Ombudsman Services: "Waiting For An Alibi" by Thin Lizzie (Attempt 18)

To the Leader of the House of Commons / The Business Secretary and Chair of Ombudsman Services:

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up Attempt 18.

18) "Waiting For An Alibi" by Thin Lizzy.

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

The early part of the 21st century has certainly been the Golden Age of the Conbudsman.

The Telegraph tell us:

'The Financial Ombudsman failed us – now we want our cases reviewed' (The Telegraph Sunday 18th March 2018)

This reader said the ombudsman overlook a number of important aspects of his fraud case and has asked for a review Credit: Jay Williams

• Amelia Murray

18 March 2018 • 10:00am

Telegraph Money readers are calling for the Financial Ombudsman Service to review their cases, after an undercover journalist appeared to show staff at the dispute resolution service failing to understand the financial services they were investigating. 
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, Ombudsman Services have admitted that its "investigators" did not understand the complexity of property disputes. Is this what The Rev Shand Smith means when he says Ombudsman Services is, "a broken solution in a broken market?"
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, is there not an urgent need for ALL property complainants to have their cases reviewed by those who actually know what they're doing?
 

The Dispatches documentary recorded an employee admitting that they rushed through cases to meet targets, and ruled in favour of the banks because it was easier than persuading businesses to pay out.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, haven't surveyors also created a business of not paying and isn't it called, "Ombudsman Services:Property?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, the Ombudsman Services Minutes and Annual Report state that when concerns were raised about the rise of "financial awards" the Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, lowered them significantly. Was this because her fee-paying Members could not be persuaded to pay out even as much as £100?

Two Telegraph readers, Donald Kelly, a retired professor, and Barrie Cooper, both fell victim to similar solicitor scams.
The FOS ruled against them both, after they complained that the banks involved should have stopped the fraudsters stealing tens of thousands of pounds.

'The ombudsman delivered two contradictory views in 12 months'

Telegraph Money reported in 2016 how Prof Kelly and his wife Patricia, who lost £47,508 to a fake solicitor when buying a home, felt hopeful when the ombudsman said it felt Lloyds Bank – the fraudster’s bank – should repay the stolen sum plus interest in its provisional decision.
But more than a year later the ombudsman changed its mind. The case was passed to a new person and the FOS ordered Lloyds to offer only £500 compensation.
The ombudsman offered an additional £700 because of its poor handling of the case.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, in our Provisional Conclusion the letter began by stating Monk and Partners would have to take steps to put matters right and ended by saying they didn't. Isn't this more than crassly incompetent - isn't it criminally negligent?
At the time Prof Kelly branded the ombudsman “crassly incompetent”.

<img class="responsive article-body-image-image" src="/content/dam/money/2018/03/14/107182315_Jay-Williams_Donald-Kelly-Your-Money_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqrXQPXGvM58CJoUBPwmOnPxNpJRkztJkuB91uErqiR7A.jpg?imwidth=480" alt="Donald and Patricia Kelly">

The ombudsman changed its mind about whether Lloyds should have to repay the Kellys the £47,508 they had stolen by a fraudster Credit: Jay Williams

The FOS responded by saying it was “really disappointed that this case took so long” and recognised it could have “handled things better”. 
Remarking on the documentary, Prof Kelly said: “Nothing surprised me. From my experience the FOS is dysfunctional and clearly lacks proper training for individual staff whose background is often inadequate for dealing with complex forensic matters.”
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, in her Annual Report statement, admitted that her investigators needed further training in the complexity of property disputes and yet still managed to arrive at decisions in an illogical manner. Why didn't Government monitors intervene at that time to protect consumers?
 

Lloyds said it complied with all relevant regulation when opening the account and responded promptly when it was notified about the scam.

'I asked for a review of my case in October'

Fraud victim Mr Cooper had already asked for his case to be reviewed in October as he felt significant parts of his complaint were overlooked.
Since the Dispatches programme, he has written to the ombudsman again. But the FOS says its decisions are final.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, Ombudsman Services:Property also say that their decisions - no matter how illogical - are also final. Does this not combine being profoundly undemocratic with being profoundly corrupt as the only beneficiaries are incompetent and or corrupt surveyors?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Lord Tim Clement Jones, is this scheme not in effect a protection racket for incompetent surveyors who can't even manage and maintain something as basic as a Case File?
 

