To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 540.
540) The Ombudsman Services:Property Approach to Information.
(would seem to be to hide it, twist it, distort it, ignore it, refute it and generally abuse it.)
Dear Mr Clark,
In, "Procedural and Practice Issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us that,
"information provided by the bodies being investigated was often accepted at face value."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citien-activists.)
This was most certainly true when it came to the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, her fee-paying Member and our complaint about him. However, not all the information was made available to us, the interesting bits were obtained through a Data Protection Act request.
This fee-paying Member's messages are already part of some of our earlier blogs but we've referred to them once again along with three questions we attempted to ask Prof Dame Janet Finch, the Chair of Ombudsman Services as they serve to illustrate what the two researchers are saying above: that when it comes to information, the relationship between the ombudsman/investigating officer and their Member and the one between ombudsman/investigating officer and the complainant are qualitatively very different.
So much for the Level Playing Field. It's a modern-day myth.
The day robber baron Phillip Green sells his yacht for a £1, just like he did BHS, is the day we'll begin to have a level playing field and it'll make shopping in Poundland even more exciting than it already is. Who knows, OS:Property might actually begin to investigate consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently" and take the time to carefully consider the information placed in front of them instead of arriving at a predetermined outcome as they do now.
We tried asking the chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch the following three questions;
"Q 87: Is it not the case that the very people who finance the system set it up this way?
It is a matter for concern that the ombudsman did not think to disclose Monk and Partners' statements to me.
I ask you, was it not the duty of the ombudsman, as set out in the Terms of Reference 8.6 -
that, 'In handling complaints, carrying out investigations and reaching any Final decision; (as provided here under)
(a) to proceed fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice.
(b) to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances having regard for principles of law, good practice, equitable conduct and good administration.
(e) to have regard for any applicable rule of law, the terms of a relevant contract, any relevant judicial authority or regulatory provision, any relevant codes of conduct or practice, any guidance of a general nature given by the Council and what is in the ombudsman's opinion best practice in handling complaints, and,
(f) to give reasons for any decisions made or conclusion reached?
Q. 88: I asked the ombudsman: was agreeing to carry out essential repairs to our home not a tacit acceptance that the original survey was not of a satisfactory standard?
I didn't get an answer from the ombudsman.
Q. 89: I asked the Independent Assessor to comment on the professional integrity of Monk and Partners give the ombudsman's statement that:
"I did not look at the photographs." And, "Your view seems to be that external photographs taken without express permission are somehow inadmissible because they amount to evidence gathered in a suspect way."
(But Mr Monk had previously stated he would not come to our home again!)
I pointed out to the Independent Assessor that I knew what I thought, but then I'm not the ombudsman. I knew that a teacher standing outside a pupil's home photographing it would be in serious trouble but that the same standards did not seem to apply to certain surveyors.
The ombudsman had the evidence but seems to have seen nothing wrong with this.
The Independent Assessor's response was;
"The Terms of Reference of the service, which can be downloaded from the website, provide that the procedure for the conduct of an investigation will be such as the ombudsman considers appropriate subject, in brief, to the duty to proceed fairly, to make reasoned decisions, not to disclose details of a complaint except in certain circumstances, and to have regard for any rule of law, contract, code of conduct."
That is not what the Terms of Reference say.
7.3 is quite specific on the matter - it states;
'7.3: Information passed to the ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure."
(We never got reasons justifying the non-disclosure of Mr Monk's messages to the investigating officer from anyone at the company - so, in effect, the complainant will never know what's being said behind their back unless they resort to a Data Protection Act request which in itself makes a mockery of TOR 7.3 and TOR 8.6 and the company's ludicrous claim to be both, "fair" and "independent." They simply do the bidding of their fee-paying Members. It's rigged redress.)
Professor Dame Janet Finch did not answer our questions.
No-one at the company answered our questions.
Those managers who've captured capitalism have erected a Trump-like wall across the half-way line of The Level Playing Field. It effectively restricts access to justice and leaves complainants banging their head against a brick wall.
