorney General, Eric Holder, to overrule the advice of his own prosecutors and not pursue criminal action."
Unlike the Telegraph journalist we disapprove of this sort of thing.
Q. Mr Javid, why hasn't the RICS the regulator of Ombudsman Services:Property weighed in strongly to end the illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Q. Mr Javid, why haven't government monitors caused a firestorm and prosecuted those responsible for the illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Q. Mr Javid, isn't this a form of state sponsored terrorism and state organised crime?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 499.
499) Regulators Help Rig "Justice" in Rigged Market Capitalism.
Or how The establishment looks after its own.
Again. And Again. And again and again and again.
Soft on Crime. Soft on the causes of Crime.
Dear Mr Javid,
"HSBC escaped the money-laundering charges after UK intervention."
(www.guardian.co.uk 12 June 2016)
This seems to be yet another example of Telegraph journalist Juliet Samuel's devious politicians/civil servants/regulators fixing things behind the scenes.
She approves of this sort of thing.
The Guardian article stated;
"The US government decided not to pursue criminal charges against HSBC for allowing terrorists and drug dealers to launder millions of dollars after George Osborne and the UK banking regulator intervened to warn that prosecuting Britain's biggest bank could lead to a financial disaster."
No doubt a sizeable chunk of the laundered-money ended up in the London Property Market helping to further inflate house prices and heap more stress and misery on the dispossessed trying to cope with the bedroom tax. Or just trying to put a roof over their head.
Government colluding with organised crime to prop organised crime in the form of banking.
The article continued;
"The report said the FSA (Financial Services Authority) was, 'problematic,' 'weighed in very strongly' and caused a, 'firestorm' which led the then Attorney General, Eric Holder, to overrule the advice of his own prosecutors and not pursue criminal action."
Unlike the Telegraph journalist we disapprove of this sort of thing.
Q. Mr Javid, why hasn't the RICS the regulator of Ombudsman Services:Property weighed in strongly to end the illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Q. Mr Javid, why haven't government monitors caused a firestorm and prosecuted those responsible for the illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Q. Mr Javid, isn't this a form of state sponsored terrorism and state organised crime?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 9 July 2016
New Labour's Take On Things. (497)
To the Business secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 497.
497) New Labour's Take On Things.
Dear Mr Javid,
The Labour Party's relationship between Michael Gove's dispossessed victims of unreformed capitalism and wealth (and therefore justice) is an interesting one.
At about the exact same time as we were being packed off to the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman by our surveyor this headline appeared in The Express:
"Lord and Lady Kinnock's £10 Million Euro Grave Train... Gleny's Kinnock was last night facing questions over her impartiality as Europe Minister after research suggested she and her husband Neil may have pocketed £10 Million..." (Jason Groves Sun 14 June 2009)
Questions over impartiality and lots of Wonga. Sounds familiar.
This is the same Neil Kinnock who has had so much to say about the Labour Party recently but very little - in fact nothing - about his diary commitments at the time of the Miner's Strike.
"Owing to the short notice of the arrangements I will not be able to attend the rallies on the dates that have been decided.. As you will understand I am already fully committed to a series of long standing engagements which cannot be broken."
Along with Eric Heffer we didn't understand it then and we don't understand it now. As the miners faced poverty the Kinnocks were booking their first class seats on The Gravy Train.
His diary was full for all the rally dates. Even for when the last Welsh pit closed.
Then there's the Blair's property empire. It typifies New Labour.
"Tony and Cherie Blair's property empire worth £27 million." (Guardian 14 May 2016)
"he, his wife and children owning at least 10 houses and 27 flats between them." (Independent 14 March 2016)
As Iraq was being bombed back to the middle ages the Blairs were hoovering up property like there was no tomorrow. For thousands of unfortunate Iraqis there was to be no tomorrow. It goes a long way to explaining why, when we tried to raise the issues of the Ombudsman's lack of impartiality and a subsequent 61% dissatisfaction rate with her bizarre decisions with a local Labour MP we were told, "That's normal."
