To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
Ombudsman Services Case 510458: Part 3 Issue 1 - Asking Questions. (12)
12, Ombudsman Services - "All About The Evidence."
Dear Mr Clark,
These really are extraordinary times - extraordinary for, "silencing" a politician who has the audacity to suggest that decisions should be made on the basis of a careful examination of the evidence.
Something that, "farcical" ombudsmen seem to find incredibly hard to do.
Dr Lee, a Justice Minister is correct. It really is, "All about the evidence." We agree that it really is, "Time for evidence not dogma, to show the way."
It really is crucial that, "We must act for our country's best interest, not ideology and populism, or history will judge us harshly."
And most certainly, "Our country deserves no less."
Theresa May silences minister who questioned whether Brexit should be halted after leaked analysis
Phillip Lee ordered to 'air his views in private' after saying withdrawal from EU should be based on evidence not dogma
Theresa May has been rocked by the revelation in the secret Brexit analysis while away in China Reuters
A minister who questioned whether Brexit should be halted after a secret Government analysis exposed the predicted economic damage has been silenced by Theresa May. Phillip Lee was told to “air his views in private” after a meeting with the Conservative chief whip, but has escaped the sack, No 10 said. The disciplinary action raised fresh questions about Brexit minister Steve Baker, who has not been censored despite suggesting civil servants had drawn up the analysis behind the backs of ministers.
UK will be worse off in every possible scenario after Brexit, concludes leaked Government analysis
The Prime Minister’s spokesman was forced to deny that pro-EU civil servants were “working rogue” – insisting it was “entirely correct” for such studies to be prepared.
However, the spokesman said Mr Lee, a justice minister, should “recognise that the analysis was initial and not worth commenting on”. “He has been spoken to by the chief whip and been reminded that it is best to air views in private,” he added. In tweets last night, Dr Lee said he doubted whether Mrs May could “legitimately lead a country along a path that the evidence and rational consideration indicate would be damaging”.
The extraordinary intervention was an apparent response to Mr Baker’s statement to MPs that the analysis was worthless because forecasts drawn up by civil servants are “always wrong”. Dr Lee posted: “The next phase of Brexit has to be all about the evidence. We can’t just dismiss this and move on. If there is evidence to the contrary, we need to see and consider that too. “It’s time for evidence, not dogma, to show the way. We must act for our country’s best interests, not ideology & populism, or history will judge us harshly. Our country deserves no less.”
A leak of the analysis – which will now be published, after a Government cave-in – suggested a no-deal Brexit, leaving Britain trading with Europe on World Trade Organisation terms, would reduce growth by 8 per cent over 15 years.
Brexit: the deciders
European Union's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier speaks to the media as he arrives at the Council of the European Union ahead of an EU Council meeting on April 29, 2017 in Brussels, Belgium. The 27 members of the European Union will meet in Brussels for a special European Council meeting to discuss the continuing Brexit negotiation
Leaving with a Canada-style free trade agreement would see growth cut by 5 per cent, while staying inside the single market would reduce growth by 2 per cent. The document also warned that the gains from free trade deals with other big countries would fail to make up for the losses – a boost of just 0.2 per cent over 15 years from a deal with the US, for example.
Donald Trump says "I would have negotiated Brexit differently"
Its leak has enraged Brexiteers, who accused the head of the civil service of conspiring with the Treasury to produce the devastating research without the knowledge of ministers in the Department for Exiting the European Union. On Tuesday, Mr Baker told the Commons: “Even the ministerial team in my department has only just been consulted on this paper in recent days and we've made it clear it requires significant further work.
Read more
“It is a selective interpretation of a preliminary analysis. It is an attempt to undermine our exit from the European Union.” The attack triggered a protest from the Whitehall trade union, which said it was an “insult” to dedicated professionals and suggested he should be sacked. Asked why Mr Lee had been disciplined over his remarks but not the Brexit Minister, a spokesman said Mr Baker's comments were made in a statement to the Commons, while Mr Lee had been “speculating” on leaked documents. Q. Mr Clark, we agree with Dr Lee - decisions should be made on a careful appraisal of the best available evidence - so why are politicians and civil servants ignoring the mounting evidence concerning, "farcical" ombudsmen, putting the dogma of the private market in ADR first, putting the ideology of, "light-touch" "self regulation" alongside it and waiting for the future to judge what should be known today - don't consumers deserve no less?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number 510458.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com
We sent the following email to the Business Secretary:
To the Business Secretary:
Ombudsman Services Case 510458: Part 3 Issue 1 - Asking Questions (11)
11. Ombudsman Services: Property - Are Government Monitors Waiting For A 100% Dissatisfaction Rate Before They Act To Protect The Consumer?
Dear Mr Clark,
In 2009/10 DJS Research - an independent company working for Ombudsman Services - reported a 61% complainant dissatisfaction rate with the Property Ombudsman's decision in their case and Government monitors were happy with that.
In their final report DJS Research recorded a 64% dissatisfaction rate and the Government monitors were also happy with that.
For the next two years there was no Customer Satisfaction Report for Ombudsman Services: Property and the Government monitors were happy with that.
