Ombudsman Services:Property. Peter Bolton-King FRICS - "Transparency and Accountability." (679)

To the Leader of the House of Commons;

For Clarity - Attempt 679.

679. Ombudsman Services:Property. Peter Bolton-King FRICS - "Transparency and Regulation."

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

Peter Bolton-King FRICS Global Property Standards Director is on record as saying this about the lettings market,

1) "They are the ones drawing up the letting agreement but, again, it is all about transparency, as far as we are concerned....

2) The requirement to be transparent, as far as our members are concerned, is already there sir. We expect all our members to be totally transparent.....

3) The situation that we have at the moment is that the whole approach to regulation seems to me to be very inconsistent, fragmented and confusing for the consumer not to mention burdensome on business...we feel that we should have a holistic approach to the whole thing. This may or may not require landlords, in some shape or form, to be in some scheme."

4) First you have inconsistent regulation.

5) The second point, if I were talking to the Minister, is that we have poorly targeted regulations.

6) The third point I would make to the Minister is that we currently have ineffective and inconsistent enforcement of even the existing legislation. That is leaving a whole great load of unregulated agents to quite honestly flout the existing law and often with few consequences for doing so.

(www.publications.parlaiment.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcamloc/uc/953-iii/uc95301)

It most certainly is all about transparency or the lack of it.

Q1. Mrs Leadsom, it is all about transparency so why aren't property complainants who use The RICS, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property told that RICS surveyors' fees pay for the running of the redress scheme?

Q2. Mrs Leadsom, it is all about transparency so why aren't property complainants told that the Property Ombudsman is a member of RICS although the company's Terms of Reference state that such an arrangement is not permitted?

Q2 cont. Mrs Leadsom, the EU Directive - EU/11/2013 - states quite clearly that such an arrangement is a conflict of interest. Why is such an obvious conflict of interest permitted in England but not in the rest of Europe?

Q2 cont. Mrs Leadsom, why are European consumers better protected from rogue operators then is the case in England?

A holistic approach to regulation is long overdue

The RICS say, (or once said),

"We cannot award compensation or force Members or Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules and Regulations."

Q3. Mrs Leadsom, why has The RICS apparently removed the above statement from their website?

Q3 cont. Mrs Leadsom, where has The RICS' transparency that Peter Bolton-King was talking about, gone?

Q3 cont. Mrs Leadsom, why can't The RICS force its Members or Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules and regulations?

Q3 cont. Mrs Leadsom, how can this supine ineptitude be called, "regulation?"

Q4. Mrs Leadsom, what can be more inconsistent than RICS the regulator not enforcing its Rules and Regulations? 

    Q5. Mrs Leadsom, we're talking to the Minister - you - why have The RICS been     
   permitted to have such poorly targeted regulations?

Q6. Mrs Leadsom, hasn't The RICS' ineffective and inconsistent enforcement of its Rules and Regulations honestly led its Members and Regulated Firms to flout the Rules and regulations?

Q6 cont. Mrs Leadsom, hasn't this total failure of regulation led to an explosion of costly property disputes being transferred by its Members and Regulated Firms to its Ombudsman at its, "appointed" company who duly and dutifully lets them off the hook or slaps them on the wrist with a 50 quid fine?

We believe that this is Fake Regulation or more accurately, Rigged Regulation and that it has very successfully combined with Fake Redress or more accurately Rigged Redress to protect corrupt and inefficient businesses from the hugely burdensome cost of having to compensate their clients/victims in full.

We've put the coffee on - isn't it time you woke up and smelt it?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

698. Ombudsman Services: The Use And Abuse Of Power. (698)

To the Leader of the House of Commons.

For Clarity - Attempt 698.

698. Ombudsman Services: The Use And Abuse Of Power.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

When addressing the CBI today the Prime Minister stated,

"What we are talking about is the abuse of power."

She added that,

"it was not just the responsibility of political parties to take action, but Parliament as an institution."

(www.itv.com/news/2017-11-06/use-and-abuse-of-power)

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when we complained to the OFT monitors about the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's practice of arriving at decisions in an illogical manner our complaint was dismissed. Isn't an ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner not also an abuse of power?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why was no action taken?

The Prime Minister was very clear. She said,

"I want people working in Parliament to have the confidence that they can come forward and report misconduct that has taken place."

This is only right and proper. It should also be right and proper for those working outside of Parliament.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, all workers working for ombudsman schemes affiliated to The Ombudsman Association once had the protection of a Whistleblowing Policy until it was rescinded. Was that not an abuse of power?