Mr Cooper, 82, was tricked into paying more than £50,000 into the account of a criminal posing as his solicitor in February 2016.
He argued that TSB, the fraudster’s bank, enabled the crime by allowing the criminal, who was not the account holder, to move large sums out of the account without question.
When he uncovered the ruse Mr Cooper alerted his own bank, First Direct, which contacted TSB. TSB blocked the account after calling the criminal, who failed to pass its verification process on the phone.
But by this time £46,738 of Mr Cooper’s funds had been transferred to other people.
Most of the recipients of the funds were new payees and had been set up within days of Mr Cooper making the payment, according to the FOS report.

<img class="responsive article-body-image-image" src="/content/dam/money/2018/03/15/157482901_COPYRIGHT-JAY-WILLIAMS_Your-Money-Barrie-Cooper_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqP43JThk11bmtuF4tB-yJp7YIE9JTFzBTiBJ0MbGA318.jpg?imwidth=480" alt="Barrie Cooper">

Barrie Cooper has already requested the ombudsman examine his case again Credit: Jay Williams

Mr Cooper said he feels TSB failed to “act properly” with regard to this and the ombudsman is “toothless” for not acknowledging it.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, Martin Lewis in his report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform has described this situation as being, "farcical." When Ombudsmen systematically fail to forensically investigate consumer complaints and systematically come down on the side of those they're supposedly investigating and then add insult to injury when "awarding" peanuts, isn't this more criminal than farcical?
 

“TSB should never have allowed the funds to be moved out of the account by someone who wasn’t the account holder,” he said.
TSB said it had a “complex and multi-layered framework” in place to detect and prevent fraud. However it admitted it cannot stop all scams, which are becoming more sophisticated.
The bank said it had no reason to question the significant payments in and out of their criminal customer’s account in the report and did not see why it should refund Mr Cooper. The adjudicator and ombudsman agreed.
The FOS’s powers are limited. It can only consider investigating “payment services” and the “ancillary activities” surrounding it. 
The running and general management of the account and account opening procedures are not considered. 
Mr Cooper eventually received £7,283 back, although he said this payment was never explained.
The FOS refused to comment on Mr Cooper’s experience.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, we took our complaint to the parliamentary and health service ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor, who asked us to provide more information and then threatened to prosecute us after we did. The Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service  Ombudsman only recently declined to explain what that prosecution would entail. Why?
 

It said it was talking to and supporting people who are getting in touch with concerns about their own individual cases.

A ‘wake-up call’ for the industry

MPs and campaigners are now pressuring the FOS for answers. Nicky Morgan MP, who chairs the Treasury Committee, has written to Caroline Wayman, the chief executive of the FOS, questioning the “poor decision making at the FOS”, the “alleged errors” and “improper handling of cases”.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills - now the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy - has known about Ombudsman Services:Property's own, "poor decision making," "alleged errors," "maladministration" and improper handling of cases" for a decade. Why did no one in a position of authority act to protect consumers?
 

Ms Morgan also questioned whether the FOS has the ability to reopen cases that might have been handled incorrectly. 
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, why haven't those who mishandled cases been prosecuted? And if there isn't a law in place to prosecute those who are supposed to protect the consumer isn't there an urgent need for one?
 

Ros Altmann, the Tory peer and former pensions minister, who featured in the documentary, has called for “urgent action”. 
She said the documentary should be “an important wake-up call to the industry” and that a more thorough investigation by Parliament was warranted. 

<img class="responsive article-body-image-image" src="/content/dam/money/2018/03/16/60663276_PA_General-Election-2015-campaign-April-17th_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqUnXld75eJTtxBTdlrmcTDUHH5DghEoYSvZlW9fl1xKg.jpg?imwidth=480" alt="Baroness Altmann">

Baroness Altmann has called for 'urgent action' Credit: PA

The FOS has said its board will be conducting an internal review, but James Daley, founder of Fairer Finance, the consumer campaign group, said there was “room for an external inquiry”.
He said this would need to come from the Government, as the board are implicated in the failings that “happened on their watch”.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, an 80%+ dissatisfaction rate with Ombudsman Services:Property has happened on your watch. Is there not now an urgent need for a public inquiry into this, "farcical" ombudsman scheme? 

