Ombudsman Services / Case 510458 - Part 3: Issue (1) Asking Questions - Attempt (7)

 Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public inquiry into farcical ombudsmen. We sent the following email to the Leader of the House of Commons in the expectation of prompt and decisive action:

   To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Ombudsman Services /  Case 510458:  Part 3 - Issue 1 - Asking Questions. Attempt 7.

Attempt 7. "I think it is incumbent on all human beings to oppose injustice in every form." Hugh Masekela.

Dear Andrea Leadsom,

From the black-tied Members of the Presidents Club (the Telegraph's secretive titans of business), to the tongue-tied RICS Members of the Ombudsman Service: Property Club - injustice does indeed come in many forms.

There's the institutionalised political incorrectness and sleaze of sections of the business elite to the institutionalised injustice and farce of the private ADR elite via a host of dismal stopping-off places along the way.

It is a remarkable achievement that two female Financial Times scantily-covered undercover reporters should abruptly bring to an end 30 years of what one conservative mp has described as, "slimeball" behaviour at the Dorchester Hotel, by blowing the whistle in the most extraordinary of ways.

As a consequence, Mr Mellor and Mr Mendelsohn have both lost their jobs but Mr Zahawi appears to have kept his thanks to a fortunate early withdrawal. Even the subsequent sackings appear to carry with them an element of injustice.

It is surely farcical that the Minister for Children and Families, who days before attending the Presidents Club Annual Grope should call for improved education standards in Ipswich schools, then chose to attend such an event and subsequently not do the decent thing and resign when caught with his trousers down. (metaphorically speaking).

It calls into question the judgement of those who attend such black tie dinners.

DJS Research, through their Customer Satisfaction Reports, called into question the goings-on at Ombudsman Services:Property. All that happened was that they lost their contract. Events went on as before.  

Q. Mrs Leadsom, would it take the efforts of two further undercover Financial Times' reporters working at Ombudsman Services:Property to expose the farcical goings-on before such similar decisive action is taken?

We wrote to the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman to ask her about her interpretation of the company's terms of reference. We asked;

"5. Ombudsman's Principle Aim:
The Ombudsman's Principle Aim is to receive complaints made by complainants in accordance with these Terms of Reference and to consider and where appropriate, investigate such complaints in order to encourage and/or facilitate the terms of their resolution, settlement and/or withdrawal."

At no time have you sought to do this. I see that (the RICS Firm) after visiting our home uninvited for the xth time, regretted no longer being able to come with an independent surveyor. At no time prior to this was this course of action ever countenanced. Why not?

(To: enquiries@surveyors-ombudsman.org.uk Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:15:26 +0000)

The RICS Firm agreed to carry out works to our home and then kept us waiting 226 days before we eventually were put into what they describe as a "Complaint Handling Procedure." At no time in this, "Complaints Handling Procedure" did they offer an independent re-inspection. Yet months later in a private message to their Ombudsman (but not sent/disclosed to us) such a course of action was discussed.

When we obtained this undisclosed information through a Data Protection Act request and learnt what was being said between our surveyor and his Ombudsman we asked the firm's Ombudsman to authorise an independent re-inspection of our home.  She refused this request on the grounds that had she considered it necessary at the time then she would have ordered one. But she didn't.

This decision manages to combine:

- not disclosing information when it is her duty as Ombudsman to do so,

- not giving a reason for failing to disclose information,

- not investigating why her fee-paying member hadn't made this offer during the 226 days he kept us waiting.

- not making this offer when we had entered his Complaints Handling Procedure,

And,

- not accepting that there was clearly a problem with the original survey (otherwise why had the surveyor agreed to essential work to be carried out) which clearly needed to be independently verified through an independent re-inspection.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how much longer must the consumer wait before decisive action is taken by government to protect them from farcical ombudsmen - or do they have to wait for two more Financial Times reporters to do the job for them?

Our favourite Hugh Masekela album is, "Waiting For The Rain."