Q Mr Javid, is it "normal" for 61% (rising to 64% in 2011 and who knows what today) of property complainants to be very dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and the lack of impartiality of the Ombudsman presiding over them?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 497.
497) New Labour's Take On Things.
Dear Mr Javid,
The Labour Party's relationship between Michael Gove's dispossessed victims of unreformed capitalism and wealth (and therefore justice) is an interesting one.
At about the exact same time as we were being packed off to the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman by our surveyor this headline appeared in The Express:
"Lord and Lady Kinnock's £10 Million Euro Grave Train... Gleny's Kinnock was last night facing questions over her impartiality as Europe Minister after research suggested she and her husband Neil may have pocketed £10 Million..." (Jason Groves Sun 14 June 2009)
Questions over impartiality and lots of Wonga. Sounds familiar.
This is the same Neil Kinnock who has had so much to say about the Labour Party recently but very little - in fact nothing - about his diary commitments at the time of the Miner's Strike.
"Owing to the short notice of the arrangements I will not be able to attend the rallies on the dates that have been decided.. As you will understand I am already fully committed to a series of long standing engagements which cannot be broken."
Along with Eric Heffer we didn't understand it then and we don't understand it now. As the miners faced poverty the Kinnocks were booking their first class seats on The Gravy Train.
His diary was full for all the rally dates. Even for when the last Welsh pit closed.
Then there's the Blair's property empire. It typifies New Labour.
"Tony and Cherie Blair's property empire worth £27 million." (Guardian 14 May 2016)
"he, his wife and children owning at least 10 houses and 27 flats between them." (Independent 14 March 2016)
As Iraq was being bombed back to the middle ages the Blairs were hoovering up property like there was no tomorrow. For thousands of unfortunate Iraqis there was to be no tomorrow. It goes a long way to explaining why, when we tried to raise the issues of the Ombudsman's lack of impartiality and a subsequent 61% dissatisfaction rate with her bizarre decisions with a local Labour MP we were told, "That's normal."
Q Mr Javid, is it "normal" for 61% (rising to 64% in 2011 and who knows what today) of property complainants to be very dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and the lack of impartiality of the Ombudsman presiding over them?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 21 June 2016
Ombudsman Services: Victims Just Want To Tell Their Stories. (488)
To the Business secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 488.
488) Ombudsman Services: Victims Just Want To Tell Their Stories.
Dear Mr Javid,
The mark of a well rigged enterprise is just how remarkably successful they are at silencing those who would seek to complain about the treatment they've received at their callous hands.
Take the case of Ombudsman Services:Property and simply compare the data collected and published now with the halcyon days of DJS Research and their 3 Customer Satisfaction Reports. But you'd better act quickly before they too are airbrushed from the company's website and history.
One of the company's many victims who wanted to tell her story and in doing so help others is Julia. She wrote;
"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 eye-wateringly 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."
We still find that short statement both moving and inspiring - a victim of injustice whose first thought is to help others. What a pity not all our politicians share a similar grounding in humanity and compassion.
Perhaps after yesterday's show of unity in the House of Commons and the fine tributes paid to Jo Cox a new politics and long needed change is on its way.
The Sociologist of the Family and Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch, could have a whole research project based on the everyday lives of those victims of, "civil justice" whose health and finances have been severely damaged as a consequence of coming into close contact with it.
Nothing so far.
Q. Mr Javid, as someone who has a, "close and continuing relationship" with prof. Dame Janet Finch, perhaps you might have more success helping Julia to tell her story than the Prof. did?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 488.
488) Ombudsman Services: Victims Just Want To Tell Their Stories.
Dear Mr Javid,
The mark of a well rigged enterprise is just how remarkably successful they are at silencing those who would seek to complain about the treatment they've received at their callous hands.
