Ombudsman Services / Fiddled Figures / Rigged Redress and Mr Rees-Mogg. (14)

             Dear Reader,

 

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

              but suspect it might have been intercepted by a RICS politically 

              influenced and engaged civil servant. 

:

   To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Ombudsman Services Case 510458: Part 3 Issue 1 - Asking Questions. Attempt (14)

14. Ombudsman Services / Fiddled Figures / Rigged Redress and Mr Rees-Mogg

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

We're delighted to see that Mr Rees-Mogg has been following our blog.

He believes Treasury figures - like those manufactured by certain ADR schemes - are fiddled and that certain civil servants - like certain ombudsmen - are biased..

The Guardian tell us;

Rees-Mogg repeats claim Treasury is 'fiddling' Brexit figures

Analysis showing UK would be worse off outside customs union is politically influenced, he says

Jacob Rees-Mogg said Britain must leave any customs union with the EU to do trade deals with the rest of the world. Photograph: Hannah Mckay/Reuters 

Jacob Rees-Mogg has repeated his accusation that Treasury officials are “fiddling the figures” in their Brexit forecasts, even after a cabinet minister was forced to apologise for agreeing with the claim.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Rees-Mogg's claims are highly contentious - at least the Treasury produce figures - why have Ombudsman Services all but ceased to collect and publish data on their performance in resolving property complaints? 

The Guardian say, "Rees-Mogg, who chairs the pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs, reiterated his claim that the forecasts were rigged and that the department was determined to keep the UK in the customs union."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, is the dearth of data produced at OS:Property explained by the possibility that property decisions are rigged in favour of the company's fee-paying Members?

He also repeated his assertion, made in the House of Commons, that he had  heard the head of a pro-EU thinktank saying Treasury officials had created an           economic model to show that all options other than remaining in the customs union were bad.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services claims to have a superb model of dispute resolution - why do so many property complainants disagree with him?

Jacob Rees-Mogg involved in scuffle during university campus protest

Read more

The Brexit minister Steve Baker apologised to MPs on Friday for saying Rees-Mogg’s account of the remarks by Charles Grant, the head of the Centre for European Reform, was “essentially correct”.
An audio recording of the lunch where he had been speaking emerged which contradicted the claims.

Faced with a demand for an apology from Grant, Rees-Mogg remained intransigent. “The only thing I will apologise for is that it’s turned out to be much more serious than I thought,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, MoneySavingExepert's claim ombudsman schemes are, "farcical" - won't a public inquiry reveal things to be far more serious than they thought?

The Guardian article continued,

“Mr Grant said the Treasury is determined to keep us in the customs union. He also said on another occasion that the Treasury is ‘newly emboldened’,” he said.

“He is getting private briefings from the Treasury against government policy. This is very serious. It is not for officials to invent policy. This is saying that they are determining policy, that they have an aim to lead policy against what the politicians may decide.”

Q Mrs Leadsom, but isn't this exactly what RICS's politically influenced and engaged civil servants did when getting Vince Cable to "fix" the lettings market: engaged and influenced civil servants determined policy?

Rees-Mogg’s comments came after Theresa May, on the final day of her official visit to China, appeared to leave the door open to some sort of customs agreement with the EU even though ministers have said Britain will leave the existing customs union.

The MP said Conservative Brexiters could not accept such an arrangement because it would stop the UK from striking free trade deals with other countries.

He said that since the decision to call the EU referendum in 2016 – when the then chancellor, George Osborne, campaigned for remain – it was clear that the Treasury’s economic forecasting had become politicised.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, the RICS have said that they politically influenced and engaged civil servants - often behind the scenes - doesn't that mean there are at this very moment politically influenced and engaged civil servants?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how many politically influenced and engaged civil servants are there?

          Q. Mrs Leadsom, have politically influenced and engaged civil servants been

           intercepting our emails?

 

"With all forecasts, the assumptions you make at the beginning determine the outcomes that you get,” he said.

                                                 

 Mr Rees-Mogg continued;         

“If you look at the forecasts the Treasury made before the referendum, they were a humiliation. They were clearly politically influenced.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, MSE's Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Refom report a complainant dissatisfaction rate of 80%+ at Ombudsman Services:Property isn't this also a humiliating failure of ADR and doesn't it also suggest the decisions are politically influenced?

“The Office of Budget Responsibility was set up by George Osborne because the Treasury forecasts had been politicised. It was thought that they were unreliable on political grounds.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, since the departure of DJS Research there has been a gaping void in the Ombudsman Services:Property's data on its performance in resolving property complaints. Aren't they also unreliable on political grounds?