It cheered us up when it came through our roof and down the walls and we waited and waited for our RICS Gold Standard surveyor to carry out his side of the bargain to put things right.

Something he spectacularly failed to do.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services / Theresa May / Irresponsible Company Bosses / Unacceptable Abuse. (6)

To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Part 3: Ombudsman Services:Property - Case 510458. Issue 1: Asking Questions Attempt 6.

6) Ombudsman Services / Theresa May / Irresponsible Company Bosses / Unacceptable Abuse.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

We're now being told by Theresa May that she will enact legislation to, "Fine greedy bosses who betray their workers." 

(The Guardian. Toby Helm, Michael Savage and Philip Inman - Executive Pay: I will fine greedy bosses who betray their workers. 21st Jan 2018)

Theresa May will now target, "irresponsible company bosses" and "stamp out abuse." We hope she has more success with this recent idea than her earlier plan to put workers on the boards of companies with all those irresponsible bosses, which came to nothing.

Q Mrs Leadsom, when DJS Research reported that the Ombudsman Services: Property Ombudsman routinely, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner" why did the company's bosses not stamp out this abuse and wasn't their failure to act grossly irresponsible?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why didn't the government's very own monitors of this government approved scheme intervene to protect ordinary working people and wasn't their failure to act not also grossly irresponsible?

The company's very own Independent Assessor reported the maladministration of consumers' complaints by those at Ombudsman Services.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, wasn't this also, "abuse"?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, weren't the company's bosses being, "irresponsible" in allowing this maladministration to happen?

Q. Mrs leadsom, why didn't the government's monitors of this government approved scheme intervene to protect the consumer?

We're told that, "The regulator will also be given the power to request information about how companies run schemes" which is surely something that should have been in place immediately after the Robert Maxwell scandal.

In the case of Ombudsman Services:Property the regulator is the RICS and it has a Memorandum of Understanding with its, "appointed" company (Ombudsman Services:Property) which enables it to monitor the, "effective resolution of disputes."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why is a decision that has been arrived at in an illogical manner considered to be, "effective" by the regulator - RICS?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how do such decisions work to the public's benefit?

Mrs May is again saying that she will, "govern not for the privileged few but for every one of us."

MoneySavingExpert's Callum Mason has described ombudsmen schemes as being a, "farce" (Callum Mason: MSE tells MPs of need for urgent reform to ombudsman, "farce." 1st Nov 2017)

Ombudsmen, with their whistleblowing-data-free farcical schemes, are now part of that privileged few. The many - the 80%+ dissatisfied property complainants according to MSE - would, we would imagine, certainly want someone to start governing on their behalf.

A Prime Minister who sees herself as a, "customer" of such organisations, sub-contracting out ADR/justice to the lowest bidder, doesn't strike us as the sort of person consumers can trust to get the job done. Meanwhile, consumers continue to get done by farcical ombudsmen and their farcical schemes.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why didn't the Conservative government act in favour of ordinary working complainants when we complained to the OFT in 2010 that 61% of property complainants were being given decisions by the Property Ombudsman that were, "not arrived at in a logical manner?"

According to MoneySavingExperts that figure now stands at 80%+.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't that, "an unacceptable abuse?"

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when will it ever end?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services - Is This Government A Customer Of Ombudsman Services? (4)

    Dear Reader,

    We sent the following email to the Leader of the House of Commons,

   To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Ombudsman Services - Issue 1: Asking Questions (4)

4. Is This Government A Customer Of Ombudsman Services?

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday that the Government was a customer of Carillion and not that Carillion was a customer of the Government - which would surely have been a more constitutionally appropriate arrangement.

Theresa May seems to be implying that she and her ministers are just the temporary office staff for the people who really matter and who actually run the country - the RICS, the large corporations and the multi-nationals.

A society regulated by a private sense of justice.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, is the Government also a customer of Ombudsman Services?