Q. Mr Clark, we've attempted to point this ludicrous, so-called Government, "monitoring" out to; Jo Swinson and Sajid Javid and now yourself but without success. Meanwhile consumers took and take their complaints to this private ADR scheme. Are our emails being intercepted by RICS "engaged" and "politically influenced" civil servants or are you all just totally indifferent to the plight of consumers?
Since the replacement of DJS Research there has been no annual statistic provided by Ombudsman Services:Property on complainant satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the outcome of their case. And property "findings" have been lumped/hidden in with the other sectors
Q. Mr Clark, is this not an example of data manipulation / false accounting?
Perhaps, with no data collected and therefore no data to report, the maladministrators of this Government approved and monitored scheme do not consider this to be data manipulation - as there is no data to manipulate.
Q. Mr Clark, how does this meet the requirements of the Government's criteria for approval of this ADR scheme?
Martin Lewis's Report for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection - "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform states that 80% plus property complainants thought the Property Ombudsman's decision in their case was, "unfair."
Q. Mr Clark, why are the Government monitors of this Government approved scheme happy with an 80% plus consumer dissatisfaction rate?
Q. Mr Clark, are you waiting for an 100% dissatisfaction rate before you consider taking action to protect the consumer?
This is a government supposedly standing up to vested interests and speaking up for the ordinary man and women of this country.
Speaking of the collapse of Carillion, Sarah Albon, Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service, said, "one significant constraint is the incredibly poor standard of the company's own record keeping."
We've been attempting to point out to your department and to your predecessors - Joe Swinson and Sajid Javid - the incredibly poor standard of record keeping at Ombudsman Services: Property since the departure of the independent researchers, DJS Research and their highly revealing Customer Satisfaction Reports.
Their final report in 2010/11 said that 64% of property complainants were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the outcome of their case. Yet within a year the new research company were able to report: "Both the quantitative data and the associated verbatim comments showed largely positive findings, with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Services. Results were consistent by sector."
It was as if Pep Guardiola had taken over.
Q. Mr Clark, how did your monitors of this government approved scheme account for such a dramatic turnaround?
Q. Mr Clark, why wasn't the new and dramatically reduced dissatisfaction rate included in the data?Q. Mr Clark, we were told by the OFT monitors that not only were the same questions being asked but new ones concerning the company's website were to be included in the new deal as well. Where are they?
For two years there was no reporting on property complaints.
Q. Mr Clark, why not?
Q. Mr Clark, why was this permitted to happen?
Q. Mr Clark, the company went from a remarkable standard of record keeping - DJS Research's Customer satisfaction Reports - to no record keeping whatsoever. Why was this permitted to happen?
Q. Mr Clark, was it in order to cover-up the farcical mishandling of property complaints by the Property Ombudsman?
Anita Stuhmeke identified; "audit" and "inspection" as key forces behind ombudsman schemes and the pursuit of, "integrity" and the measure behind which they should be judged. (In: The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice p12)
Q. Mr Clark, what audit and what inspection have the government monitors been carrying out at the Ombudsman Services: Property scheme?
Q. Mr Clark, where is the integrity in a scheme that for two years published no audit of its inspection?
Ayeni and Hossain have argued that the most important objective behind ombudsman schemes should be the promotion of Human Rights. (as above)
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services doesn't even have a Whistleblowing Policy and thereby denies its workers the Human Right to freedom of expression. Why?
Q. Mr Clark, is to cover-up the fact that their Property Ombudsman is handing out decisions that are, "not arrived at in a logical manner" and slashing financial awards from a dissatisfactory £1.511.75p in 2010 to £50 in 2016?
In the Martin Lewis Report, Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (Commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection and commended by its Chair Yvonne Fovargue ) we see in the section, "How Would You Describe The Ombudsman's Decision?" that 80%+ said the Ombudsman Services: Property Ombudsman's decision was, "unfair."
In just six years consumer dissatisfaction rocketed from 64% to 80%+
Q Mr Clark, why did the government monitors permit this to grow year-on-year without intervening to protect the consumer?
Q. Mr Clark, what is the government's view on Martin Lewis's figure of a truly appalling 80%+ consumer dissatisfaction rate with the Property Ombudsman's decisions?
Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services, how do you believe the maladministrators there will sell an 80%+ dissatisfaction rate to you and the consumer?
Q. Mr Clark, do you still assure consumers that the scheme your government monitors will ensure them of fair and transparent redress?
The workers have no Human Rights, the decisions are illogical and the reporting non-existent - welcome to private ADR pre-Brexit.
Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public inquiryinto the RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Property.
We sent the following email to the Business Secretary.
To Business, Energy and Industry Strategy Secretary:
Ombudsman Services Case 510458: Part 3 - Asking Questions (9)
Attempt 9. Data Manipulation and "The Incredibly Poor Standard of The Company's Own Record-Keeping."
Dear Mr Clark,
The Guardian article below reveals accountancy firms, "with close relationships with chief executives" (of Carillion).
That Frank Field believes, "they're all mates aren't they?"