The political grounds being the need for OS:Property to satisfy the requirements of what the RICS determine to be the, "effective resolution of disputes."

With the referendum and with the EU, the Treasury has gone back to making forecasts. It was politically advantageous for them in the past. It is the same for them now.

Q. Mrs Leadsom is it not politically advantageous for the RICS to have its Property Ombudsman achieve an 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate as it gets its fee-paying Members off the hook and saves this part of the property market millions in unpaid compensation? 

“So yes, I do think they are fiddling the figures.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, at Ombudsman Services:Property there are no figures to speak of - is this not also, "fiddling?"

Grant rejected Rees-Mogg’s account of his comments, although he acknowledged that many in the Treasury did regard staying in the customs union as the “less damaging option” for the economy.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, wouldn't a public inquiry into the RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Property be a less damaging option for consumers than taking their complaints to this private ADR scheme? 

Mr Rees-Mogg has declined to apologise - perhaps he would have been on safer grounds if his comments had been levelled at pre-Brexit, sovereignty assured British private redress.

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's Monitoring by Civil Servants - A Conspiracy? (13)

    Dear Reader,

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

    forlorn hope it might elicit a response.

To the Leader of the House of Commons:

Ombudsman Services Case 510458 - Part 3 Issue (1) Asking Questions Attempt 13.

13. Ombudsman Services:Property's Monitoring by Civil Servants - A Conspiracy?

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

We're told in Joe Watts's article for the Independent that,

"Theresa May justifies refusal to sack embattled Brexit Minister Steve baker amid fury at Civil Service Conspiracy Comments." (Independent 02/02/2018)

He reports Mrs May as saying there was the highest regard for hardworking civil servants - especially those not frantically trying to access porn - and that Mr Baker,

"...is going to ensure that the record in Hansard is correct so that Parliament is not misled when the record is read in the future."

It is vitally important that Parliament is not misled. Or the people.

We sought to raise the issue of misleading Parliament with one of your predecessors, The Under Secretary of State, Jo Swinson. It concerned one of her statements to Parliament.

It was - Column 225 (16th April 2013):

Jo Swinson: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says; we may have to agree to disagree on this matter. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we are dealing with people's homes, which is why this measure is so important. Incidentally, it is also something that his party did not see fit to introduce in 13 years in government. This government are righting the situation by making amendments to ensure that there is a redress scheme. Indeed, when the Lords amendment was introduced in the other place, that is the argument that was made and that is what was said was most important. I agree that a redress scheme is important to ensure that where there is a problem, tenants can have an avenue for redress.

Indeed, such a scheme has two functions, because it is not just about ensuring that when somebody has a problem, they can get redress. The very fact that agents have to sign up to redress schemes in the first place is in itself a driver of behaviour to ensure less wrongdoing in the first place."

This amendment was the direct result of, "political influencing" and "engagement work" conducted by the RICS (Mary Thorogood RICS UK Parliamentary Affairs Manager). Those brainwashed, sorry, "politically influenced" and "engaged" were MPs, Ministers AND civil servants. 

Q. Mr Clark, the statement: "The very fact that agents have to sign up to redress schemes in the first place is in itself a driver of behaviour to ensure less wrongdoing in the first place," is surely misleading as the evidence produced independently by DJS Research says otherwise. On what evidence did Jo Swinson - and government - base that statement to the House of Commons?

In fact the exact opposite is what appears to have happened. Again, the evidence for this is provided by DJS Research Ltd's Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services - a scheme which had been approved and is monitored by government and its civil servants.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, DJS Research Ltd ceased producing their highly critical reports for Ombudsman Services in 2011. Since then there have been no independent Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services:Property. Although NO data was produced and therefore there was nothing for government civil servants to monitor, Jo Swinson still assured Parliament (and the people) that such schemes, "would ensure less wrongdoing." In stating this wasn't Jo Swinson misleading Parliament?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, where is the evidence for the statement that that signing up to redress schemes is a driver of behaviour?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't the fact that OFT monitors weren't actually monitoring because there was nothing to monitor in itself an example of Jo Swinson's "wrongdoing?"

We were told by Paul Gurowich of the OFT (17th June 2011)

"..raising further issues by way listing 100 questions about OSP, its Chief EO and the ombudsman who dealt with your complaint ...

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 OS:P."

None of those questions were answered and OS:P stopped collecting data on its performance in handling property complaints. Jo Swinson should have known this - she would have been told so by the OFT monitors of the OFT approved scheme. 

