Ombudsman Services / Livewell Southwest Ltd / The Ombudsman Association / The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and Parliament - All Need Exemplary Whistleblowing Policies. (691)

To: The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd. / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman / Chair of The Ombudsman Association / The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and Parliament

For Clarity - Attempt 691.

691. Ombudsman Services / Livewell Southwest Ltd / The Ombudsman Association / The NHS / The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and Parliament - All Need Exemplary Whistleblowing Policies.

Dear Mr Clark, Professor Waite, Lord Tim Clement Jones, The Rev Shand Smith, Mr Hunt and Dame Julie Mellor,

A modern and soon to be post-Brexit British democracy should have accountable and transparent organisations. Yet the above organisations either: 

a) Do not have a Whistleblowing Policy or,

b) If they do have a Whistleblowing Policy it isn't Exemplary.

NHS Whistleblowers can suffer vicious and totally unacceptable discrimination.

Q. Mr Clark, Professor Waite, Lord Tim Clement Jones, The Rev Shand Smith, Mr Hunt and Dame Julie Mellor why don't you ensure that the people for whom you owe a duty of care have the Human Right to freedom of expression and the full protection of an Exemplary Whistleblowing Policy?

Please sign the EU Whistleblower Protection Petition if you haven't already. It is at: www.whistleblowerprotection.eu.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and ww.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services. The OFT. Consumer Focus: "See No Evil. Hear No Evil. Speak No Evil. (690)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chair of Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 690.

690. Ombudsman Services. The OFT. Consumer Focus: "See No Evil. Hear No Evil. Speak No Evil."

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith.

On the 16/05/2013 Jeanette Harvey told us,

"Surveyors and The SOS have not been an active area of work for Consumer Focus."

And,

"I believe the meeting between Lord Whitty and SOS was part of a general engagement programme with other consumer or consumer service organisations rather than as part of our active advocacy programme.

Our focus on the property market has been confined to energy efficiency measures in homes and not on issues associated with the SOS."

Surveyors and SOS (the Surveyors Ombudsman Service now re-branded as Ombudsman Services:Property) do not interest Consumer Focus.

Q. Mr Clark, Consumer Focus was funded by the BIS. The SOS Minutes state, "AP1. The Chief Ombudsman and the Chair had met with Lord Whitty, Chair of Consumer Focus. Consumer Focus is aware of the effect that increased numbers of complaints is having on the service. Consumer Focus will be looking more closely at the communications industry and some parts of the property industry in the coming year." Why were we told that surveyors and the SOS had not been an active area of work for Consumer Focus?

Q. Mr Clark, if Consumer Focus had no interest in surveyors or the SOS it would mean that The RICS is left totally free to not only regulate its surveyors but also to regulate the decisions made by its Property Ombudsman. Is this not a most obvious conflict of interest and does it not fundamentally undermine the supposed independence of the Ombudsman?

On the 04/06/2013 Susannah Hughes wrote,

'"Jonathan May has had sight of your email but you raise issues about which he has no responsibility or knowledge. I know that you have also previously written to and had a response from the Consumer Futures Chief Executive, Mike O'Connor. The issues you raise are issues which neither Mr May nor Consumer Futures are involved with.

Mr May left the OFT in 2010 having had the most minimal involvement with the codes work while he was there."

In short; Mr May approved a redress consumer and told consumers that,

"there will be access to free, easily accessible speedy redress schemes that will ensure fairness and transparency." Bu,t apparently, knew virtually nothing about the criteria upon which he had made his approval.

However, the consumer was told that it would ensure,"fairness" and "transparency."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, your redress scheme is required to ensure fairness and transparency. Why then did you allow the Property Ombudsman to arrive at decisions in an illogical manner and why did you remove the Minutes from the company's website?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, your redress scheme has a Property Ombudsman who is member of the RICS and yet he freely investigates complaints about his colleagues brought by their clients. This in in contravention of your Terms of Reference which were approved by the OFT. How does this arrangement ensure, "fairness" and transparency?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, this cosy relationship has seen financial awards plummet from an average of £1.511.75 to 50 quid. Does this not go some way in explaining why some complainants - you don't say many - are so very dissatisfied with what you say are your, "best efforts?"