It would appear that this government has sub-contracted out justice - what it is and how it should be doled out - to private contractors. These private contractors - Ombudsmen - despite ever worsening performance warnings, have continued extracting a profit of sorts for their fee-paying Members in the form of ever diminishing so-called, "financial awards" to their clients - the pre-Brexit consumer.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why didn't the government monitors of this government contracted-out justice scheme intervene the moment its Ombudsman began slash financial awards to property complainants?

Clearly, the RICS fee-paying Members of this RICS appointed scheme - the company's shareholders - benefit greatly from the current arrangement.

"Financial awards" to ripped-off clients are a burdensome tax on their profits. Far better to dream up a scheme that transfers the cost of failure from the company to the consumer. And so, for the price of a case fee this scheme shifts the burden from the culprit - the RICS Member Firm - to their client and victim, the consumer.

This system insures incompetent RICS surveyors against future failure.

For two years, and in contravention of OFT criteria for the scheme's approval, Ombudsman Services:Property failed to produce a report on its performance in handling property complaints.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why didn't the government monitors monitoring this scheme intervene to protect the consumer during these two years ?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, as there was nothing to actually monitor what were the government monitors monitoring?

MoneySavingExperts have used the "F" word to describe ombudsmen - "farcical."

We believe they should have used the, "C" word - "colluding."

The Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's, "financial awards" have plummeted from an average of £1.511.75p in 2010 (which was even then considered far too low by DJS Research) to £50 today.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, in a world in which Carillion executives' bonuses and its shareholders' dividend went up, dissatisfied clients of RICS surveyors' practices that did not work in the customers' interests, went down. Does this not define the reality behind the economics of free market capitalism for the average citizen in England and Wales today - that the taxpayer and consumer will always bail out incompetent companies and their incompetent executives?

The RICS are proud to announce that,

"We are one of a number of professions operating under a self-regulation model, which means our members aren't regulated by government but are internally monitored and inspected. Our self-established standards of regulation meet, and in some cases surpass, the Government's own principles of better regulation."

(www.rics.org)

And yet The RICS also say the can't award compensation or force their Members and Regulated Firms to do anything or refrain from doing anything even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules and Regulations.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when the RICS can't enforce their own Rules and Regulations and their Property Ombudsman will not report his/her fee-paying RICS surveyors to the RICS Regulatory Board, where is the pre-Brexit protection for the consumer?

RICS also say,

"The continued demand for Royal Charters, which may seem an antiquated concept, shows they retain their cachet in the modern professional world as a, "gold standard" of excellence and integrity."

This is the same RICS which can't even persuade its Members and Regulated Firms to keep something as basic as a Case File. By any standards - gold or otherwise - this is extraordinarily inept.

When teachers and nurses are stressed to breaking point and quitting the treadmill of their respective record keeping regimes in droves, surveyors have no such worry. No such paper work for them. No such accountability or transparency.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when there is no record keeping by RICS surveyors what evidence are The RICS internal monitors and inspectors actually basing their inspections and monitoring on?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why - as is the case with Ofsted - aren't these inspection reports published and why isn't there a league table of RICS surveyors so that consumers could have an informed choice of who to employ?

The RICS is overseen by the Privy Council.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, what are the Privy Council monitoring and inspecting?

As of today The RICS' Ombudsman Services:Property are back to their old ways - there is no Annual Report for the whole of 2017.

They would appear to have come off the Gold Standard for private redress.

The RICS have the cachet of their own motto - "Est modus in rebus - there is measure in all things"

All things except the measurement of their surveyors' performance and their ombudsman's performance in resolving consumers' expensive and complex property disputes.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services: Issue 1 - Asking Questions 3: Asking The Ombudsman To Send Our Complaint To The Board.

          Dear Reader,

        

    We sent the following email to the Leader of the House of Commons:

To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Ombudsman Services: Issue 1 - Asking Questions.