DJS Research Ltd produced evidence to show that surveyors' "wrongdoing" was actually increasing not diminishing. That surveyors' surveys and valuations were at the pinnacle of, "wrongdoing" and the CEO of the Ombudsman Services ADR scheme has even admitted that his organisation can't even get its fee-paying members to keep and maintain proper case files.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't this beyond incompetent? Where, exactly, is Jo Swinson's driver of behaviour?

Jo Swinson continued - Column 223:

The Government will consult on the detail, taking into account the recommendations of the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Office of Fair Trading.

The right honourable gentleman raises a good point, but there is also a good answer. The government are preparing an amendment in lieu of Lord's amendemnt40, which, as he said, subjects letting and management agents to the Estate Agents Act 1979. The amendment made to the Bill at present would not properly achieve the effect of requiring redress. It would impose undue regulatory burdens by making such provision much broader. The requirements of the 1979 Act are rightly onerous, because purchasing a house is something that people might only do once or twice in their lifetimes and it involves a huge sum of money. There is therefore a strong case for significant levels of regulation, which is not made in quite the same way for letting agents, where

redress is the most important issue."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, as the OFT approved and monitored the Ombudsman Services ADR scheme and took no action whatsoever when the company it monitored failed to produce data on its performance in resolving property disputes, what recommendations did Jo Swinson (and government) take from them that enabled her to say what she said to Parliament?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, we've attempted to contact Jo Swinsom on countless occasions attempting to raise what we think is a good point - but have so far not got a good answer. Or any answer for that matter. Why is this?

We find ourselves, however, agreeing with Jo Swinson when she says that there is, "a strong case for significant levels of regulation" due to the huge sums of money involved.

Q. Mrs  Leadsom, given the huge sums of money involved and the corresponding requirement for significant levels of regulation to ensure consumer protection from cowboy operators, why are the RICS unable to enforce their own Rules and Regulations?

The RICS, through what Mary Thorogood describes as, "our ongoing political and influencing programme to achieve better regulation of lettings agents" successfully influenced Jo Swinson to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill thus giving them a greater control of the ADR market.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why didn't Jo Swinson challenge RICS to regulate its own Members and (Un)Regulated Firms before they started ordering the same for others?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, was she - and Government - unaware of the fact that the RICS don't actually do any regulating?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't it a good point and doesn't it deserve a good answer?

Mrs May has the highest regard for civil servants.

The Independent reports Sir Jeremy Heywood, The Cabinet Secretary as posting,;

"Every day their great work supports the Government in making evidence-based policy and helps deliver better public services across the country."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, what happened to that great work by civil servants when monitoring the Government approved - and monitored - Ombudsman Services:Property ADR scheme?

Mr Rees-Mogg, had this to say on the subject of bias and its relationship to civil servants;

"If this is correct does he share my view that it goes against the spirit of the Nothcote-Trevelyn reforms that underpin our independent civil service?"

This is all very strange and surreal.

We know that civil servants aren't independent because the RICS tell us they aren't. They say;

"Over the past 18 months, RICS has undertaken a great deal of influencing work - both publically and behind the scenes - to drive home the need for change to Government and policy makers. This work has included events in Parliament, briefing MPs, Ministers and Civil Servants.

Why is RICS campaigning to support this amendment? There are too many corrupt agents who are taking advantage of the current gap in regulation, putting consumers at risk."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, is a RICS politically influenced and engaged civil servant, independent?

A. No.

Which is why the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is campaigning for a public inquiry - there are too many corrupt RICS surveyors who are taking advantage of the current gap in regulation, putting consumers at risk by sending them to their, "appointed" redress scheme where they'll get a ludicrous decision and maybe a 50 quid award for their troubles.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services - "All About The Eidence." (12)

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

• Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor
• @Rob_Merrick
• 24 hours ago
• 871 comments

1K

Click to follow
Indy Politics

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.

• Read more

Theresa May is so weak ministers now suggest Brexit won’t happen

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”.

Read more

• Tory minister suggests Theresa May should consider halting Brexit
• May promises to publish full impact assessment for her Brexit deal
• Government's approach 'means EU deal could be meaningless waffle'
• There’s still time for a Suez style retreat from Brexit

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.”

ADVERTISING

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

inRead invented by Teads

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

Ombudsman Services:Property - Are Government Monitors Waiting For A 100% Dissatisfaction Rate Befroe They Act To Protect |The Consumer? (11)

    Dear Reader,

    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.

What total hypocrisy.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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