And that one, "significant restraint is the incredibly poor standard of the company's record keeping." (Sarah Albon: Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service)
Q. Mr Clark, couldn't the Guaridan article not also be describing be the RICS and its relationship with its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property?
The Executive Director of the OFT said the Ombudsman Servives:Property redress scheme had, "successfully met the criteria applied by the OFT." That the redress scheme will provide access to, "free, easily accessible and speedy redress schemes that will ensure fairness and transparency."
It will ensure fairness and transparency.
Q. Mr Clark, you department has a close and continuing relationship with this scheme - why hasn't this free, easily accessible and speedy redress scheme that ensures consumers fairness and transparency, not published an annual report for 2017?
We believe that there is an urgent need for a public inquiry to examine this sector of the rigged redress market. A market that has developed practices that do not work in the customer's interests
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.
MPs on the work and pensions select committee were told auditors and Carillion were ‘all mates’. Photograph: Daniel Sorabji/AFP/Getty Images Britain’s four biggest accountancy companies are facing fresh scrutiny, with the head of the industry watchdog calling for the competition regulator to investigate their auditing activities following the collapse of Carillion.
Stephen Haddrill, the chief executive of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), told MPs at a joint select committee hearing on Tuesday that “there should be more competition in the major accounting and audit area”.
Advertisement
Haddrill said he would ask the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the sector again. In 2013, its predecessor, the Competition Commission, criticised the big four for their close relationships with chief executives.
He was responding to Frank Field, the Labour MP and chair of the work and pensions select committee, who asked whether KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PricewaterhouseCoopers should be broken up. It is conducting a joint enquiry with the business committee into Carillion’s collapse.
Field noted that two of the construction company’s recent finance directors had previously worked for KPMG and it had audited Carillion’s accounts for the past 19 years. “They are all mates, aren’t they?” he said.
The FRC has opened an investigation into KPMG’s auditing of Carillion’s accounts in recent years. The watchdog started closely monitoring the infrastructure company after it issued a surprise profit warning in July, Haddrill told MPs, but was unable to disclose this publicly because of confidentiality requirements. He agreed those rules needed to be reviewed.
“There must be enormous cause for concern about the way the company was governed. We all look at what’s happened with a degree of incredulity, so we need to look on what basis the directors were making those decisions,” he said.
Haddrill rejected MPs’ suggestions that the accounting watchdog was “toothless” but agreed that it needed more enforcement powers. Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk It also emerged that Carillion is unlikely to have “enough assets to meet even the cost of winding up the company”, according to Sarah Albon, the chief executive of the Insolvency Service. The group collapsed with £29m in the bank, a £1.3bn debt pile and a pension deficit of close to £1bn.
Albon told MPs that Carillion was made up of 326 companies, 199 of them in the UK, with 169 directors. She said the Insolvency Service’s investigations normally took 21 months and it was putting “considerable resource” into the Carillion inquiry.
Advertisement
“One significant constraint is the incredibly poor standard of the company’s own record-keeping. It took some hours to identify how many directors we could potentially be targeting,” Albon said.
MPs heard Carillion borrowed to continue to pay dividends, but cited cashflow problems when pension scheme trustees pushed it for higher contributions. According to a parliamentary briefing released last week, it paid out £217m more in dividends than it generated in cash between 2012 and 2016.
Robin Ellison, the chair of trustees of the Carillion defined benefit pension scheme, insisted they had been “as tough as we could be. We weren’t just sitting there playing patsy with the company”.
He noted that the Pensions Regulator, which had had regular meetings with Carillion since 2008, could ask the company to make additional pension payments. “It would have been nice if they’d compelled the company to pay an additional £10m-15m contributions per year,” Ellison said.
He told MPs he was called into a meeting with the Carillion board the day before the company went into compulsory liquidation. “They felt if they could get over the cashflow issue, by the end of the month they would have refinanced the company,” Ellison said.
“I believe that they believed that they had a plan for the survival of the company which was manageable. In the end it wasn’t.”
Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public inquiry into the RICS and its appointed company - Ombudsman Services:Property.
And the shambles that is private ADR.
We sent the following email to the Leader of the House of Commons but fear that it may well have been intercepted by a politically engaged and influenced civil servant.
To the Leader of the House of Commons: Ombudsman Services Case 510458 - Part 3: Asking Questions Attempt 8. 8) RICS Politically Influenced And Politically Engaged Civil Servants.
Dear Mrs Leadsom,
The RICS forced the BIS Secretary to, "fix" the lettings market through its, "political engagement" and "engagement" policies. Policies that influenced MPs, Ministers and Senior Civil Servants. Q. Mrs Leadsom, how many politically engaged and influenced civil servants are there? Q. Mrs Leadsom, does that explain why none of our emails to the Department of Business, Innovation and Industrial Strategy or Cabinet Office have been responded to? Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't this totally unacceptable in a modern democracy?
Mandarins opposed to Britain’s withdrawal from the EU have “taken control” of the Brexit agenda and are “forcing a weak Prime Minister” into a soft Brexit, senior…
Mandarins would appear to have power but without accountability. Its' not only the Houses of Parliament which needs restoring but the democracy that supposedly goes on within side it.
