Liz Truss and the Sn, The Daily Mail and the Telegraph - Enemies of Democracy. (547)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 547.

547) Liz Truss and The Sun, The Express, The Daily Mail and The Telegraph - Enemies of Democracy.

Dear Mr Clark,

The unelected Prime Minister, Mrs May, and her cabinet, have now been put on notice by unelected tax-avoiding press barons.:Do not step out of line.

As the rightwing press take a giant goosestep towards fascism it would appear that the Justice Minister has deserted her post and gone AWOL.

Some have suggested that she's hiding in Rupert Murdoch's pocket whilst others believe that she's waiting for further instructions from Lord Rothermere as to what to think and do next. Either way her vanishing act isn't good for our fragile democracy or for people seeking justice. They're going to have to work an awful lot harder to find it now that politically motivated press barons are accusing judges of being politically motivated. 

Clearly, the press now need to be regulated as self-regulation has proven once again, to be a total disaster (very much like the RICS and its creature Ombudsman Services:Property) Certain editors are now obviously totally out of control and running amok.

They have nothing but contempt for our democracy.

Rigged/captured market capitalism, corporatism, less and less transparency and accountability, more an more rightwing demagogues has pushed the centre ground even further to the right and is undermining democracy and justice.

It's become; government of the rigged market capitalists, by the rigged market capitalists and for the rigged market capitalists. .

What could be more rigged than a press that insists upon regulating itself, whose owners avoid paying taxes and yet who can't prevent themselves from telling many of those unaccustomed to thinking for themselves, just what to think?

Q. Mr Clark, when is the Justice Minister going to step up and challenge the vested interests of tax avoiding press barons and right the wrong of those powerful and largely unaccountable individuals who threaten the judiciary and our democracy?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

"Amber Rudd was right to leave Orgreve in the past." Simon Jenkins. (546)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 546.

546) "Amber Rudd was right to leave Orgreave in the past." Simon Jenkins.
(Guardian 02/11/2016)

Dear Mr Clark,

Amber Rudd was wrong to leave Orgreave in the past but from his unpleasant little article we now know that Simon Jenkins is an Orgreave Denier and now takes his place alongside the likes of Mrs Rudd, the Chingford Skinhead and Lord Tarzan which is exalted company indeed.

Wielding his history airbrush like a South Yorkshire copper's truncheon, he set about Mr Burnham for having the courage and temerity to seek to take on The Establishment in what is now post-Brexit Britain. Isn't this what 17 million voted for? To take back control and show their growing anger and dissatisfaction with a remote, indifferent and self-serving Establishment? An Establishment that works assiduously to cover-up its crimes and misdemeanours?

Simon Jenkins' assault on Mr Burnham began with a snide put-down that;
"Those who can't rule today try to rule yesterday."
Calling for a public inquiry into the events surrounding the Battle of Orgreave is not trying to rule yesterday. It's simply calling for a light to be shone on not just the South Yorkshire police but also on the politicians at Westminster who were orchestrating those appalling events.

An ombudsman handing a complainant an illogical final decision is an appalling event.

A healthcare worker handing a patient an unexplained decision is also an appalling event.

Who will shine a light on these latest on-going scandals? Not Simon Jenkins that's for sure.

His support for the Home Secretar's cover-up continued with;
"This week's demand by Labour's Andy Burnham for a show trial of police tactics at the battle of Orgreave 32 years ago was a piece of pure politics."
Asking for a public inquiry in Simon Jenkins' less than objective apology for the illegalities of 1984, becomes a demand for a show trial. Wrong again Mr Jenkins. Public inquiries are not show trials. Don't confuse the two. However, by clumsily seeking to establish this fictitious link, he has sought to undermine the key role of public inquiries in attempting to hold the unaccountable to account. A thought that clearly terrifies him.

But if there is any purity in politics, asking for a public inquiry into events surrounding Orgreave 32 years ago, is - we believe - approaching it.