Q. Mr Clark, we are told by the Prime Minister that she has a plan that will mean Government stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests. When are you going to step up, challenge the RICS/Ombudsman Services:Property's vested interests and right the wrongs of the its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 20 October 2016
Wednesday, 19 October 2016
When Is An Investigation Not An Investigation? (539)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 539.
539) When Is An Investigation Not An Investigation?
When it's an Ombudsman Services:Property investigation that's when.
Dear Mr Clark,
In, "Procedural and Practice Issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill have this to say about ombudsman investigations;
"some participants queried the robustness of ombudsman schemes' investigation process, noting that they were desk-based, 'paper exercises' and insufficiently inquisitorial. They compared unfavourably to other administrative investigations such as those involving fraud, which had robust methodologies. Information provided by the bodies being challenged, even where it was asserted that the complainant had been able to provide irrefutable contradictory evidence."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
We provided Gillian Fleming the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman with our own irrefutable contradictory evidence - photographs taken by us and our roofer - and she promptly refuted it coming to the extraordinary conclusion that she couldn't be sure that they were actually photographs of our home!
I often pay roofers to put roofs on my neighbours' homes, it's a failing I have.
To say that the ombudsman bent over backwards to accommodate her fee-paying Member is understating it somewhat - she was positively double jointed when it came to helping him slither off the hook.
We did try, unsuccessfully, to challenge this ludicrous decision by asking for an independent re-survey which would have verified what we had said (as was our right) only to be told that if she, The Ombudsman, had considered this necessary she would have asked for one at the time.
Every piece of evidence we presented her with was summarily dismissed.
It seems that in England these days The Ombudsman has become both judge and jury, which in the scheme of things makes them far more powerful than judges.
This is what we mean when we say that rigged markets have now successfully developed rigged, "social justice" to bat off consumers' complaints. This RICS appointed scheme is not social and it most certainly isn't just.
Q. Mr Clark, we were told by the Prime Minister that she has a plan that will mean Government stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests. When are you going to step up, challenge the RICS/Ombudsman Services:Property vested interests and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 539.
539) When Is An Investigation Not An Investigation?
When it's an Ombudsman Services:Property investigation that's when.
Dear Mr Clark,
In, "Procedural and Practice Issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill have this to say about ombudsman investigations;
"some participants queried the robustness of ombudsman schemes' investigation process, noting that they were desk-based, 'paper exercises' and insufficiently inquisitorial. They compared unfavourably to other administrative investigations such as those involving fraud, which had robust methodologies. Information provided by the bodies being challenged, even where it was asserted that the complainant had been able to provide irrefutable contradictory evidence."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
We provided Gillian Fleming the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman with our own irrefutable contradictory evidence - photographs taken by us and our roofer - and she promptly refuted it coming to the extraordinary conclusion that she couldn't be sure that they were actually photographs of our home!
I often pay roofers to put roofs on my neighbours' homes, it's a failing I have.
To say that the ombudsman bent over backwards to accommodate her fee-paying Member is understating it somewhat - she was positively double jointed when it came to helping him slither off the hook.
We did try, unsuccessfully, to challenge this ludicrous decision by asking for an independent re-survey which would have verified what we had said (as was our right) only to be told that if she, The Ombudsman, had considered this necessary she would have asked for one at the time.
Every piece of evidence we presented her with was summarily dismissed.
It seems that in England these days The Ombudsman has become both judge and jury, which in the scheme of things makes them far more powerful than judges.
This is what we mean when we say that rigged markets have now successfully developed rigged, "social justice" to bat off consumers' complaints. This RICS appointed scheme is not social and it most certainly isn't just.
Q. Mr Clark, we were told by the Prime Minister that she has a plan that will mean Government stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests. When are you going to step up, challenge the RICS/Ombudsman Services:Property vested interests and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 9 October 2016
Professor Dame Janet Finch's Final Forward. (536)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 536.
536) Professor Dame Janet Finch's Final Foreword.
Dear Mr Clark,
We saw that when the maladministrators advertised for a new chair they insisted upon the new incumbent having unimpeachable integrity. Only time will tell...