Attempt 3. Asking The Ombudsman To Send Our Complaint To The Board.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

According to John Rawls, "A society regulated by a public sense of justice is inherently stable." (A Theory of Justice p.498)

This Government's approach to regulation and privatisation - far less of the former far more of the latter - has led to a mushrooming of self-regulating private ombudsmen schemes which have bought with them widespread consumer dissatisfaction - a staggering 80% + at Ommbudsman Services:Property according to MoneySavingExpert's Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Christopher Hamer the former TPO Ombudsman once asked, why it was that regulators didn't get it right in the first place. Mrs Leadsom why don't regulators like RICS get it right in the first place?

In this regulatory wasteland, businesses are left free to develop practices that do not work in their customers' interests. There is clearly a growing public sense of injustice. Our shared regulatory role (if it ever existed) has been steadily usurped by powerful vested interests. Ombudsmen are one such group. Their vested interest is in determining and administering private civil justice and maintaining a steady supply of cases. Cases that result in a 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate.

As a result of this unregulated market in private redress, John Rawls would say that society is becoming inherently unstable. 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, don't MoneySavingExpert's farcical ombudsmen have a vested interest in regulators not getting it right in the first place because if they did it would render them redundant?

John Rawls continues, "other things equal, the forces making for stability increase (up to a point) as time passes."

Time, is a huge contributory factor to injustice. Evidence degrades, gets misplaced, victims give up or die. For the victims left waiting in ever longer queues for their ever thinner slice of justice, time is most definitely not a healer.

One of the forces making for increasing societal instability is the refusal - or as the Property Ombudsman would say, failure - of those in positions of power and authority to simply answer our questions.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why is this? And why has it reached such epidemic proportions in a supposedly democratic society?

It would seem that the coach who so expertly schooled the Prime Minister in question-avoiding techniques is the same one used so successfully by ombudsmen. The PM is rapidly reaching their level of proficiency.

Zoe Williams, in her excellent article, "With The NHS Reality Has Finally Caught Up With May" (Sunday 7th Jan 2018) wrote,

"Your answers become more and more inane." Answers such as, 'what I see when I look across the railways is people wanting to provide the best service' and, 'the environment is about a huge variety of things'

Zoe Williams asks, "What does any of this mean? Even you have no idea."

She cites 2016 research by Peter Bull, a psychologist at York University, who published analysis of political interviews. Interviews,

"In which Theresa May emerged as the Prime Minister least likely to give a plain and practical answer to a question. In two interviews he studied, she gave a direct response only 14% of the time. (the average for a politician was 46%)"

Her explanation of the Prime Minister's avoidance technique is clear, precise and illuminating and could equally be applied to certain Chief Ombudsmen and Lead Property Ombudsmen (and possibly ombudsmen in general. They would make a fascinating subject for a possible future Peter Bull research project). She says,

"Her particular formulation - to rephrase a specific question into a non-specific matter of bland principle, then agree with the platitude - appeared to work frustratingly well for a vexingly long time." 

It sums up the Chief Ombudsman and Lead Property Ombudsman's, ploy when "answering" our questions - which was, take the question, turn it around, give it a polish and send it back to you as an answer and then get indignant when you attempt to point out that their answer wasn't actually an answer after all. The Chief Ombudsman told us we were the ones who had misunderstood the Terms of Reference and not the Lead Ombudsman. He didn't explain what is was that we had misunderstood which in itself is yet another example of Peter Bull's 35 ways to avoid directly answering a question - turn it back on the questioner.

With answers like that democracy and justice are, according to John Rawls's formulation steadily becoming less and less stable.

Zoe Williams concludes her article with the warning that,

"A bad government blames its citizens, but citizens can blame back."

At Ombudsman Services a bad chairman blames his complainants. We hope more complainants - MoneySavingExperts 80%+ amongst others - start to blame back too.

From DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services it is clear that Laura Valentini, John Rawls and Zoe Williams's enlightened thinking has yet to reach the Property Ombudsman's office in Warrington.

DJS Research's second report in 2010 at 6.19 disclosed widespread complainant dissatisfaction.