 

The FOS has published a statement on its website claiming that the Dispatches programme gave an “unfair impression” of the service. 
It said its role was to investigate disputes between financial business and customers and make “impartial decisions” based on what’s “fair and reasonable” in each case and added that it would be conducting an internal review of concerns raised.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones, this is yet another Ombudsman scheme claiming to make, "impartial decisions" that are, "fair and reasonable" when quite clearly the opposite is true - that decisions aren't impartial and they're neither fair nor reasonable. Isn't the truth of the matter that these schemes prop up businesses and markets that have developed practices that do not work in the customer's interest's and they have now reached scandalous proportions?
 

Thin Lizzy tell us, "It's not that he doesn't tell the truth. Or even that he misspent his youth. It's just that he holds the proof. But you know something's wrong."
 

80%+ of property complainants can't all be wrong although we know of one Ombudsman Services Independent Assessor who would have the brass neck to claim he hadn't found a single incidence of bias. That it was easy to claim so when the Ombudsman's totally fair and impartial decision went against you but hard to prove. 
We've known something's been wrong since our Provisional Conclusion and, yes, its been hard to prove especially when no one is prepared to listen.
 

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, in your Foreword for the 2017 Annual Report will you be offering the 80%+ of property complainants an unreserved apology for having the temerity to suggest that your best efforts simply hadn't been good enough?

 

You know something's wrong with democracy when the Full English Cover-Up so effortlessly clicks into place slickly warding off all calls for an inquiry into how the operators operate.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert- Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services: Meeting, "The Evidential Threshold." Attempt 17.

Dear Reader,

    Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public inquiry

    into the RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services and also

    into the NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.

To the Leader of the House of Commons, the Health Secretary and,

To the Business Secretary.

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up Attempt 17.

17) Ombudsman Services: Meeting, "The Evidential Threshold."

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Mr Clark,

We have huge sympathy and respect for the victims of Hillsborough who after all these long years of campaigning are still waiting for British justice to come knocking on their door.

The Guardian carried the following article on how allegations made about the West Midlands Police failed to meet the evidential threshold needed for a criminal prosecution:

Hillsborough relatives 'disgusted' by CPS decision over West Midlands police

Prosecutors say evidential threshold not met for charges over original investigation into football disaster

David Conn

Wed 14 Mar 2018 16.46 GMT First published on Wed 14 Mar 2018 16.46 GMT

Relatives of the 96 people killed at Hillsborough in 1989 have severely criticised a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge any former West Midlands police officers with criminal offences relating to the force’s original investigation into the disaster.

Margaret Aspinall, the chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group whose 18-year-old-son James was killed in the disaster, said she was disgusted. She also criticised the CPS for failing to properly explain its decisions and the evidential threshold required to bring criminal charges.  

 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services also failed to properly explain its decisions as did; the OFT, the Ombudsman Association, NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd  the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman - why is this contempt for the victims of injustice so prevalent in our democracy? 

 

Two former West Midlands police officers, who have not been named, were referred by the Independent Office for Police Conduct to the CPS for consideration of possible charges of perverting the course of justice, misconduct in a public office, or conspiracy to do so. Bereaved families and survivors of the lethal crush at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final at Hillsborough, where South Yorkshire police was responsible for safety, have long protested about the quality and conduct of the West Midlands police investigation.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,  in their own and important way, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports also protested about the quality and conduct of Ombudsman Services' "investigations" of property complaints and yet this was ignored by government monitors - why was this? 

 

The director of public prosecutions decided in August 1990 to bring no charges in relation to the disaster. Currently six people, including four former South Yorkshire police officers, are facing criminal charges, after a 23-year campaign by bereaved families and survivors resulted in new police and IOPC investigations in 2012.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom  Mr Hunt and Mr Clark, why is the NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd Anonymous Desktop Reviewer and the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman permitted to hand out illogical decisions and why have no criminal charges been brought?
  