The Prime Minister says she wants complainants to be taken seriously. She wants,

"both sides to have the confidence that those concerns will be properly investigated, will be fairly and properly investigated." 

The overwhelming majority of property complainants using this government approved and monitored Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme complained that their concerns were NOT fairly and properly investigated.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, was this not an abuse of power by those entrusted with the duty to investigate complaints, "fairly" and "independently?" 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why has no action been taken to compensate the victims of this scam?

The company's Independent Assessor in her, "First and Last Report" was shocked to see instances of maladministration in an ombudsman schemes.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't the maladministration of a consumer's complaint not an abuse of power? Why has no action been taken?

The Prime Minister concluded her statement by insisting that,

"Now is the time to act decisively to guarantee a safe and respectful working environment for everyone in the future."

This will come as little or no comfort for those already betrayed by a system that has been rigged by the abusers of power to protect their maladministration, their eyewateringly ludicrous decisions and their betrayal of the trust entrusted to them by - Parliament.

Otherwise things would be different and those complained about would be the ones complaining but they're not.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services:Property: "Ombudsgate" and "Fake Redress." The Cover-Up. (697)

To the Leader of the House of Commons.

For Clarity - Attempt 697.

697. Ombudsman Services:Property: "Ombudsgate" and "Fake Redress." The Cover-Up. (697)

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

The Telegraph tells us to,

"Remember, remember the 5th of November is about Parliamentary Sovereignty - and Brexit opportunity."
(www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/daniel-hannan)

Q. Mrs Leadsom, this would be an excellent opportunity for Parliamentary sovereignty, pre-Brexit, to remember, remember the countless victims of The RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property, Ombudsman. Someone who arrived at decisions in an illogical manner. Why has this government allowed this particular cover-up to go on for 7yrs?

The Telegraph's Edward Malnick and Patrick Sawer claim,

"Theresa May's chief of staff and new defence secretary 'sat on' claims over Westminster sleaze scandal."

If this indeed the case then it is indefensible and the new defence secretary should be fired and thus become the old defence secretary and one of the shortest serving ministers in British history. It would be right and fitting.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, if the Prime Minister's chief of staff and defence secretary "sat on" Westminister sleaze did they also "sit on" the abusive illogical decisions and Fake Redress emanating from The RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, as Lord President of the Council will you now be taking the same strong and steady action as you did over the former defence secretary and cut out the cancerous practice of The RICS's continued inability to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms?

This would be 7years overdue but in the public good. That too would be right and fitting.

We look forward to your prompt action and speedy response.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

The RICS / OS:Property Code of Conduct vs The Conservative Code of Conduct Drawn Up Amid Westminster Harassment Claims. (696)

696. The RICS / OS:Property Code of Conduct vs. The Conservative Code of Conduct Drawn Up Amid Westminster Harassment Claims.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

Peter Walker tells us that,

"Theresa May has unveiled a new code of conduct guaranteeing an independent voice in investigations of abuse and harassment."

(www.theguardian.co.uk/politics/now/03/conservatives draw-up-code-amid-Westminster-harassment-claims)

This is only fit and proper but why has it taken until November 2017 to put such a code in place has yet to be explained.

Abuse and harassment are defined as,

"any unwanted physical verbal or non-verbal conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating or hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive situation or environment for them."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman handed property complainants eyewateringly illogical final decisions this too was - according to your definition - a form of abuse. It was an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive form conduct that violated their dignity. Why has your government done absolutely nothing about it?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, seven years after the event your cabinet colleague forfeited his job for making lewd remarks. Yet an ombudsman (with the tacit approval of her executives, the RICS and government monitors) whose eyewateringly ludicrous decisions caused severe health issues and financial hardship for countless numbers of complainants, receives no censure, whatsoever. Can this be right?

Theresa May insists that,

"It cannot be right when dealing with serious issues relating to behaviour in parliament that vulnerable or concerned people are expected to navigate different grievance procedures according to political party.

Neither can it be right that such difficult issues themselves are dealt with on a party political basis or that no support should be provided for those with no political party or party affiliation."

The exact same standards must surely then apply when concerned and/or vulnerable people are left at the mercy of the Ombudsman Services' grievance procedure (is there even one) or that of the NHS.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, we complained about the Ombudsman Services:Property  Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, to the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch, she passed our complaint to the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services, The Rev Shand Smith who in turn passed it back to the Property Ombudsman the very person we were complaining about in the first place. She said she'd answered our complaint. Is this the right way to deal with serious issues relating to the conduct of an ombudsman?