"Dissatisfaction with the overall level of service is perhaps informed the great level of satisfaction with the perceived extent to which the Ombudsman attempted to resolve a complaint through mediation and negotiation."

This failure to mediate and negotiate does not appear to have alarmed the government monitors of this government approved scheme even though the company's Terms of Reference state quite clearly that the Ombudsman had been appointed to the post on the grounds of her mediating and negotiating skills.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why didn't the government monitors of this scheme intervene to protect consumers from an Ombudsman who didn't successfully mediate and negotiate on their behalf?

We wrote to the Property Ombudsman saying that due to her failure (but not refusal) to answer our questions, we wished to take our complaint to the Council of Ombudsman Services:Property. This was because under, "Ombudsman" - Council 4. Disqualification: It states- (The Ombudsman)

b) does any act or finds himself/herself in any position, in the reasonable opinion of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Member Board, the Surveyors Ombudsman Service or the Company (that brings it) into disrepute.

We asked the Lead Property Ombudsman:

Q. Does it not bring the Service into disrepute when you accept evidence gathered in this way? Surely the proper thing to do in this situation would have been to have written to The RICS Firm saying evidence gathered in this way was not acceptable?

Q. Why didn't this trigger a reappraisal of all of The RICS Firms so-called, "evidence?" Or does this Service set one standard of service for its Members and another for complainants?

We failed to get an answer.

4 (c) states,

"does any acts or finds himself/herself in any position which, in the reasonable opinion of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (now rebranded as OS:Property)  Member Board conflicts or is likely to conflict with his/her position and/or the exercise of his/her powers and/or duties as Surveyor Ombudsman Service board member, or the effective operation of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service, the Ombudsman or these Terms of Reference."

We wrote,

"It is not that you have not answered some of the questions posed by a complainant. It is that you have not answered any of my questions or that some of the responses you have made have in themselves raised further questions."

We were informed that taking our complaint to the Member Board would not advance our case.

In this particular scheme the Board won't know if their Ombudsman is bringing it into disrepute because their Ombudsman won't tell them but we still don't understand why the Board should think an 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate is in anyway, satisfactory..

Trevor Buck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson tell us,

"The ombudsman is an institution endowed with remarkable power that itself needs to be called to account. Not only can an ombudsman fail due to error or incompetency, but an ombudsman can fail through timidity."

(The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice)

Q. Mrs Leadsom, who in government is calling this remarkably powerful institution - Ombudsman Services - to account? Certainly not the government monitors.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when an ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner and fails to successfully mediate and negotiate on consumers' behalf, do you consider this to be a failure?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, if you do agree then is it a failure due to; error, incompetency or timidity or a combination of all three?

In a society regulated by a public sense of justice surely an Ombudsman's investigation of consumer's complaint should set the truth free, not imprison it. 

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform

Dear Reader,

We sent the following email to a Labour MP:

    Dear, 

Thank you for both taking the time to read our email and then to respond to it.

You are one of the very few people since 2010 to do so.

Unfortunately, we do not share your enthusiasm for Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform or understand why it has been so widely seen as a balanced document.

A report into what MoneySavingExperts describe as, "farcical ombudsmen" is - we agree - long overdue but we maintain that their recommendations for a, "gold standard" would merely exacerbate an already dire situation for consumers and would most certainly not guarantee them the protection they have every right to expect.

It speaks volumes about the parlous state of British justice and democracy when its citizens should actually need protection from ombudsman - farcical or otherwise.

We've sent over 1200 emails to the BIS - now the BEIS - with just one reply (we were redirected to the Health Secretary) and in that time have seen Consumer Focus (who raised the issue of the RICS failing to adequately regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms) come and go along with Jo Swinson MP and Sajid Javid MP. Even the quote we used from Consumer Focus has vanished from the record.

The BEIS seem to be ideologically welded to a de-regulated marketisation of everything that hasn't already received the same treatment, and this includes the private market in ADR. As such, a private company such as Ombudsman Services is save from the onerous responsibility of having to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests.