Q. Mr Clark, why did the Executive Director of the OFT approve the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme when he had had only the, "most minimal involvement" with the most important part of it?

This dysfunctional (rigged) market in private so-called redress and so-called civil justice, walks like a cover-up for expensively poor service and talks like a cover-up for expensively poor service. It is indeed an exemplary model. A blueprint for private justice in post-Brexit Britain

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services:Property And The Role Of The OFT Monitors. (688)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 688.

688. Ombudsman Services:Property And The Role Of The OFT's Monitors.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

At the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign we wonder was the OFT re-branded in order to cover-up its non-existent, "monitoring" of the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme? A scheme which had been approved by Jonathan May in such glowing terms.

RE: My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) - A Cover-Up.

Date Monday 8th April 2013. (continued)

"Dear Mr Gurowich,

Alarmingly, you say,

'On the basis of the enquiries made by staff in this office, I am satisfied that the OFT is properly carrying out that monitoring role in relation to the OS:P.'

- "Monitoring" by the OFT that even fails to correctly identify who, exactly, the CEO of this company is. Not Dame Janet Finch as you say, but The Rev Shand Smith.

- "Monitoring" by the OFT that, year after year, is content to see estate agents and surveyors send their dissatisfied customers to a company whose Ombudsman arrives at decisions, "in an illogical manner."

- "Monitoring" by the OFT that is satisfied that it is in the consumer's interests for the company; to remove its Minutes from its website, replace DJS Research with a research company that has so far failed to publish research on OS:P's performance for 2012, have RICS representatives sitting on its Board, that has a Memorandum of Understanding with the organisation that set it up in the first place - The RICS - and is happy for The RICS to regulate the company that it set up to investigate complaints made by consumers against its Members or Regulated Firms." 

We didn't get a reply to that either.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, the OFT monitors mistakenly believed that the new research company was asking the same questions as those asked by DJS Research. This is of course not the case. Why wasn't this mistake rectified?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, the Minutes have been removed from your company's website, there is no data published on OS:P's performance in investigating property complaints, RICS representatives sit on your company's Board, The RICS monitor your performance in resolving property complaints, in effect The RICS regulate all you do. Is that not one of the most obvious conflicts of interest this century and how on earth can they be satisfied with an Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, who, "arrives at decisions in an illogical manner?"

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, you have said that all of the above is, "an exemplary model of redress." How does having an Ombudsman arrive at decisions in an illogical manner qualify as being, "exemplary?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, doesn't the above go quite some way in explaining why some complainants - you don't say how many, are less than satisfied with what you describe as your, "best efforts?"

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services. How does any of the above meet the EU/11/2013 Directive's requirements for; trust, independence, transparency and accountability?

This is where cosy capitalism meets rigged redress. It is undoubtedly Good For Business but Bad For Consumers. And for British justice and democracy.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services: "A" Is For Approval. (687)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief ombudsman, Ombudsman Services and Chair of The Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 687.

687. Ombudsman Services: "A" Is For Approval.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

Approval:

"The belief that someone or something is good or acceptable."

Synonyms; approbation, appreciation, favour, liking encouragement, support, acceptance.

"Proposals for the licensing system will now go forward to the ministry for approval."

(www.oxforddictionaries.co.uk)

The OFT's, "approval" of the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme, on behalf of the taxpayer, was expected to do something, "good." Taxpayers were led to believe that the scheme would ensure; a speedy, fair and independent investigation of their complaint. They were told by Jonathan May, OFT Executive Director, that they could trust it. It was being monitored by good people.

What could possibly go wrong?