We then took our complaint about the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor. An Ombudsman investigating an Ombudsman.

The result of that was that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor, has threatened to prosecute us should we publish her findings in our case.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, is that healthy for democracy and where is the guaranteed independent voice for those who do not have the privilege to work at Westminster with its newly created protections?

As  Lord President of the Privy Council you have oversight of The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). You will of course be shocked by its antiquated approach to the way in which it deals with serious issues relating to the behaviour of its members.

The RICS state,

"We cannot award compensation or force Members or Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules and Regulations."

This supine ineptitude is supposed to promote the profession for the public good.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, as Lord President of the Privy Council, when will you be introducing an new code of conduct that will modernise and reform this Byzantine and totally opaque institution and bring it into the twenty first century?

We await your speedy response,

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458 c/o The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

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

Ombudsgate: Andrea Leadsom - From, "Cold Hands" to "Cold Feet." (695)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Health Secretary.

For Clarity - Attempt 695.

695. Ombudsgate: Andrea Leadsom - From, "Cold Hands" to "Cold Feet."

Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,

"Sir Michael Fallon was forced to resign as defence secretary partly because he was accused of behaving inappropriately towards his cabinet colleague Andrea Leadsom it has emerged." 

(Heather Stewart: Politics / Fallon quit post over 'lewd comments made to Leadsom.' www.theguardian.co.uk)

When complaining of cold hands Mrs Leadsom was lewdly told where she might like to put them.

Heather Stewart went on to report that,

"Leadsom is also said to have complained of unwanted physical contact including Fallon placing an arm around her."

One wonders why she didn't first ask her cabinet colleague to conduct himself in a more gentlemanly fashion or tell him that his ribald comments did not amuse her. Or why it has taken 7yrs before such dramatically firm and decisive action was taken.

We believe this is truly shocking.

But if such strong and steady steps can be taken retrospectively for a matter as grave as that, then they can also be taken for the maladministration and eyewateingly ludicrous decisions emanating from Ombudsman Services:Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd.

Where there is a political will there is a political way.

Q. Mr Clark, for three years from 2008-2011, DJS Research told Ombudsman Services that its Ombudsman arrived at decisions in an illogical manner and that this was inappropriate as the Ombudsman should have arrived at them in a logical manner. Why was nothing done about it?

Q. Mr Clark, property complainants suffered severe health problems and financial loss as a result of those eyewateringly illogical decisions. Why was nothing done about it?

Q, Mr Hunt, why has nothing been done about the eyewateringly ludicrous decisions being made  daily by anonymous and unaccountable healthcare workers as a result of the criminally unjust  National Framework For Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?

The Leader of the House of Commons said,

"I have been clear that the issue is around, first, those who are made to feel uncomfortable: I am setting the bar significantly below criminal activity. If people are made to feel uncomfortable that is not correct."

Q. Mr Hunt, thousands upon thousands of the sick, the elderly and the dying and their friends and relatives are made to feel uncomfortable about DST Assessments. Is this not criminal and wholly incorrect?

In her First and Last Report for Ombudsman Services, the company's Independent Assessor was shocked to find such levels of maladministration in a redress service.

Q. Mr Clark, isn't maladministration a criminal activity, why didn't government monitors of this government approved scheme feel uncomfortable about it and why was nothing done to protect the consumers who were - and for all we know continue to be -  victims of it?

We believe that this is also truly shocking.

Heather Stewart tells us that Andrea Leadsom believes,

"In terms of consequences for the perpetrators, I have also been clear that staff should forfeit their jobs, members of parliament could have the whip withdrawn and ministers could be fired from ministerial office." 

She has been very clear indeed.

Q. Mr Clark, let us also be clear about this - why haven't the perpetrators of illogical final decisions and maladministration at Ombudsman Services forfeited their jobs?

Q. Mr Hunt, why haven't the perpetrators of illogical DST decisions and the maladministration that supports those decision, not also forfeited their jobs?

Q. Mr Clark, why has government got such cold feet when it comes to standing up to The RICS' failure to adequately regulate its members, challenge its vested self interest in its company - Ombudsman Services:Property - and right the criminal wrongs of illogical decisions, maladministration of consumers' complaints and woefully disproportionate so-called financial awards and civil justice?

Yet again it's one law for them and little or no law for us.

Mrs Leadsom needs to do some leading on this shocking injustice or forfeit her job for having feet that are not only cold but apparently point in opposite directions.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services - Maladministration. (694)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 694.

694. Ombudsman Services - Maladministration.

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

"Sir Michael Fallon quits as Westminster sex scandal claims its first scalp."