This is a, "civil justice" enterprise with self-appointed ombudsmen and executives who arbitrarily determine what is and isn't, "civil justice." They do so with to all intents and purposes - no meaningful transparency or accountability.

Indeed, the government's supposed, "monitoring" of this scheme on behalf of the taxpayer is itself a scandal.

To suggest, as Martin Lewis does, that the BEIS (along with the Ombudsman Association) should somehow determine what is a, "Gold Standard" for ombudsmen is itself farcical.

As for the Ombudsman Association, it is the ultimate old boy/old girls' club and as we have shown fails (like the RICS) to apply its own rules to its members. We thought the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership would look aghast at an organisation that once had a Whistleblowing Policy as a criterion for ombudsman scheme membership but appears to removed it so as to accommodate The Rev Lewis Shand Smith (former OS board chairman) and his Ombudsman Services scheme which at a time when schemes needed just such a policy - didn't have one. And continues not to have one.

Not one worker employed by ombudsman schemes has the protection of a Whistleblowing Policy, and as a consequence, the right to freedom of speech as enshrined in the Human Rights Act. Why is the Labour Party silent on such a fundamental right of workers - especially those working in the civil justice industry?

To again suggest as Martin Lewis does, that the Ombudsman Association should also play a key role in determining a, "Gold Standard" for ombudsman is, we believe, equally farcical. 

On the record, Allan Meltzer is quoted as saying, "We don't have a gold standard. It's not because we know about the gold standard. It's because we do." (My Friendly Debate With Allan Meltzer The World's Leading Monetarist. Jerry Bowyer. Forbes/Contributor Opinions).

 

Winston Churchill's decision to fix the price of gold at $4.86 was an error that led to the depression, massive unemployment and the 1926 General Strike. He had earlier memorably said of the miners, "Drive the rats back down their holes." So much for their human rights. It was Austerity Churchill-style.

We came off the Gold Standard in 1931.

We need something radically different. An independent body to determine who should be an ombudsman, what their role is and how their performance in that role should be judged.

Martin Lewis' Report does not give a compelling reason as to why these two organisations should be given such a responsibility or on what evidence this recommendation was made. We're merely told that he had, "on the record" conversations with certain people, We aren't told who these people were or what went on the record. We are thus unable to see it and judge it for ourselves. We just have his word for it as a self-appointed expert.

What must be of enormous concern constitutionally and democratically are self-appointing, self-regulating and self-clubbing individuals with a very swanky name - ombudsmen - colonising the justice landscape and claiming it for themselves. In doing so that have been ably aided and abetted by their pro-business and pro-market colleagues in Parliament.

What has emerged is a private state within the state.

Surely, what we as consumers and citizens need, are ombudsmen who are totally transparent and totally accountable to both Parliament and the people for their decisions. To ensure that such decisions are never again illogical but always fair and just, an independent body with the sharpest teeth and brains is needed to ensure that that is what happens for each and every complaint and for each and every complainant.

If that isn't at the heart of what the Labour Party is about then self-regulating farcical ombudsmen will simply continue to treat consumers as second-class citizens whose customer journeys through the ADR landscape often see them alone and abandoned by the wayside.  

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixty-onepercent.

Ombudsman Services - Issue 1: Asking Questions. (2)

To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Questioning The Ombudsman's Take On Private Redress - Attempt 2

2. Issue 1 - Asking Questions.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

It has been said that democracy is a requirement of justice and an instrument for realising it.

The growing market in private justice left - unaccountably - in the hands of MoneySavingExpert's, "farcical Ombudsmen" has resulted in investigations of consumer complaints in which one Ombudsman, "does not routinely ask questions." 

How it is conceivably possible to conduct a fair and thorough investigation of a complex and costly property dispute without recourse to asking questions was never explained to us. Our questions did not elicit straightforward answers.