RE: My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) - A Cover-Up.

Date Monday 8th April 2013: (continued)

"Dear Mr Gurowich,

You say,

'In relation to your request for a public inquiry, as you have already been advised, the OFT's powers under the EAA in relation to such schemes are limited to approval and (where appropriate) withdrawal of approval.'

- The verb, "scheme" seems to be the appropriate one to use in this context.

- Each year DJS Research made OFT, "monitors" aware of the fact that hundreds of consumers were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their treatment at the hands of the SOS (now rebranded OS:P) and yet they failed to withdraw their approval of the scheme. Hasn't the taxpayer a right to know why this approval wasn't withdrawn?"

We didn't get a reply.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, you have stated  that your decisions are your product. When a majority of property complainants have repeatedly told researchers that your product was faulty, shouldn't you have alerted the OFT monitors to this fact so that they could then have withdrawn their approval of your faulty scheme thus protecting the taxpayer and consumer?

Q. Mr Clark, what is the government's industrial strategy behind its continued approval of a private redress scheme that consistently fails property complainants?

Next:

"Similarly, the OFT does not have the power to re-open or review the individual decisions made under the state agency redress schemes it has approved."

- We have never asked the OFT to re-open or review the eye-wateringly ludicrous, "investigation" of our case - 510458 - because the company's quaintly named, "Independent Assessor" has already pointed that out to us. The Ombudsman's Final Decision - no matter how eye-wateringly ludicrous - is (at the same time as being eye-wateringly ludicrous) free from bias and can only be overturned by judicial review.

- This is why we are campaigning for an inquiry into the workings of OS:P and the role of The RICS in the company's management of complaints made against its Members and Regulated Firms. And for a review of ALL our cases.

We didn't get a reply to that either.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, how is it conceivably possible that when so many property complainants are dissatisfied with your Lead Property Ombudsman's decisions, your Independent Assessor can find NO instances of bias on the part of the Ombudsman?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, is this not in itself eye-wateringly ludicrous and an example of the institutionalised pro-business bias inherent in your OFT approved scheme?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does this not go quite some considerable way in explaining why some complainants - you don't say how many - are so very dissatisfied with what you like to call your, "best efforts?"

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign cannot see where the, "good" is in any of this, unless of course by, "good" you mean Good For Business.

This, to us, is much more like, "a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse monitoring scheme" and is Very Good For Business but Very Bad For Consumers.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. 

Ombudsman Services and the OFT - "R" Is For Reasonable. (686)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 686.

686. Ombudsman Services and the OFT - "R" Is For Reasonable.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

Reasonable:

- Having sound judgement; fair and sensible

'no reasonable person could have objected.'

- Based on good sense.

'It seemed a reasonable enough request.'

(www.oxforddictionaries.com)

Having been assured by the OFT's Executive Director, Jonathan May that the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme would ensure consumers a; "fair," "speedy" and "independent" investigation of their complaint we thought it only reasonable to ask them why this wasn't happening.

Independent research carried out by DJS found that property investigations conducted by Gillian Fleming were not; fair or speedy and the consensus of opinion was that she wasn't impartial in her decision making. She was not independent.

RE: My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OSP - A Cover-Up. Date Monday 8th April 2013. (continued from Attempt 685)

Dear Mr Gurowich,

Next you say,

'I consider that it was reasonable for the OFT to take this approach, having regard to its duty to use resources properly and its Published Priorities Principles.'

- Is what you're saying, that: having decided that the SOS scheme (rebranded as OS:P) satisfactorily meets the OFT's criteria the OFT's monitors are happy when DJS Research report high levels of consumer dissatisfaction with the accuracy of reports' contents, with their fairness, with the time it takes to arrive at illogical decisions and the fact that the Ombudsman's decisions are indeed - illogical?

- How is this approach taken by the OFT monitors, "reasonable" in the light of so much consumer dissatisfaction?

