618) Philip Hammond: We Really Do Need A Grown Up Debate About The RICS, Ombudsman Services:Property And NHS Funded Nursing Care.

To the Busienss, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,

    and

To the Chair, Ombudsman Services,

and To the CEO, Livewell Southwest Ltd.

   Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister:

   

    For Clarity - Attempt 618

    618) "We Really Do Need A Grown Up Debate Anout The RICS. Ombudsman Services:Property And            NHS Funded Nursing Care ."

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and Professor Waite,

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond is quite right, "We need a grown up debate."

    (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/03/exclusive-philip-hammonds-allies-insist-     not-bullied-boris) 

   

    It seems we also need a grown up debate about the culture of bullying that  emanates from government and         would appear to poison the RICS which would appear to be, "condoning practices that are untenable" (Jo             Stevens Labour Cardiff Central). W
 
    RICS, where, "The awfulness of the actions, and the terribleness of the experience that the individuals have         gone through - let us be clear; it is reflected by many other small businessmen and women up and down the         country - raise matters of huge concern." (Adrian Bailey West Bromwich Labour)

     

    So it isn't just property multi-millionaire Philip Hammond who is being bullied.

After, "seven years hard slog" we at the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believe we need to have, "a grown up debate" about the abject failure of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) to deliver on its duty to act to the benefit of the British public.

On how it micro-manages its, "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property to ensure the, "effective resolution of disputes."

On how individuals (un-named), "expressed some concern over the levels of award" and how those so-called "awards" plummeted from £1,511.76p in 2009 to 50 quid in 2016.

On how this is not a conflict of interest.

On how the people complaining - consumers - are no longer asked if they are satisfied with the outcome of their complaint.

And on how its Chair, you, Lord Tim Clement Jones, can be so partisan when blaming consumers for complaining when your best efforts are clearly not good enough.

And then there is, "the grown up debate" needed on how wealthcare professionals systematically get it wrong when billing their patients; the sick, the elderly, the dying and the dead for the full cost of their nursing care leaving them or in the case of the latter, their families to battle for years to regain what was rightfully their in the first place.

   Minus, that is, the 18% no-win no-fee bill and a VAT bill thrown in for good measure. If that's not bullying we're      not sure what is.

   Adrian Bailey's fine words would seem to apply to these victims too. Philip Hammond you are not alone.

Apart from the Labour Party, where are those grown up politicians and chief executives so that we can have these urgent grown up debates?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number - 501458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at - www.blogspot.com - the ombudsmans61% campaign.

618) The Need For A Grown Up Debate On The RICS, Its, "Appointed" Company - Ombudsman Services:Property And The NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary

and

To the Chair, Ombudsman Services,

and To the CEO, Livewell Southwest Ltd.

Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister

    For Clarity - Attempt 618.
    618) The Need For A Grown Up Debate On The RICS, Its, "Appointed" Company -               Ombudsman Services:Property Anf The NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and Professor Waite,

After, "seven years hard slog" we at the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believe we need to have, "a grown up debate" about the abject failure of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) to deliver on its duty to act to the benefit of the British public.

On how it micro-manages its, "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property to ensure the, "effective resolution of disputes."

On how individuals (un-named), "expressed some concern over the levels of award" and how those so-called "awards" plummeted from £1,511.76p in 2009 to 50 quid in 2016.

On how this is not a conflict of interest.

On how the people complaining - consumers - are no longer asked if they are satisfied with the outcome of their complaint.

And on how its Chair, you Lord Tim Clement Jones, can be so partisan when blaming consumers for complaining when your best efforts are clearly not good enough.

And then there is, "the grown up debate" need on how wealthcare professionals systematically get it wrong when billing their patients; the sick, the elderly, the dying and the dead for the full cost of their nursing care.

Where are those grown up politicians and chief executives so that we can have these urgent grown up debates?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at - www.blogspot.com - the ombudsmans61% campaign.

617) "Fairness" and Ombudsman Services:Property

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary

and

To the Chair, Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 617.

617) "Fairness" and Ombudsman Services:Property.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

From 2009 -2011 DJS Research reported that most property complainants thought the Ombudsman found in favour of her Members and not them.

A majority of property complainants submitted additional material but it not - in most cases - alter the outcome. The Ombudsman still found in favour of her fee-paying Members.

The research concluded that the scheme was not perceived to be an impartial arbitrator of disputes.

Q 5: Lord Tim Clement Jones, how can this in any way be described as being, "fair?"

Since DJS Research's departure this information is no longer gathered. As it isn't being gathered there's nothing to report and so we no longer know if property complainants believe that the Ombudsman is impartial - or not.