Take the case of Ombudsman Services:Property and simply compare the data collected and published now with the halcyon days of DJS Research and their 3 Customer Satisfaction Reports. But you'd better act quickly before they too are airbrushed from the company's website and history.
One of the company's many victims who wanted to tell her story and in doing so help others is Julia. She wrote;
"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 eye-wateringly 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."
We still find that short statement both moving and inspiring - a victim of injustice whose first thought is to help others. What a pity not all our politicians share a similar grounding in humanity and compassion.
Perhaps after yesterday's show of unity in the House of Commons and the fine tributes paid to Jo Cox a new politics and long needed change is on its way.
The Sociologist of the Family and Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch, could have a whole research project based on the everyday lives of those victims of, "civil justice" whose health and finances have been severely damaged as a consequence of coming into close contact with it.
Nothing so far.
Q. Mr Javid, as someone who has a, "close and continuing relationship" with prof. Dame Janet Finch, perhaps you might have more success helping Julia to tell her story than the Prof. did?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 20 June 2016
Ombudsman Services: Leave or Remain? Either Way We Want Our Justice Back. (487)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign at - www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 487.
487) Ombudsman Services: Leave or Remain? Either Way We Want Our Justice Back.
Dear Mr Javid,
The overwhelming body of evidence collected by the experts - DJS Research - suggests that the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman is biased. They state that the evidence they amassed for their 2010 Customer Satisfaction Report led them to conclude that,
"To be effective the SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services:Property) must be seen to be an impartial arbitrator- currently this does not seem to be the case."
What they found was an Ombudsman who was a partial arbitrator - partial towards her fee-paying Members - and this was before the scam of cutting and pasting the Ombudsman's signature on to reports written by Investigating Officers (as a way of clearing a backlog of cases) and other practices that are not working in the complainant's interests, had been allowed to set in and fester.
When something's rotten in the state of England it is somewhat hypocritical to criticise the EU for being a rotten, remote and an expensive failure.
Government, "monitors" of a scheme that Jonathan May approved on behalf of the taxpayer in 2009 and RICS, the world's leading property regulator so they say, have both looked the other way - for years - as the shambles at OS unfolded.
Q. Mr Javid, if Government "monitors" and the RICS regulators continue to leave OS executives free to maladminister consumers' complaints won't justice simply remain out of the reach of the rest of us - you can't blame the EU for that, can you?
A seven year long case of the UK Government failing to govern on behalf of the people.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 487.
487) Ombudsman Services: Leave or Remain? Either Way We Want Our Justice Back.
Dear Mr Javid,
The overwhelming body of evidence collected by the experts - DJS Research - suggests that the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman is biased. They state that the evidence they amassed for their 2010 Customer Satisfaction Report led them to conclude that,
"To be effective the SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services:Property) must be seen to be an impartial arbitrator- currently this does not seem to be the case."
What they found was an Ombudsman who was a partial arbitrator - partial towards her fee-paying Members - and this was before the scam of cutting and pasting the Ombudsman's signature on to reports written by Investigating Officers (as a way of clearing a backlog of cases) and other practices that are not working in the complainant's interests, had been allowed to set in and fester.
When something's rotten in the state of England it is somewhat hypocritical to criticise the EU for being a rotten, remote and an expensive failure.
Government, "monitors" of a scheme that Jonathan May approved on behalf of the taxpayer in 2009 and RICS, the world's leading property regulator so they say, have both looked the other way - for years - as the shambles at OS unfolded.
Q. Mr Javid, if Government "monitors" and the RICS regulators continue to leave OS executives free to maladminister consumers' complaints won't justice simply remain out of the reach of the rest of us - you can't blame the EU for that, can you?
A seven year long case of the UK Government failing to govern on behalf of the people.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 18 June 2016
Ombudsman Services And The Mask of Anarchy. (486)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 486.
486) Ombudsman Services And The Mask of Anarchy.