We're asking for a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property, not demanding it. We suspect that Orgreave Deniers like Simon Jenkins are by some extraordinary coincidence also Illogical Final Decision Deniers too.

His next swipe was to say;
"We know what happened at Orgreave."
Wrong again. We don't know what happened behind the scenes at Orgreave and if Orgreave Deniers like Mr Jenkins continue to have their way, we never will. Which serves to illustrate just how urgent such an inquiry is and how right Andy Burnham was in calling for one.

Thanks to DJS Research we have some knowledge of what happened - and is happening - at Ombudsman Services:Property but (as Simon Jenkins brought the matter up) isn't it strange that no junior minister at the BIS (or senior one for that matter) has sought to speak out about it. It's an Orgreave in the making. There would appear to be an awful lot of Illogical Final Decision Deniers out there busily working to undermine our fragile democracy whilst at the same time further entrenching rigged market capitalism and the interests of those tax avoiders who benefit from it.

Why don't you write about that Simon Jenkins?

Next;
"The police reaction to the miners' union picketing was excessive. But this fact has been examined, fought over and iconised for decades."
Yes, the police reaction was excessive and so were their rigged statements and perjury. Those facts haven't been examined by Orgreave Deniers like Mr Jenkins with his misrepresentations and thinly disguised contempt for the campaigners but they serve to show how concerned the Establishment is to keep it unexamined.

Buried in the lowest level of the deepest closed mine.

In his piece there's no mention of his icon, Mrs Thatcher, or how she brought harmony to the nation at that troubled time.

The bludgeoning continues and Andy Burnham becomes reduced to, "Burnham." It's now time for Mr Jenkins to shoot the messenger;
"Why does Burnham suddenly want an inquiry into Orgreave ...."
Probably, Simon Jenkins, because he, like us, believes that transparency and accountability are an essential part of our democracy. You quite clearly don't.

And so it went on and on in a similar vein.

Perhaps an ex-miner could kindly donate his miner's lamp to Mr Jenkins - it might help bring some light to the pit he inhabits.

Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature, Ombudsman Services:Property and shed some light on their illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Ombudsman Services:Property - And The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (545)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 545.

545) "The Tory cover-up of The Battle of Orgreave will last for a thousand years..." Amber "Red Mist" Rudd.
(Statement to the Commons: Halloween 2016)

Dear Mr Clark,

It takes a truly appalling person to make truly appalling decisions and Amber "Red Mist" Rudd is just such a person. That she apparently, loses no sleep over them - or the miners who once struggled to save their jobs and communities - simply adds insult to injury

With unanswered questions hanging over her own past business arrangements, she was still The Unelected Prime Minister's choice as Home Secretary. However, her statement in the Commons yesterday effectively torpedoed The Unelected One's claim to be leading a government that is, "stepping up, righting wrongs and challenging vested interests."

They both fell ignominiously at the first hurdle. But if the truth be known neither should have been entered for the race in the first place. Two police horses masquerading as thoroughbreds.

Each time The Unelected One teeters into number 10 she will be coolly, calmly and clinically stilettoing  the backs of those miners so brutally attacked by Margaret Thatcher's Private Army. That the Chingford Skinhead could actually believe that the police, "behaved reasonably well" shows what a morass these appalling people inhabit.

Norman, the evidence strongly suggest that it wasn't the miners who were dressed in full riot gear, wielding batons and on charging horses who were attacking a throng of milling police wearing short sleeved tee-shirts. It was the other way around. But then why let the truth get in the way of a strongly held prejudice?

History has a new category of villain - The Orgreave Denier.

So, no truth, no reconciliation, no transparency, no accountability and no justice there.

It was the hour The Establishment took back control and told the rest of us to get on our bikes or climb into an Uber taxi.

What does The battle of Orgreave and Ombudsman Services:Property both have n common?