Q. Mr Clark, do you assure complainants that when they take their complex and costly property complaints to Ombudsman Services:Property that each and every one will be forensically examined by a fair and independent Ombudsman?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent is at: www.blogspot.com The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. 

616) From RICS to RIGS and From Healthcare Professionals to Wealthcare Professionals.

To Charles Moore Telegraph.

To The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,

To The Health Secretary,

To The CEO, Livewell Southwest Ltd.

And to The Chair, Ombudsman Services.

Dear Mr Moore, Mr Clark, Mr Hunt, Prof Waite and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

We have been criticised for not including items from papers other than the Guardian. So, in the interests of balance, here goes: Charles Moore - Telegraph;

Charles Moore, we see you happen to be wearing a tie too - no doubt as ambitious as Jeremy Corbyn and no doubt after the editor's job.

Shouldn't you really be writing about far something important?

Perhaps about light-touch regulators who claim to regulate but who for whatever reasons best known to themselves, don't.

Business, with its cosy, some might say corrupt, relationship with its regulators has found a world-class way of passing the costs of its inefficiencies and incompetence onto the consumer. We believe the RICS' "appointed" redress scheme, Ombudsman Services:Property being just one example.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, unknown individuals, "expressed some concern" over the levels of awards and they went from £1.511.76 in 2009 to 50 quid in 2016. Isn't that a direct interference in the independence of the ombudsman and isn't it corrupt?

Another is the House of Commons debate into the regulatory role of the RICS in the Law Property Act (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors: Property Act Receiverships.(especially column 293)

Q. Mr Clark, RICS have a duty to act in the public interest, so why don't they?

Why are such men and women tolerated surely their careers are the ones

that should be coming to an ignominious end?

Or tax-avoiding proprietors of British newspapers who love this country so much that they live non-domiciled lives. Prepared to pay their journalists to propagandise on their absent behalf but not prepared to pay their taxes like the rest of us.

Q. Mr Moore, wouldn't the Barclay Brother's tax arrangements and control of a once respected British newspaper make for a better story than whether Jeremy Corbyn wears a tie or not?

Why do you tolerate that, Mr Moore, and shouldn't these underhanded practices - tax avoidance - billionaires' patronage of journalism - not also come to an ignominious end too?

Or anonymous healthcare professionals who now seem to have become

extremely anonymous wealthcare professionals. Hugh Jones have so far recovered over £100M in mischarged care fees for their clients.

Why are wealthcare professionals getting it wrong on such an industrial scale? The don't err on the side of those to whom they owe a duty of care? Why is this?

The practices they engage in - which clearly do not work in their customer's interests - seem to be subject to no regulation whatsoever.

Q. Professor Waite, is it not the case that because anonymous wealthcare workers at Livewell Southwest Ltd are not subject to any meaningful regulation they are thus able to freely phone people and tell them nonsense, hand them one-sentence Desk Top Reviews and enormous bills for the full - less two weeks - cost of their nursing care?

Why do we tolerate them? Shouldn't their careers not also come to an ignominious end?

Loosen that tie Mr Moore. In fact why not take it off?

Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com

615) RICS is failing to deliver an acceptable level of regulation.

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary

and 

To the Chair, Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 615.

615) RICS is failing to deliver an acceptable level of regulation.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

In Column 297 second paragraph, Jo Stevens, Labour MP for Cardiff Central eloquently sums up what we've been saying since 2010 - that the RICS has completely failed in its duty to work to benefit the public interest.

Jo Stevens states,

"Having attempted since late 2015 to get Lloyds, Alder King and RICS to meet with me and my constituent to address the issues I raised in my debate in September 2015, I have come to the conclusion that RICS is failing to deliver an acceptable level of regulation. Worse than that, it is doggedly maintaining in its public pronouncements that it is subscribing to the highest possible principles and standards, whereas in reality it is condoning practices that are untenable and universally condemned by other professional bodies. Whatever the reasons for its actions, be they the extent of the practices, the importance of the members concerned, compensation considerations or others, RICS is completely undermining a principle basis for its existence, namely the maintenance of public confidence in a professional body ....regulation has failed in the one area where it was most needed."

This powerful statement raises matters of huge significance: the role of Royal Charters, the need for robust regulation, corruption, collusion, governance, transparency and accountability all of which have been forced into the public arena due to the Grenfell Tower atrocity.