The allegations against the two former senior West Midlands police officers, confirmed by the CPS, were that they “failed to investigate the cause of the Hillsborough disaster properly, either deliberately to assist South Yorkshire Police (SYP) or otherwise negligently, and/or that a misleading or incomplete file was submitted to the DPP in 1990”. 

 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Mr Clark, why have so many sick, elderly and dying NHS patients had appalling Continuing Healthcare Assessment decisions that were only overturned after costly legal appeals and why do the victims of illogical decisions from the Property Ombudsman have no right of appeal?
 

Explaining the decision not to prosecute, which means that no former West Midlands police officers are to be charged for any offences relating to the original investigation, the CPS said: “The evidential threshold for criminal prosecution is not met in relation to either suspect. Whilst there was found to be some cause for concern in the actions of both suspects, there is insufficient to reach the high threshold required to prove a criminal offence.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, over the years the percentages of complainants unable to reach Ombudsman Services:Property's evidential threshold has risen from 61% to 80%+. Isn't this criminal and why didn't the government monitors of this government approved scheme intervene and do something to protect consumers from this abuse?

The CPS explained that there was evidence that “some aspects of the investigation were not carried out to a high standard”.  

 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports suggested that the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's investigations of property complaints was not carried out  to a high standard. Why did the RICS believe this to be an effective resolution of a dispute?
 

It added: “However, there is a lack of evidence showing any deliberate plan or action by the suspects to hinder it.” The statement also said there was a “difficulty in attributing responsibility for all of the failings to these suspects,” and that: “There is no evidence that, as alleged, one suspect intentionally provided an inappropriate selection of evidence to the DPP.”
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Mr Clark, there is no difficulty in attributing responsibility for the decisions not arrived at in a logical decision at Ombudsman Services but why isn't the British public being told the names of the NHS' Anonymous Desktop Reviewers?
 

At the same time, the IOPC announced that it had decided not to refer three former senior South Yorkshire police officers to the CPS for prosecution, following a further review of allegations that they engaged in a cover-up after the disaster.
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Mr Clark, why are there so many cover-ups of cover-ups in what is purportedly to be a modern democracy - one that is bringing back control to its people? 
 

The allegations, the IOPC said, were that: “These three senior officers participated in a strategy to minimise South Yorkshire police culpability for the disaster by wrongly blaming Liverpool fans. In particular, it is alleged that officers sought to deliberately mislead the [1989] Lord Justice Taylor inquiry, the [civil] contributions hearing and the original inquest proceedings.”
The IOPC’s strategic lead for the Hillsborough investigation, Rachel Cerfontyne, explained that the CPS had previously decided not to charge these officers.
“Although there was some indication that two of the three former officers may have committed a criminal offence, it was not deemed appropriate to refer their cases because the CPS had already rejected the possibility of bringing criminal charges based on substantial evidence that was reviewed in 2016. No further evidence or legal matters have since been identified that could realistically alter that view,” Cerfontyne said.
Responding to both decisions, Aspinall said that families had always been outraged by the West Midlands investigation, and the way some of their officers conducted it. “We are disgusted and disbelieving that no charges are being brought against any West Midlands officer,” she said. “The CPS have not explained to families what their ‘threshold’ is for charges – or what more evidence they needed. It is really important that justice is seen to be done, and that a strong message is sent to all police officers. I am disgusted by this.”
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Mr Clark, is it not also a matter of disgust and disbelief that Ombudsman Services:Property's, "broken solution to a broken market" can be permitted to simply disappear in a puff of smoke and the NHS' Anonymous Desktop Reviewers continue to arrive at their ludicrous decisions, in total anonymity? 

 Becky Shah, whose mother, Inger, was killed at Hillsborough, has always vehemently complained about the West Midlands police investigation, saying that officers asked if her mother had been drinking and sought to portray her negatively. “To find now that nobody from the West Midlands force is to be charged … I have no words for it,” Shah said. “I am livid.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Hunt and Mr Clark, why have none of those responsible for all those appalling decisions been charged?

In a letter of explanation sent to bereaved families, Sue Hemming, the head of the special crime and counter-terrorism division at the CPS, wrote: “I appreciate that my decision will be disappointing to you, but I would like to reassure you that in reaching this conclusion, we have spent a significant amount of time reviewing and considering the evidence that was submitted to us. As you know, the standard of evidence required for any criminal prosecution is high.”
 