Meanwhile, we see that the present incumbent has said;
"The annual report covers a short year of nine months..."
(Prof Finch: Foreword 2015 Annual Report)
Q. Mr Clark, is the short year an echo of how this lot short change consumers - especially those with complex and expensive property complaints?
Q. Mr Clark, does the short year not also mirror the shortness of Professor Dame Janet Finch's Annual Property Reports which went from 13 pages when she took over to a paltry one and a bit at the time of her departure?
During her time as chair transparency and accountability have virtually vanished - just look at the dismal Property Reports which are now reduced to a pale shadow of their once former glory.
Telephone surveys? Bet they never happen.
Q. Mr Clark, how does this meet the EU Directive EU/11/2013 requirement for ADR schemes to be fair and transparent?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 536.
536) Professor Dame Janet Finch's Final Foreword.
Dear Mr Clark,
We saw that when the maladministrators advertised for a new chair they insisted upon the new incumbent having unimpeachable integrity. Only time will tell...
Meanwhile, we see that the present incumbent has said;
"The annual report covers a short year of nine months..."
(Prof Finch: Foreword 2015 Annual Report)
Q. Mr Clark, is the short year an echo of how this lot short change consumers - especially those with complex and expensive property complaints?
Q. Mr Clark, does the short year not also mirror the shortness of Professor Dame Janet Finch's Annual Property Reports which went from 13 pages when she took over to a paltry one and a bit at the time of her departure?
During her time as chair transparency and accountability have virtually vanished - just look at the dismal Property Reports which are now reduced to a pale shadow of their once former glory.
Telephone surveys? Bet they never happen.
Q. Mr Clark, how does this meet the EU Directive EU/11/2013 requirement for ADR schemes to be fair and transparent?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 7 October 2016
The Cost Of Ludicrous Decisions From OS:P And Livewell Southwest Ltd. (535)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 535.
535) The Cost Of Ludicrous Decisions From OS:P And Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Dear Mr Clark,
We seen how an ombudsman's illogical Final Decision results in a massive bill for the complainant whilst letting member surveyors off the hook.
The same is happening at Livewell Southwest Ltd only here its the cost of care that's being handed to the unfortunate individual..
We wrote to Professor Waite:
Dear Professor Waite,
It is clear that at the point of an atrocious decision from the Anonymous Livewell Southwest Ltd Desk Top Reviewer that the NHS becomes extremely expensive for his/her victim.
There is one Cardiff based law firm - Hugh James Nursing Care - that has so far recouped £80 Million for its clients all of whom are the victims of shocking decisions regarding the battle over who should pay for the cost of care.
And that's just one law firm.
That the countless number of individuals who have contributed to the cost running the NHS and the salaries it pays its top executives, through paying their taxes, should need the services of a solicitor or advocate to reclaim what is rightly theirs in the first place, shows the system up for what it is - little better than an extortion racket.
Anonymous individuals handing people for whom they have a duty of care a one line sentence and a massive bill.
Q. Professor Waite, until this rotten and corrupt system is scrapped shouldn't the victims of all those dreadful decisions be reimbursed in full the costs they've been forced to incur when claiming back what was rightfully theirs in the first place?
Q. Mr Clark, if the Prime Minister is sincere in what she says about executive pay and justice for the consumer shouldn't she be ordering a public inquiry into organisations like OS:Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd?
Yours sincerely,
teve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 535.
535) The Cost Of Ludicrous Decisions From OS:P And Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Dear Mr Clark,
We seen how an ombudsman's illogical Final Decision results in a massive bill for the complainant whilst letting member surveyors off the hook.
The same is happening at Livewell Southwest Ltd only here its the cost of care that's being handed to the unfortunate individual..
We wrote to Professor Waite:
Dear Professor Waite,
It is clear that at the point of an atrocious decision from the Anonymous Livewell Southwest Ltd Desk Top Reviewer that the NHS becomes extremely expensive for his/her victim.
There is one Cardiff based law firm - Hugh James Nursing Care - that has so far recouped £80 Million for its clients all of whom are the victims of shocking decisions regarding the battle over who should pay for the cost of care.