But also by the efforts of Labour politicians.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, although RICS is failing to deliver an acceptable level of regulation it still monitors its appointed company - Ombudsman Services:Property - to ensure, "the effective resolution of disputes." Is this not a direct conflict of interests?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, do you consider slashing financial awards - compensation considerations - from £1.511.76p in 2009 to just 50 quid in 2016 to be the effective resolution of a dispute?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, this is indeed very effective for your RICS members whose fees pay for the service but what about their victims - their clients?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does this not go a long way in explaining why a number of complainants are so dissatisfied with your, "best efforts?"

A relationship whereby a regulator - RICS - monitors the way its ombudsman "resolves" disputes is untenable.

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with this private redress scheme - do you assure consumers that when they take their complex and costly property disputes to this government approves and monitored scheme, that each and every one of them will be forensically examined by a fair and independent ombudsman?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign

614 The NHS' Extortion Racket.

To the Health Secretary

For Clarity - Attempt 614.

614) The NHS' Extortion Racket

Dear Mr Hunt,

Mr Gibson's story almost had an happy ending.

He was able to reclaim £226.559 in care fees for his father, however,

"as he used Hugh James on a no-win no-fee basis, the law firm took 18pc of the money, plus VAT."

Hugh James have reclaimed over £100M for their clients - money that should never have been taken in the first place.

This extortion racket is inhumane, degrading and barbaric. It was devised by the Tory Party.

I was phoned at home to be told that my father was not entitled to a full DST Assessment when I knew he was.

I made Data Protection Act requests to both Plymouth Adult Social Services and NHS Livewell Southwest but I still do not know the name of the Healthcare Professional who gave me that misleading - incorrect - information.

Q. How many other Plymothians are phoned at home and fed this nonsense?

When my father died he was subjected to the ultimate indignity - a Desk Top Review - which was conducted by an Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer. His whole medical history was reduced to just one nonsensical sentence.

I have asked the CEO of Livewell Southwest, Prof Waite, for the name of his Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer and a full explanation for his/her decision.

I am still waiting.

That people should need pay 18% plus VAT to get back what should never have taken from them in the first place is disgraceful. This is fraud on an industrial scale.

Hugh James are just one law firm specialising in this sort of work.

Each day anonymous healthcare professionals will go to work phone their clients or clients' families to tell them nonsense, hand them illogical decisions and enormous bills for their nursing care fees.

And still Theresa May talks about being fair and straight with the people.

Q. Mr Hunt, how can Mrs May claim to be fair and straight with the people when anonymous healthcare professionals are handing their clients ludicrous decisions and enormous bills for their nursing care fees - does she not know what is going on her watch?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at www.blogspot and Facebook - Stepehen Gilbert, Plymouth The Ombudsmans61%Campaign.

613) "Close Scrutiny."

   To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary

And

To the Chair, Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 614.

Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister:

613)  "Close Scrutiny."

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

When he was Business Secretary we sent Sajid Javid over 80, "urgent nudge emails" asking him to step up and take urgent action over the complete failure of regulation of surveyors by the RICS and the ludicrous decisions being handed property complainants by their "appointed" company's Ombudsman.

It was a difficult decision and he didn't hesitate to avoid it.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones why is there no longer a rigorous, independent and close scrutiny of Ombudsman Services:Property's performance in handling complex and costly property disputes?

We didn't get a response even though we had been asked by the department to, "be more specific" regarding our complaint.

613 emails is - in our opinion - being pretty specific.

If it had been a school that been failing there'd have been a stampede of inspectors, Daily Mail journalists and experts of every shape and size queuing up to place the organisation into, "special measures" and to take over the day to day running.

Not so with Kensington and Chelsea council.

Not so with the RICS and its failure to adequately regulate its Members and

(Un)Regulated Firms.

 

   Not so with Ombudsman Services:Property and its illogical Final Decisions and

occasional 50 quid hand-outs.

Sajid Javid talks about, "close scrutiny" but where is the close scrutiny of RICS

and its encouragement of surveyors to, "develop practices that do not work in the customer's inetersts?

Where is the close scruting of the RICS' Property Ombudsman and all those illogical Final Decisions?

 

 

Sadiq Khan is right when he says Kensington and Chelsea council are, "tainted,"

Isn't the BIS/Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy not also, "tainted?"

Isn't the RICS, "tainted?"

Isn't the RICS' Property Ombudsman not also , "tainted?"

Andrew Gywnne is also right when he says, "...there is clearly a corporate governance failure at Kensington and Chelsea council"

Isn't there not also a corporate governance failure at the RICS and its "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property?

Q. Mr Clark, why haven't commissioners been sent in to sort out the regulatory failings at the RICS and its, "appointed" company, Ombudsman Services;Property?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number- 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogspot and Facebook - Stephen Gilbert, Plymouth - The Ombudsmans 61% Campaign.