Laura Valentini believes that,

"even if we plausibly identify experts on justice, we may still want to distribute political power roughly equally across the citizenry in order to prevent flagrant abuses of it or to encourage social solidarity."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't a failure by Ombudsmen to ask questions a flagrant abuse of power?

And,

"By exchanging reasons and sharing information, one could argue, citizens are more likely to discover the truth about justice."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how can the Ombudsman's failure to exchange reasons discover the truth and lead to justice?

Also,

 "...by deliberating and listening to one another's reasons, we express respect for each other as rational persons."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when independent researchers state that an Ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner how can that Ombudsman possibly treat complainants with respect?

Further, "...Moreover, as reasoners who disagree, we may hope through argument to make progress in understanding one another, and converge on a single answer we all regard as compelling. This would allow us fully to realise the ideal of mutual justification at the heart of a liberal understanding of justice."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why did government monitors of this government approved scheme permit a unreasoning Ombudsman who failed to arbitrate in disputes to remain in post?

(Laura Valentini CSSJ Working Paper Series SJO12 2010)

Laura Valentini would seem to have provided Ombudsmen with a clear and purposeful working definition of how to arbitrate and negotiate in order to arrive at just and compelling resolutions to consumers' disputes.

Keith Dowding in chapter 2 of Justice and Democracy: Essays For Brian Barry, when asking - are democratic and just institutions the same - appears to conclude that they are.

But a lot has happened since 2010 to actively undermine that liberal understanding of justice and democracy. Farcical Ombudsmen have been actively colonising and privatising those justice institutions to devastating effect.

They've even formulated a novel way of resolving disputes by not asking questions.

In so doing they no longer listen to reasons and no longer respect complainants as rational persons. This enables them to, "arrive at decisions in an illogical manner."

(DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Reports; 2009, 2010 and 2011)

In a letter dated 11th August 2010 the Ombudsman Services: Property Ombudsman wrote,

"You say that all questions should be answered to get to the root cause of a problem and such a lack of rigour discloses a lack of fairness and impartiality. I can only say that some questions do relate to a root cause." And that was that.  

On 3rd September 2010 we wrote to Ombudsman,

"Yet again you have chosen not to answer the questions I sought to raise about (the RICS Firm). Furthermore, the contradictions in the written responses I have received also do not appear to warrant a response from you either.

I should also like to take issue with you when you state:

"I would reiterate that the question of whether (the RICS Firm) has acted in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct required is a matter for the professional body concerned, which in this case would be RICS.'

The questions I tried to raise were;

a) was it reasonable for an Ombudsman to accept evidence gathered from a RICS Member that involved unsolicited visits to a complainant's home when that member had made it abundantly clear that they had no intention when rainwater was cascading down the walls. Your response was that you hadn't been able to look at the photographs.

b) I asked you what you meant when you said they weren't, 'strictly relevant to the Building Survey." You chose not to answer that question.

and

c) Why were (the RICS Firm) making, 'Goodwill gestures' in the first place if there was indeed nothing wrong with the original survey? According to your fair and independent judgement this is all perfectly reasonable. Otherwise why would you have arrived at this conclusion? This is what I mean by bias and collusion. It is why I will now be taking my complaint to the Council of Ombudsman Services Property."

Our complaint never reached the Council of Ombudsman Services Property.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, MoneySavingsExperts have described these practices as being, "farcical." We believe they are far more pernicious than that and in order to protect consumers from this institutionalised injustice there is an urgent needs for a public inquiry into this highly secretive private market in justice.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

1 The Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's Investigaton of Case 510458 - And Our Public Study Of Private Rdress: Issue (1)

To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Questioning The Ombudsman's Take On Private Justice - Attempt 1.

1. The Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's Investigation Of Case: 510458 - And Our Public Study of Private Redress: Issue 1 - Asking Questions.

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

The first part of our campaign was called, "Being More Specific."

It was called, "Being More Specific" because the Department For Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) asked us to be, "more specific" regarding our complaint about the OFT approved and monitored Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme.