Dear Mr Javid,
We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch, that as she was a sociologist of the family why it was that she didn't insist upon follow-up surveys of complainants to ascertain just how her organisation's illogical final decisions had impacted upon their lives.
How had they suffered as a consequence of those illogical decisions? What further woes had befallen them? What had their customer journey cost them and did they believe they'd been recipients of civil justice? Indeed, what did they make of her company's particular brand of, "civil justice?" In short, why weren't they asked for their thoughts and feelings on how they'd been treated?
Dame Janet didn't reply.
In 1819 Shelley wrote,
"Ye who suffer woes untold
Or to feel, or to behold
Your lost country bought and sold
With a price of blood and gold.
Thou art Justice - ne'er for gold
May thy righteous laws be sold
As laws are in England - thou
Shield'st alike both high and low."
Nearly 200 years later and it would seem that an ombudsman's illogical final decisions still shield'st the high to the cost of the low and that private civil justice is being bought and sold as we write.
Q, Mr Javid this ain't justice either bro is it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 486.
486) Ombudsman Services And The Mask of Anarchy.
Dear Mr Javid,
We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch, that as she was a sociologist of the family why it was that she didn't insist upon follow-up surveys of complainants to ascertain just how her organisation's illogical final decisions had impacted upon their lives.
How had they suffered as a consequence of those illogical decisions? What further woes had befallen them? What had their customer journey cost them and did they believe they'd been recipients of civil justice? Indeed, what did they make of her company's particular brand of, "civil justice?" In short, why weren't they asked for their thoughts and feelings on how they'd been treated?
Dame Janet didn't reply.
In 1819 Shelley wrote,
"Ye who suffer woes untold
Or to feel, or to behold
Your lost country bought and sold
With a price of blood and gold.
Thou art Justice - ne'er for gold
May thy righteous laws be sold
As laws are in England - thou
Shield'st alike both high and low."
Nearly 200 years later and it would seem that an ombudsman's illogical final decisions still shield'st the high to the cost of the low and that private civil justice is being bought and sold as we write.
Q, Mr Javid this ain't justice either bro is it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 17 June 2016
Ombudsman Services: Justice First. (485)
To the Business Secretary
For Clarity - Attempt 485.
485) Ombudsman Services: Justice First.
Dear Mr Javid,
In a modern, healthy and forward-looking democracy the people, through their elected representatives, would play a key role in saying what justice was or wasn't.
Not ours.
Instead, private, "civil justice" has been sub-contracted out to unelected ombudsmen. Future historians or sociologists of, "The Age of The Ombudsman" will reveal a process whereby decisions were taken behind the scenes by unelected brokers engaging with and politically influencing; MPs, Ministers and Senior Civil Servants. The day-to-day practicalities in how to successfully rig the property market and get away with it - apparently.
Things haven't changed much since the days of Tom Paine.
"Legislators who were elected by no one were accountable to no one and, consequently, should be trusted by no one."
(Edward Vallance: A Radical History of Britain)
Who elects ombudsmen? No one. Then why should we trust them? To whom are they accountable? That's a moot point and depends on which brand of ombudsman you're talking about and what you take to mean by, "accountability."
In the case of the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman that one appears to be accountable to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) who modestly announce that they are, "the world's leading professional body for qualifications, and standards in land, property, infrastructure and construction."
The world's leading professionals in property standards where openly criticised by the late Consumer Focus who themselves became history after revealing that, "Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. We believe that the problem has its origins in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms."
Professionals at leading the world and his dog up the garden path.
Those writing the history of, "Ombudsman Schemes and Scheming Ombudsman in The Early 21st Century" will find it a challenge to access source material. Not only did Consumer Focus become history but their quote did too, vanishing from the internet.
Also airbrushed from history are Ombudsman Services' minutes. As for their Annual Property Report? It's not worth the paper its written on. Searching questions no longer being asked - embarrassing answers no longer needing an explanation.
No accountability. No transparency. So no justice.