The Telegraph

"There could be more revelations" Michael Fallon's warning to PM when he quit over Westminster sex furore as friend reveals he, 'turns into Jekyll and Hyde when drinking.'"

Daily Mail

"I've fallen short: Michael Fallon quits - and is braced for more allegations."

Daily Mirror

"May forced to shuffle pack as Fallon falls on sword - and he may not be the last to go."

Independent.

"May to name new defence secretary after Fallon quits."

Financial Times

"Michael Fallon / Defence Secretary quits saying his behaviour has, 'fallen short.'"

The Guardian.

Q. Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith, the defence secretary has resigned saying that his behaviour has, "fallen short." The maladministration of civil justice is also scandalous behaviour. Why has no-one at Ombudsman Services fallen on their sword?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Service - Martin Lewis: "A Shambles." (693)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.

For Clarity - Attempt 693.

683. Ombudsman Service - Martin Lewis: "A Shambles."

Dear Mr Clark,

"Don't mention the war" has now, it seems, been replaced by, "Don't mention the ombudsman's decisions" and in particular, "Don't mention The RICS Property Ombudsman's decisions." That's because they're illogical and/or have been made by an insider.

We've seen what insider dealing in the financial markets has been capable of - Libor etc - now it would seem to have been joined by what looks suspiciously like insider redress at certain ombudsman schemes. Light-touch regulation appears to be twinned with rigged markets and the mushrooming market in private redress is no different.

The crucially important issue: the actual decisions made by ombudsmen - how they were arrived at and how they were justified -  wasn't addressed by Martin Lewis in his article. We agree with him when he states that the ombudsman service, "is a shambles" but not as to why it is a shambles.

He writes,

"Ombudsman schemes should be the premier league of alternative dispute redress and its time to crack down on the use of the term. Consumers need to have confidence that any body bearing the, 'ombudsman, brand will investigate impartially, and companies will have to abide by their decisions."

(Now it's time for a crackdown as ombudsman service labelled, 'a shambles.' Martin Lewis. www.theguardian.com/money/2017/oct/28/0mbudsmen-regulate-parliament-review-martin-lewis)

As to why certain ombudsmen lack, "impartiality" was hinted at but not fully addressed and surely makes the Ombudsman Services Ltd. a key area for scrutiny. Why? Because in a world where Ofsted has amassed a vast amount of data on schools' performance, Ombudsman Services has done the opposite especially when it comes to the performance of its Property Ombudsman's decisions. It studiously fails to gather data and therefore has nothing to publish and nothing to be held to account for.

If Ofsted were regulating surveyors and not The RICS and its company - Ombudsman Services:Property - both would have been placed in special measures years ago. But it doesn't and so they haven't.

Q. Mr Clark, why is it not a statutory requirement for ombudsman schemes to collate and publish data on ALL of their decisions?

Q. Mr Clark, placing Ombudsmen's decisions into the public arena would make the whole process transparent and accountable, there would be nowhere for ombudsmen or those they ombuds to hide. Why hasn't this happened and who benefits from this not happening?

Q. Mr Clark, wouldn't the amassed data provide a clear and accurate picture of the state of British business and is this why it is NOT collected and published?

Martin Lewis tells us that companies do not abide by ombudsmen's decisions.

This suggests that the business world regard ombudsmen schemes as minor sunday league stuff and treat them accordingly - the referees (ombudsmen) are seen as sheep with rubber teeth.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that this goes to the heart of the matter: The power relationship between business, regulators, politicians, civil servants and unfortunate complainants such as; Michael Hernon, Sarah Fowler and Julia. 

There is no level playing field. The referee's been nobbled. And bewildered consumers have been left to turn up to a knife fight expecting a boxing match with full Queensbury Rules.

Michael Hernon and Sarah Fowler's dissatisfaction wasn't with the actual decision made by the Energy Ombudsman but the inability of that particular Ombudsman to enforce his/her ruling.

Martin Lewis doesn't explore the actual quality of Ombudsmen's decisions and whether they are as, "fair" and "independent" as they - ombudsmen - would like us to believe.

Ombudsman Services:Energy (part of Ombudsman Services Ltd) investigated 38.000 energy complaints. Surely there should have been 38.000 complainants' voices heard as to whether they were happy or not with the outcome of their case.

Q. Mr Clark, why isn't it a statutory requirement for ombudsmen to actually ask consumers whether they are satisfied with the outcome of the investigation of their case?

Q Mr Clark why are ombudsman schemes such as Ombudsman Services:Property so reluctant to gather data on their performance?