Let us be very clear - "disappointing" doesn't begin to describe the abject failure of government and its duty to protect the people.
 

Yours sincerely,                                                                                             Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services: MrsMay's Speech. Regulation and Redress (15)

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up Attempt 15.

15) Ombudsman Services. Mrs May's Speech. Regulation and Redress.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

Having read Mrs May's speech we should like to raise the following points with you:

We're told:1) "The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, if that is indeed the case why hasn't there been an inquiry into the Battle of Oregreave? Why are Labour councillors representing the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire being excluded by Sir Martin Moore-Buck from the inquiry? Why did government officials use a discredited report into the contaminated blood products scandal? Why is that process taking so long? Why was the inquiry into the misdeeds of the corporate press - Leveson 2 - cancelled? Why is Ombudsman Service's broken solution to a broken market being covered-up? Why aren't the victims of its broken solutions being compensated?

All of the above prioritise the interests of the privileged few, not the un-privileged many. The Prime Minister seems to be unaware of this..

2) "We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives." 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why do you not invite all of the above victims to Parliament, and listen to their stories of how the privileged few took control over their lives and at what cost?

That would be democratic and would, literally, bring people together.

3) "When we take the big calls, we'll think not of the powerful, but you."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, haven't all the big calls you've taken to date been exclusively to the benefit of the privileged few, otherwise wouldn't things be looking very different today?

Just how this government's relentless programme of austerity, A Really Big Call and Andrew Lansley's Health and Social Care Act, another Really Big Call - are to our benefit remains a mystery to us. The Prime Minister doesn't appear to have thought of this when drafting her speech.

4) "We will make Britain a country that works not for the a privileged few, but for everyone of us."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how does not standing up to non-dom Lord Rothermere when his newspaper attacked the judiciary, demonstrate a country working for all of us and not the privileged few?

At the privileged press' very first challenge to her authority the Prime Minister capitulated. She seems to have acted accordingly ever since.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how does this government's appalling bedroom tax demonstrate the making of a Britain that works not for the privileged few but for everyone of us?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why is there even one person homeless in this country, a country that is apparently working for all of us?

5) "Furthermore, as I said in Florence, we share the same set of fundamental beliefs; a belief in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights....."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, what strong consumer rights would that be when the RICS, with all its cachet, can't force its Members and Regulated Firms to do anything or refrain from doing anything even when that means those Members and Regulated Firms are in breach of RICS Rules and Regulations?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, what further strong consumer rights is the Prime Minister speaking of when the RICS have permitted its Members and Regulated Firms to develop practices that do not work in their customer's interests - practices that have developed due to the RICS apparent inability to enforce its gold standard Rules and Regulations?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, what strong consumer rights do property complainants have when they take their complaints to the RICS "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property only for the Ombudsman to hand them a broken solution in a RICS broken market?

The ombudsman system in this country has been described as being, "farcical."

In other words that means the un-privileged many are being systematically and very deliberately fleeced by the privileged few. The Prime Minister made no reference to this in her speech.

6) "And in other areas like workers' rights or the environment, the EU should be confident that we will not engage in a race to the bottom in the standards and protections we set."

It would appear that the Prime Minister has absolutely no idea as to what has been going on at the Ombudsman Association and Ombudsman Services over the past decade, and, like her Culture Secretary, Mr Hancock, prefers instead to cover-up the unpleasantness of the past. For her and her ministers to do otherwise would require them to; stand up, challenge the vested interests of the privileged few and actually do something to right those wrongs rather than just talk about it. Or seek to sweep it under the carpet.