Mr Gurowich didn't answer the question. We believe that to be unreasonable.

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services who advised you on the EU Directive on ADR. Do you consider it reasonable for a civil servant not to answer a member of the public's enquiry?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, as CEO and Chief Ombudsman why did you permit your Ombudsman to go on handing out decisions that weren't arrived at in a logical manner when this was brought to your attention by DJS Research?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, as a Liberal Democrat Member of the House of Lords why haven't you taken firm and decisive action to ensure that all those victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical decisions have their cases independently reviewed and are compensated for the pain and misery this has caused them?

Where is the justice hiding - why weren't DJS Research's findings acted upon by both the OFT monitors and Ombudsman Services executives?

We're being told here that the OFT didn't reply to our questions because we asked them far too many and that they were just too difficult to answer.

The OFT considered this approach to be, "reasonable." We believe fair minded people wouldn't.

This was after having our complaint passed backwards and forwards between government departments and then not being told of this because it wasn't government policy to inform taxpayers that they were having their urine extracted without their knowledge.

Q, Mr Clark, Francis Maude said the Coalition Government was going to revolutionise transparency. That it would be at the heart of all you did. Where is the transparency in OFT monitors refusing to answer our questions on the grounds that to do so would not be a good use of taxpayers' money?

 Q. Mr Clark, weren't the OFT monitors actually fast asleep on the job and when we woke them up didn't they attempt to cover-up the fact that they had allowed property complainants to take their grievances to an Ombudsman who for some inexplicable reason persistently arrived at her decisions in an illogical manner?

We suppose that if Robert Mugabe can be made a Goodwill Ambassador by the WHO then anything is indeed possible. Someone in government might even acknowledge our complaint about Ombudsman Services:Property. That would be fair and sensible and demonstrate sound judgement.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services - "M" is for Malfeasance. (685)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of OmbudsmanServices / CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services and Chair of The Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 685.

685. Ombudsman Services - "M" is for Malfeasance.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,,

When talking about US cops John Steinbeck said, "a long and picturesque list of malfeasances is not designed to reassure."

(Travels With Charley - John Steinbeck)

Having looked up the word, "malfeasance" we believe it could quite readily be applied to the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services and their moribund monitors.

My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) - A Cover-Up.

Date Monday 8th April 2013: (Continued)

"Dear Mr Gurowich,

You continue,

'You have asked the OFT to reopen and/or review the decisions made by OS:P' 

- We asked the OFT "monitors" a number questions as to how it was conceivably possible that the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (SOS - now rebranded as OS:P) redress scheme continued to meet Jonathan May's assurances to the consumer that it was; "speedy," "fair" and "transparent" in light of the alarming data collected by DJS Research.

- This is a company that has removed its Minutes from its website. How does this satisfy the OTF's requirement to be, "transparent?"

We didn't get a reply.

When we phoned Ombudsman Services to ask about their website we were lucky to spak to a very helpful employee who redirected us to another site and helpfully suggested that we might care to, "look at the Minutes if you really want to know what's going on here." So we did.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, were the Minutes removed because they really did inform the consumer as to what was eally going on at Ombudsman Services?

In 2013 the European Directive EU/11/2013 (www.eu-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT) came into force. It spoke of the need for Trust. That those, "in charge of ADR should be independent of all those who might have an interest in the outcome and should have no conflict of interest which could impede him or it from reaching a decision in a fair, impartial and independent manner."

No interest in the outcome?

The Minutes for the 15 Dec 2009 5.8 state: "The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the apparent increase in the levels of recent awards."

The Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, lowered awards, "significantly" They've since gone from £1.511.75p to 50 quid.

Q. Rev Shand Smith is that not a direct interference in the independence of the Ombudsman?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, why weren't awards raised as was suggested by DJS Research?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, doesn't this suggest that Member Companies and not consumers dictate what is considered to be, "fair" and "proportionate" at your Members' Club For The Riggers of Redress?