And that's just one law firm.
That the countless number of individuals who have contributed to the cost running the NHS and the salaries it pays its top executives, through paying their taxes, should need the services of a solicitor or advocate to reclaim what is rightly theirs in the first place, shows the system up for what it is - little better than an extortion racket.
Anonymous individuals handing people for whom they have a duty of care a one line sentence and a massive bill.
Q. Professor Waite, until this rotten and corrupt system is scrapped shouldn't the victims of all those dreadful decisions be reimbursed in full the costs they've been forced to incur when claiming back what was rightfully theirs in the first place?
Q. Mr Clark, if the Prime Minister is sincere in what she says about executive pay and justice for the consumer shouldn't she be ordering a public inquiry into organisations like OS:Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd?
Yours sincerely,
teve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
"Amber Rudd's father was involved in business she ran despite being declared unfit." The Guardian.(677)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 533,
533) "Amber Rudd's father was involved in business she ran despite being declared unfit."
(www.guardian.co.uk)
Dear Mr Clark,
We're told by the Guardian that although; "unfit to direct any company whether private or public" it seems that he did anyway - his daughter's - Amber "Red Mist" Rudd's.
We can only stand back and applaud the Guardian's noble attempt at asking the Home Secretary a question - we know how frustrating that can be. As for answers...
The Guardian's was simple and straightforward: how had Rudd junior ensured that Rudd senior was not involved in the day-to-day running of Lawnstone?
For someone usually so voluble, Amber Rudd was uncharacteristically silent. Her father also said nothing.
Q. Mr Clark, is it any wonder that the RICS involve themselves in the day-to-day running of its independent appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property when they see yet another politician flouting The Rules - and they're not even European Rules?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 533,
533) "Amber Rudd's father was involved in business she ran despite being declared unfit."
(www.guardian.co.uk)
Dear Mr Clark,
We're told by the Guardian that although; "unfit to direct any company whether private or public" it seems that he did anyway - his daughter's - Amber "Red Mist" Rudd's.
We can only stand back and applaud the Guardian's noble attempt at asking the Home Secretary a question - we know how frustrating that can be. As for answers...
The Guardian's was simple and straightforward: how had Rudd junior ensured that Rudd senior was not involved in the day-to-day running of Lawnstone?
For someone usually so voluble, Amber Rudd was uncharacteristically silent. Her father also said nothing.
Q. Mr Clark, is it any wonder that the RICS involve themselves in the day-to-day running of its independent appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property when they see yet another politician flouting The Rules - and they're not even European Rules?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 29 September 2016
Eye-Wateringly Ludicrous Decisions. (534)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
(but also to all who care about justice, transparency and accountability)
For Clarity - Attempt 534.
534) Eye-Wateringly Ludicrous Decisions.
Dear Mr Clark,
Eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions are not the sole preserve of an OS:Property ombudsman.
We wrote to the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd.
"Dear Prof Waite,
We are told that the NHS is still free at the point of delivery although there are those who claim that this is a political mirage.
The NHS is most certainly not free at the point of a Livewell Southwest Ltd Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's eye-wateringly ludicrous decision.
At this point the NHS becomes very un-free and expensive.
In our case employing the services of a highly skilled and respected advocate appears to have been no deterrent in in preventing the Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer from arriving at his/her predetermined decision.
Q. Prof Waite, is it Livewell Southwest Ltd policy to keep the identity of their Desk Top Reviewers anonymous so as to facilitate their arrival at ludicrous decisions thus saving the NHS millions of pounds each year whilst at the same time effectively transferring the cost of care onto their victims?"
Q. Mr Clark, this strategy of handing NHS patients eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions regarding the cost of their care appears to be happening on an industrial scale. When is it going to end?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
(but also to all who care about justice, transparency and accountability)
For Clarity - Attempt 534.
534) Eye-Wateringly Ludicrous Decisions.
Dear Mr Clark,
Eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions are not the sole preserve of an OS:Property ombudsman.
We wrote to the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd.
"Dear Prof Waite,
We are told that the NHS is still free at the point of delivery although there are those who claim that this is a political mirage.