38.000 energy complaints is an awful lot of energy complaints. It certainly feeds a giant job creation scheme for ombudsmen and their investigating officers but the Energy Ombudsman's threat to refer recalcitrant energy firms to the regulator, Ofgen, hardly has them shaking in their boots.

Q. Mr Clark, why don't regulators get it right in the first place - then there would be no need for "shambolic" ombudsmen schemes?

The cosy/corrupt/colluding or is it just careless relationship between regulators and ombudsman schemes isn't mentioned by Martin Lewis. And certainly not the relationship between The RICS and its, "appointed" Ombudsman at its, "appointed" company, Ombudsman Services:Property.

Martin Lewis continues,

"The Ombudsman Association, which represents ombudsmen and complaints - handling bodies, says that the new legislation has encouraged competition which confuses consumers, and allows member companies to withdraw funding from one scheme and sign up to a cheaper, potentially less impartial rival."

This is extraordinary.

On one hand the consumer is endlessly being told that competition in the energy market is good for them and yet results in 38.000 complaints in just one year. As for the number of energy tariffs created to bewilder and confuse the consumer - that's just plain bonkers. However, when it comes to ombudsmen schemes it's a very different story indeed. Here, competition has now become bad and confusing for consumers.

Q. Mr Clark, why has the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman reduced so-called financial awards from £1.511.75p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in 2016 but TPOS has managed a much more competitive average of £531 for its complainants?

From the scant data available it can be seen that if Ombudsman Services:Property were to have a monopoly in ADR (as it has been lobbying for) consumers would be considerably worse off. That's Good For Business but Remarkably Bad For Consumers.

Martin Lewis goes on to say,

"The Association's long-standing position is that there should be a single ombudsman within each sector and one competent authority to set standards."

A competent authority? And who determines competency?

A present-day example is The RICS and its apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms which according to the OFT led to practices that did not work in the customer's interests. And yet their surveyors' fees pay for their "appointed" ombudsman scheme - Ombudsman Services:Property, they have a RICS Member as Ombudsman and a Memorandum of Understanding with, what is to all intents and purposes their company, that determines what are to be "the effective resolution of a dispute."

A 50 quid financial award is seen by The RICS to be, "an effective resolution of a dispute." Their  ombudsman no longer bothers to ask consumers if they agree with that judgement. Consumers' views are no longer sought. This avoids the embarrassment of being told that the whole thing's rigged from the start.

Q. Mr Clark, is The RICS a, "competent authority" when it apparently fails to adequately regulate its Members and (Un)regulated Firms in the first place?

Q. Mr Clark, if The RICS were to regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place surely there would be no need to employ a Property Ombudsman?

We believe this is how ADR is rigged. Otherwise it would be different. And it isn't.

The Ombudsman Association's director, Donal Galligan, believes,

"The establishment of more than one within an industry, creates risks creating uneven standards of investigation and redress. There can also be a risk of a race to the bottom."

This is the very same Ombudsman Association which has The Rev Shand Smith as its Chair and which once stipulated that to be a  member of the OA, ombudsman schemes were required to have a Whistleblowing Policy. In its own race to the bottom it scrapped that requirement.thus depriving the referees of their Acme Thunderers.

Languishing at the bottom of the ADR Sunday League is Ombudsman Services:Property which was given no mention in Martin Lewis' article.

This is somewhat surprisingly given that the potential financial loss dissatisfied surveyors' clients can suffer, is so great.

Q. Mr Clark, shouldn't it be a standard requirement for ALL ombudsman schemes - even those affiliated to The Ombudsman Association - to have a Wistleblowing Policy?

Q. Mr Clark, The Rev Shand Smith is also CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services which does not have a Whistleblowing Policy but did have a Property Ombudsman who arrived at decisions is an illogical manner. Does this not imply a shockingly inept standard of, "investigation?"

Q. Mr Clark, contrary to its own Terms of Reference, Ombudsman Services:Property now has an Ombudsman who is a member of The RICS and who, "investigates" consumers' complaints about his colleagues. Why is this permitted to happen?

We believe the fact that the alleged, "fairness" and "independence" of those, "investigations" of consumers' complaints was not investigated by Martin Lewis, needs to be investigated.

The best thing written on the subject of ombudsmen and their schemes is by Julia. She wrote,

"We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor to our complaint - please refer to the surveyors ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them!

It has been eyewateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues.

I really do want to tell my story if for nothing more than to help other people."

It says a lot about the state of ombudsman schemes and our present-day democracy when it's left to the people to help one another.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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