Decisions that are made behind the scenes, political influencing and engagement work of an unacceptable nature between politicians, civil servants and senior management - or collusion as it's better known, outcomes that are a disgrace in a country that still calls itself a democracy - or corruption as it's better known and all neatly tied up with a blue bow promising anonymity to the guilty.

To The Orgreave Denier we should now add - The Illogical Final Decision Denier.

Brexit means Brexit? Doesn't it really mean The Establishment is back firmly in control and once again it's open for cash, collusion, corruption and cover-ups - that it's dirty business as usual?

Capitalism and its so-called justice system have just been rigged a little more tightly by The Unchosen One and her Home secretary..

Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature - Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of the company's illogical Final Decisions and maladministration? 

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner (2). (543)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 543.

543) The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner (2)

Dear Mr Clark,

DJS Research alerted; RICS the regulator, the Ombudsman Services executives and the OFT monitors to the fact that the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."
(DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports 2009-2011)

For example, in our case (510458) the ombudsman completely ignored Monk and Partners' offer - which we had accepted - to carry out repairs to our home and the issue of why they did so in the first place. Surely, wasn't offering to repair our home not a tacit acknowledgement on their part that the original survey was sub-standard? Why offer to fix something if you didn't think it needed fixing?

Instead, the ombudsman chose to ignore this fact - that her fee-paying RICS surveyor had offered to fix something thereby acknowledging the survey was a dud - and focussed her attention on, "what could have been seen during a survey."

Yet on one of his re-inspections Mr Monk saw what should have been seen during the original survey, offered to carry out repairs and then didn't only for his ombudsman to come to the bewildering conclusion that she couldn't be sure, "what could have been seen during a survey."

But it's already been seen by her fee-paying Member!

In order to attempt to clarify this apparent confusion we asked for an independent re-survey only for this request to be refused by the ombudsman.

Q. Mr Clark, isn't the logic behind this simple and straightforward - the ombudsman was under pressure from RICS the regulator to resolve complaints effectively and in order to comply with this directive the ombudsman worked to save her fee-paying Member from having to pay for expensive repairs?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner (1). (542)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 542.

542) The Logic Behind Arriving At Decisions In An Illogical Manner. (1)

Dear Mr Clark,

The robust methodology employed by DJS Research in their Customer Satisfaction Reports for their client, Ombudsman Services, led to the startling revelation that the OS:Property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."
(DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report 2010)

On page 7 of the 2010 Annual Property Report: "Final Results" DJS state;
"Many (around 6 in 10) felt the report was completely or on balance against them, as in line with previous years. This did not change even after further representations were made. This is unlike other ombudsman services like Otelo or the Energy ombudsman where typically most feel the report finds in their favour."

Why is there this remarkable discrepancy between the Property ombudsman's decisions and those of the Otelo ombudsman's and the Energy ombudsman's?

Why are the latters' decisions logical and the former's illogical and why are the latter two able to find in favour of complainants but the former not?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believe its due to;
(a) Money and
(b) the regulator - the RICS' - Memorandum of Understanding and what RICS say the effective resolution of disputes must be - ie cheap for their Members.

DJS Research go on to say;
"The financial implications are often much larger (than for Otelo or Energy) as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. This should be looked at and either expectations couls be managed more tightly from the beginning of the claim or the scale of financial goodwill be increased to be more in line with the financial losses incurred by the complainant as a result of the problem."
(page 7 Annual Property Report 2010)

In effect, the financial implications of sub-standard surveys and the expensive purchasing decisions clients make based on them, are being passed - thanks to the ombudsman's amazing ability to arrive at decisions in an illogical manner - from the surveyor to the surveyor's client - the complainant.

That, for us, is the logic behind the illogicality of the Property ombudsman's decisions, otherwise logic dictates that they would be in line with those of her colleagues, but they aren't.

Q. Mr Clark, isn't this form of rigged redress corrupt and when are you going to step up and implement the Prime Minister's Plan to challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its creature - Ombudsman Services:Property?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

The Ombudsman Services:Property Approach To Information. (540)

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.

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.