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, the Ombudsman Association once have as a criterion for membership that ombudsman schemes needed to have a Whistleblowing Policy, why was this requirement removed?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why did the Ombudsman Association permit Ombudsman Services to join its regulatory domain when the latter had no such policy?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how could this have possibly happened when the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services was also the Chair of the Ombudsman Association?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why do British ombudsman schemes deny their workers the Human Right of freedom of expression?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, was the removal of workers' rights at British ombudsman schemes part of a deliberate cover-up to hide the broken solution it was providing consumers in this very broken market?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, what protection do farcical ombudsmen with their broken solutions in a broken market offer to both their employees and consumers at large?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, isn't the Prime Minister living in the wrong tense and haven't we been languishing at the bottom for the past decade thanks to the appalling standards and criminal lack of protections this government has permitted to develop over time given its ideological and dogmatic attachment to de-regulated/self-regulated markets?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, when NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd employ Anonymous Desk Top Reviews to write one line sentences that determine whether their patients - people to whom they owe a duty of care - are billed for the full cost of their nursing care or not, what protection is that affording the un-privileged many?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, doesn't this appalling practice - a consequence of the equally appalling National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care and Andrew Lansley's appalling Health and Social Care Act of 2012, place us firmly at the bottom of a very inhumane and degrading barrel?

The government is, to all intents and purposes, running an extortion racket with the victims of this racket being forced to pay their legal representative's fees in order to reclaim what was rightfully theirs in the first place.

It is a deliberately rigged market - an extortion racket. It is almost offensive for the Prime Minister to talk of bringing people together whilst Mr Lansley's Act remains on the statute books..

The way this government treats the sick, the elderly the dying and their relatives

is shameful. Unfortunately, you need a conscience to feel shame Something the Coalition government clearly lacked other wise there would be no artificial - rigged - division of health and nursing care.

It created the broken solution to the broken market in health care whilst often robbing the sick, the elderly and the dying of everything they ever worked and saved for.

 

The EU should have no confidence whatsoever in the standards and protections this government has set. The Prime Minister forgot to mention this in her speech yesterday..

7) "We start from the place where our regulators already have deep and long-standing relationships. So the task is maintaining trust; not building it in the first place."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, what trust can the EU have in our broken ombudsman market, our broken RICS regulatory market, our broken health care market or our broken press regulatory market?

8) "The UK will need to make a strong commitment that its regulatory standards will remain as high as the EU's. That commitment, in practice, will mean that UK and EU regulatory standards will remain substantially similar in the future."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, our regulatory standards are appalling, what is the Prime Minister talking about?

The Prime Minister's empty and cynical talk of bringing people back together when her government's policies combined with a brazen, unhesitating and determined commitment to cover up the injustices of the recent and not so past - The Full English Cover-Up - will simply result in ever more victims swelling the already bulging ranks of those deliberately kept waiting for their elusive, priceless share of justice.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services: Broken Solutions. Broken Markets. Broken Promises - A Broken Britain. (14)

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. (Attempt 14)

14) Ombudsman Services: Broken Solutions, Broken Markets, Broken Promises - A Broken Britain.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

On the day the Culture Secretary, Matt Hancock broke David Cameron's promise to the British people to hold Leveson 2, The Guardian carried two articles detailing other scandals - one that has resulted in an inquiry and one that hasn't.

The one that hasn't was entitled, "Battle of Orgreave: more unreleased police files uncovered" by Alan Travis. This concerned important evidence which was ignored by the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, when she arrived at her decision to refuse a public inquiry into the events surrounding Orgreave. Her reason was that, "Ultimately, there were no deaths or wrongful convictions." Although the police did their best.

It's important to remember that when high-achievers are engaged in a Full English Cover-Up any excuse for covering-up will do. However, the more outrageous the excuse the better it becomes as it bestows upon the excuse maker a certain cachet. 

In the unlikely event that at some future date The Establishment should appear to be on the point of agreeing to an inquiry someone else from within the ranks will be found to stand up and say that actually it's not in the national Interest to do so. That it's too expensive. Or far too time-consuming. And that by then the original excuse-maker will have received their Establishment reward and moved on to greener pastures. Perhaps even a seat in the House of Lords

The Guardian article that did was entitled - Inquiry urges payouts for victims of postwar UK child migration scheme" and was written by Owen Bowcott. It details the tragic lives handed down to child migrants sent to various Commonwealth countries by seemingly unknowing or uncaring adults. Owen Bowcott wrote, "The IICSA's chair, Prof Alexis Jay, said the policy had continued despite the evidence over many years that children were suffering and blamed, 'successive" British governments."