We took the title for the second part of our campaign, "For Clarity" from a statement made to us by Ombudsman Services:Property's former Ombudsman.

In a letter dated 11th August 2010 she said,

"You question what I meant by 'You say that a failure to give my view on whether the Firm should have come to visit when you told them about water pouring down the walls and hallway is, in effect, a refusal.  You may hold that opinion but I do not agree.' and say it makes no sense. For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or my colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means we have refused to answer that question. As I had said in my letter of 9 July, I do not address every single point in each letter that I receive and that was the context of my subsequent letter of 20 July."

We found the Ombudsman's statement on clarity to be bewildering.

After all these years it still doesn't make sense - unless, of course, the purpose of the whole property redress exercise is for the company to exonerate their fee-paying, memo-sending Members in which case it does indeed make perfect sense not to answer questions.

Everyone we've shown the statement to has been clear about one thing - they don't understand what on earth the Property Ombudsman was talking about either and no matter how you might wish to dress it up, a failure to answer a question remains just that - a failure to answer a question..

People have asked: how can you possibly conduct an investigation without asking questions and expecting that those questions be answered?

It seems to us that you can't. So what takes place at OS:Property can't be an investigation of a consumer's complaint but something entirely different. We believe this needs to be the subject of an independent investigation.

The OS:Property Ombudsman complained that our letters were too long, too detailed and asked far too many questions and as a result chose not to answer them. From now on we'll concentrate on one issue at a time. This will remove the excuse that our complaint is too complex to understand and thus too much trouble to answer.

It will mean that those politicians and civil servants whose job it seems to be is to avoid answering questions from members of the public will have to concoct another excuse for failing to do so.

The first issue of part 3 of our campaign is to seek clarity about the OS:Property Ombudsman's failure to answer questions. It seems a good place to start.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, as Leader of the House of Commons and therefore someone charged with responsibility for those who approved this private redress scheme (on behalf of the public) and for those monitoring it (also on behalf of the public), can you please clarify the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's statement on clarity?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, the Ombudsman has admitted that she failed to answer complainants' questions. How can an Ombudsman conduct a speedy, fair and independent examination of a complex property complaint when she fails - but not necessarily refuses - to ask her fee-paying Members questions?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't there an inherent bias in a private redress scheme which employs an Ombudsman who doesn't wish to upset her fee-paying Members by asking them troublesome questions?

This private company's Terms of Reference at 6.6 state, "In handling complaints, carrying out investigations and reaching any Final Decision (as provided for here under) it shall be the duty of the ombudsman:

(a) to proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, if it is the duty of the Ombudsman to proceed fairly how can she possibly do so without asking questions?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, where was the pre-Brexit British natural private justice hiding when the OS:Property Ombudsman failed - but did not refuse - to answer this particular complainant's questions?

6.6 continues stating that it is also the Ombudsman's duty,"(b) to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to principles of law, good practice, equitable conduct and good administration."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, when an Ombudsman's, "reasoned decisions" didn't appear to make sense why didn't the Government's monitors intervene to protect the consumer?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, where does the good practice lie in not answering a complainant's questions?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, where is the equitable conduct in failing to answer a complainant's questions?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how can any of the above be examples of good administration?

Thanks to all of those of you on the other side of the great divide who have so far consistently failed - but, apparently not refused - to answer our questions we've dedicated part 3 of our campaign: Questioning The Ombudsman's Take On Private Justice, to you.

We look forward to a New Year in which MoneySavingExpert's, "farcical ombudsmen" are revealed for what they truly are - the Snake Oil Salesmen of the early 21st century. Charlatans, who without meaningful regulatory oversight so successfully peddle quack private redress. Private redress that is, Good For Business.

Mrs Leadsom, there are a thousand ways for the clock to count down - why not stand beside us on the parapet and join with us in calling for; a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property, compensation for the victims of its Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and executives' maladministration and for the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme that is free from RICS' malign influence?

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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