Was Consumer Focus axed because it had the temerity to openly criticise the RICS for it's apparent failure to adequately do its job and regulate its Members and Regulated Firms? Surely a regulator that doesn't regulate isn't a regulator - it's something else. A rigger of so-called redress. Scandalously, everyone apart from Consumer Focus whistled as they looked the other way.
Why weren't questions asked in Parliament at the time? Is the rigged property market so important to the economy that those rigging it must be protected at all costs?
Q. Mr Javid, why has the RICS allowed practices to develop that are not working in the customer's interests?
Q. Where were the Privy Councillors when this happened and where are they now as it continues to happen?
We won't know until someone in the press or media starts asking questions or a MP stands up in Parliament and does likewise. Clearly, no one in Government is listening to ours.
As a result it's dirty business in the RICS regulated property market as usual.
When the BBC with its Royal Charter is under constant attack from certain sections of the largely self-regulating media, the Byzantine RICS with its Royal Charter and world leading position in setting standards in the property market barely warrents a mention.
Q. Mr Javid, this ain't justice bro is it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 485.
485) Ombudsman Services: Justice First.
Dear Mr Javid,
In a modern, healthy and forward-looking democracy the people, through their elected representatives, would play a key role in saying what justice was or wasn't.
Not ours.
Instead, private, "civil justice" has been sub-contracted out to unelected ombudsmen. Future historians or sociologists of, "The Age of The Ombudsman" will reveal a process whereby decisions were taken behind the scenes by unelected brokers engaging with and politically influencing; MPs, Ministers and Senior Civil Servants. The day-to-day practicalities in how to successfully rig the property market and get away with it - apparently.
Things haven't changed much since the days of Tom Paine.
"Legislators who were elected by no one were accountable to no one and, consequently, should be trusted by no one."
(Edward Vallance: A Radical History of Britain)
Who elects ombudsmen? No one. Then why should we trust them? To whom are they accountable? That's a moot point and depends on which brand of ombudsman you're talking about and what you take to mean by, "accountability."
In the case of the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman that one appears to be accountable to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) who modestly announce that they are, "the world's leading professional body for qualifications, and standards in land, property, infrastructure and construction."
The world's leading professionals in property standards where openly criticised by the late Consumer Focus who themselves became history after revealing that, "Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. We believe that the problem has its origins in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and Regulated Firms."
Professionals at leading the world and his dog up the garden path.
Those writing the history of, "Ombudsman Schemes and Scheming Ombudsman in The Early 21st Century" will find it a challenge to access source material. Not only did Consumer Focus become history but their quote did too, vanishing from the internet.
Also airbrushed from history are Ombudsman Services' minutes. As for their Annual Property Report? It's not worth the paper its written on. Searching questions no longer being asked - embarrassing answers no longer needing an explanation.
No accountability. No transparency. So no justice.
Was Consumer Focus axed because it had the temerity to openly criticise the RICS for it's apparent failure to adequately do its job and regulate its Members and Regulated Firms? Surely a regulator that doesn't regulate isn't a regulator - it's something else. A rigger of so-called redress. Scandalously, everyone apart from Consumer Focus whistled as they looked the other way.
Why weren't questions asked in Parliament at the time? Is the rigged property market so important to the economy that those rigging it must be protected at all costs?
Q. Mr Javid, why has the RICS allowed practices to develop that are not working in the customer's interests?
Q. Where were the Privy Councillors when this happened and where are they now as it continues to happen?
We won't know until someone in the press or media starts asking questions or a MP stands up in Parliament and does likewise. Clearly, no one in Government is listening to ours.
As a result it's dirty business in the RICS regulated property market as usual.
When the BBC with its Royal Charter is under constant attack from certain sections of the largely self-regulating media, the Byzantine RICS with its Royal Charter and world leading position in setting standards in the property market barely warrents a mention.
Q. Mr Javid, this ain't justice bro is it?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)