Being in a position of power and being fully committed to ignoring the evidence is crucial to the continued remarkable success of The Full English Cover-Up. We have set a gold standard in this particular field of endeavour. The landscape is littered with just such colluders. There is a waiting list to join.

Mr Hancock's justification for the unjustifiable decision to cover-up corporate malpractice and the questionable relationship between press and police went as follows, "we do not believe that re-opening this costly and time-consuming public inquiry is the right way forward."

According to Mr Hancock, the promise once made by the Conservatives to the British public was trumped by the need to allow the media industry to, "hold the powerful to account and respond to today's challenges."

It slipped his mind that the powerful who need to be held to account are the very billionaires who control the press and media industry in this country but who, for tax purposes, choose to live elsewhere. He should have designed an App to remind himself of this fact. He hadn't and so didn't respond to the challenge.

In failing to do so he also seems to have forgotten Lord Harmsworth and his Daily Mail headline, "Enemies of the People."  This was when the Daily Mail spoke of their readers' Mail-generated fury over those out of touch judges who had, to the outrage of the Mail, declared war on democracy.

The Conservative Party, through Mr Hancock, has thus gone from saying they would democratically hold the powerful to account through Leveson 2 - by examining corporate malpractice and the relationship between the press and the police -  to choosing instead to undemocratically defend the very corporate malpractice it had once been so critical of.

He thus displayed all the logic of a Property Ombudsman.

The Culture Secretary, when announcing yet another Full English Cover-Up, completed the government's U-turn by saying, "But we will take action to safeguard the lifeblood of our democratic discourse and tackle the challenges our media face today not a decade ago."

Clearly, sections of the self-regulating free press are determined to control that discourse, maintain their privileged position and silence any challenge to their largely un-regulated practices by instructing their office staff at Westminster to sanction the cover-up. And this has now duly been done.

The Late Peter Preston wrote, "No wonder that respondents to a You Gov poll the other day believe (74%) that owners of UK papers and TV stations should be full residents of Great Britain and pay their taxes here."

(Press bias can't be cured by a British passport)

That's more than voted to Leave. It would indeed be in the National Interest for press and media barons to reside permanently in the UK and would mean that we really will be taking back control when it happens.

In the meantime our democratic lifeblood is being sucked out of us by those who unhesitatingly seek to hide the evidence, ignore the evidence and/or distort it, but who then brazenly stand up in Parliament and make misleading statements to the contrary.

Martin Lewis's and his MoneySavingExperts have described the regulation and practices of ombudsmen as being, "farcical." If that is indeed the case then the regulation and practices of the billionaires who control the British media are, "very farcical indeed."

It's how the powerful rig and abuse the system whilst avoiding tax at the same time.

Sir Brian Leveson stated that the, "extent of wrongdoing (at News UK) has been far greater than the (first) inquiry was informed" and that there was still a, "legitimate expectation" of a full public examination.

(Leveson 2: what was it mean to achieve? The Guardian)

However, The Guardian does not support that legitimate expectation for a full public examination. Nor does it believe in a state regulator and most certainly not a state press regulator with teeth. And so The Guardian has allowed itself to become disinterested in what the full extent of that corporate media wrongdoing was.

Q. Investigate corporate wrongdoing or undermine speedy, fair and transparent press regulation? The latter every time it would seem.

The Guardian is it says, "independently" regulated along with the Financial Times. Then there is the regulator recognised by the Press Recognition Panel. Next up comes IMPRESS backed by Max Mosley and finally comes the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). All in all a regulatory wild-west.

As a consequence there is to be little or no transparency or accountability when it comes to regulating the British press. A press that is, we're told, tirelessly seeking to hold the powerful to account and make their corporate practices more transparent and democratic.

A British press that tells us to take back control but that will not relinquish one iota of the control it has seized for itself - with a little help from its jobbing politicians..

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why hasn't a Government Minister stood up in Parliament to explain to consumers why Ombudsman Services were able to offer a broken solution to a broken market for so many years and get away with it scot-free - why the cover-up?

Finally ,we should like to point out that our office is not funded by Max Mosley. Or anyone else for that matter. We have given up tea and coffee.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombmans Sixtyone-percent