This is the opposite of what the EU Directive proposed.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, as Chair of Ombudsman Services why haven't you put  ALL the minutes - from year one to the present day - on the company's website and thus complied with the EU Directive's requirement for transparency?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does this present and unsatisfactory state of affairs not go some way to explain why some complainants - you don't say how many - are so very dissatisfied with what you describe to be your, "best efforts?"

Pre-Brexit and Member Companies would appear to have, "taken back control" of Alternative Dispute Redress right more or less from the start - 15 Dec 2009. It began in 2008. For property complainants on the other hand, its been a downhill customer journey ever since.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, can you possibly get those financial awards even lower for you Member Firms?

Nigel Farage and his friends in certain sections of the press have promised us that we'll take back control.

Q. Mr Clark, from the vanished minutes of Ombudsman Services it's abundantly clear that consumers never had any control whatsoever in the first place. It was seized by those expressing, "some concern" and rigged from the off.  When are you going to step up, confront those vested interests and right some very serious wrongs?

In his customer journey around the American landscape, John Steinbeck went on to say, "There's absolutely nothing to take the place of a good man." (or woman) He was so right. We've met very few on ours so far.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent

Ombudsman Services:Property - M Is For Monitor. (684)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Ombudsman Services and Chair of The Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 684.

684. Ombudsman Services:Property - M Is For Monitor.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

The Prime Minister tells us that she is now in full-listening-mode.

She told also us she was going to stand up, challenge vested interests and right wrongs.

This is a marked contrast to her government monitors of the government approved Ombudsman Services:Property alternative dispute redress scheme. Here, "monitoring" would appear to involve a lower-ranking civil servant occasionally picking up the phone to ask a contract cleaner at Ombudsman Services's Warrington Office if anything is being swept under the carpet and being huffily told, "Of course not - that's more than my job's worth."

We wrote to the OFT: RE My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OSP) - A Cover-Up. Monday 8th April.

"Dear Mr Gurowich,

You say,

'You have engaged in detailed correspondence with the OFT since that date.'(17th June 2011) Too true I have. If we'd been given straight answers to our straight questions we wouldn't have had to (engaged in detailed correspondence) would we?

- Our complaint: that in the company's literature the promise to investigate complaints, 'fairly' and, 'independently' was a form of mis-selling resulted in the OFT suggesting we take our complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Is this not a crass form of passing the buck?

Especially, when the Executive Director of the OFT, Jonathan May, had assured consumers that,

'The Surveyors Ombudsman Services (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) has successfully met the criteria applied by the OFT. Buying and selling a home is a significant complex transaction so it is good news that from October there will be access to free, easily accessible and speedy redress schemes that will ensure fairness and transparency.'

- We ask you again, why are the OFT, 'monitors' satisfied that this company is meeting OFT Criteria when a majority of consumers report high levels of dissatisfaction with the accuracy, fairness and logic of the Ombudsman's investigation of their complaints.

In light of all of this aren't Jonathan May's assurances to the consumer no longer credible?"

We didn't get a reply.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when we complained to Ombudsman Services about the Property Ombudsman we sent our complaint to the Chair, she passed it to you and you passed it to the Property Ombudsman who said she'd already answered our complaint. Is this not also a crass form of passing the buck?Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, the Executive Director of the OFT, Jonathan May, when approving this redress scheme said it would ensure, "fairness" and "transparency." Why do  you no longer ask property complainants if they think their complaint was handled, "fairly?" Where is the transparency?

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services and was advised by them on the EU Directive (EU/11/2013). How does maladministrating consumers' complaints and investigations involving high levels of consumer dissatisfaction with their accuracy, fairness and logic satisfy the EU Directives' requirements - aren't the executives' claims to the contrary no longer credible?

It would seem that taxpayers are footing the bill for civil servants to clean-up Ombudsman Services:Property's mess by sweeping it under a very big carpet.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.