The NHS is most certainly not free at the point of a Livewell Southwest Ltd Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's eye-wateringly ludicrous decision.
At this point the NHS becomes very un-free and expensive.
In our case employing the services of a highly skilled and respected advocate appears to have been no deterrent in in preventing the Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer from arriving at his/her predetermined decision.
Q. Prof Waite, is it Livewell Southwest Ltd policy to keep the identity of their Desk Top Reviewers anonymous so as to facilitate their arrival at ludicrous decisions thus saving the NHS millions of pounds each year whilst at the same time effectively transferring the cost of care onto their victims?"
Q. Mr Clark, this strategy of handing NHS patients eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions regarding the cost of their care appears to be happening on an industrial scale. When is it going to end?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The RICS OS:Property and NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping Of Complaints.. (533)
To The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
(and those running La La Land)
For Clarity - Attempt 533.
533) The RICS OS{Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping of Complaints.
Dear Mr Clark,
At Livewell Southwest Ltd complaints are handled by the simple expedient of ignoring them whereas at the RICS' "chosen scheme" - Ombudsman Services:Property - things are far more sophisticated than that.
Q. Mr Clark, if the RICS' chosen scheme is, "entirely independent" why has it installed two of its placemen at the company?
In the Ombudsman Services:Property 2015 Property sector Report (April-December) they tell us;
"complaints continue to largely involve missed defects by surveyors carrying out RICS survey products."
Strangely enough, our complaint concerning Monk and Partners was about a host of defects missed by their surveyor who promptly left the company shortly afterwards.
That was good for business but bad for the consumer.
If you look back over the years through their property reports you will see that, "surveys" and "valuations" have always topped the list of consumers' greatest cause of dissatisfaction with surveyors.
Staggering sums of money are involved.
All that seems to have changed in the time OS:Property have been supposedly, "investigating" complaints is that the figures have gone up and not down.
The RICS would appear to have effectively rigged the market in this particular sector.
They have provided their crap surveyors and their crap survey products with a platinum get out of jail free card. Its called The Ombudsman Services:Property Platinum Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free and is Good For Business.
Q. Mr Clark, clearly substandard surveys and valuations are an expensive problem for surveyors, is that why they send their dissatisfied clients to their chosen scheme - OS:Property - to be effectively resolved?
Q. Mr Clark, why has Ombudsman Services:Property been so ineffective in stemming this rising tide in substandard surveys and valuations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
(and those running La La Land)
For Clarity - Attempt 533.
533) The RICS OS{Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping of Complaints.
Dear Mr Clark,
At Livewell Southwest Ltd complaints are handled by the simple expedient of ignoring them whereas at the RICS' "chosen scheme" - Ombudsman Services:Property - things are far more sophisticated than that.
Q. Mr Clark, if the RICS' chosen scheme is, "entirely independent" why has it installed two of its placemen at the company?
In the Ombudsman Services:Property 2015 Property sector Report (April-December) they tell us;
"complaints continue to largely involve missed defects by surveyors carrying out RICS survey products."
Strangely enough, our complaint concerning Monk and Partners was about a host of defects missed by their surveyor who promptly left the company shortly afterwards.
That was good for business but bad for the consumer.
If you look back over the years through their property reports you will see that, "surveys" and "valuations" have always topped the list of consumers' greatest cause of dissatisfaction with surveyors.
Staggering sums of money are involved.
All that seems to have changed in the time OS:Property have been supposedly, "investigating" complaints is that the figures have gone up and not down.
The RICS would appear to have effectively rigged the market in this particular sector.
They have provided their crap surveyors and their crap survey products with a platinum get out of jail free card. Its called The Ombudsman Services:Property Platinum Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free and is Good For Business.
Q. Mr Clark, clearly substandard surveys and valuations are an expensive problem for surveyors, is that why they send their dissatisfied clients to their chosen scheme - OS:Property - to be effectively resolved?
Q. Mr Clark, why has Ombudsman Services:Property been so ineffective in stemming this rising tide in substandard surveys and valuations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)