SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (5) Page 7:

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The ombudsmans61ercent campaign (5) Page 7: Context "In February 2017 MoneySavingExpert.com was formally asked by Richard Arkless MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Consumer Protection to produce a report for the APPG on the effectiveness of ombudsmen. The Chair of the APPG is now Yvonne Fovargue MP." The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign sent Yvonne Fovargue a detailed analysis of of the MSE Report pointing out that the recommendation that the Department for BEIS and the Ombudsman Association had consistently failed to protect the consumer - neither had intervened when we complained to them about Ombudsman Services - and that as a consequence of their inaction consumers had suffered needlessly. Labour's Yvonne Fovargue subsequently blocked us from her twitter account. So no transparency, accountability or willingness to protect the consumer there. "The report would provide a review of the ombudsmen landscape and useful consumer insight to inform and assist the Group’s own inquiry on the subject. This is the final report. It was presented to the APPG on 1 November 2017 by Martin Lewis OBE, founder and executive chairman of MoneySavingExpert.com" Martin Lewis told us he stands by his report. More accurately he appears to be hiding behind it. A report/consumer champion who fails to acknowledge criticisms and respond accordingly is hardly working to protect consumers.

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (3) Page 5:

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (3) Page 5. We agree with: Recommendation 1: All ombudsmen need a statutory basis as a foundation • Ombudsmen should havestatutory powers to ensure that firms are cooperative with processes and compliant with decisions that have real legal teeth. Recommendation 2: Oversight of ombudsmen must be boosted • Relevant Government Departments, the Ombudsman Association and Companies House should work to make sure that the performance of ombudsmen is consistently higher. We agree that the oversight of ombudsmen must be boosted but disagree with the recommendation that the Ombudsman Association should have such a role. The Ombudsman Association was formerly The British and Irish Ombudsman Association. It set out its own set of rules for membership. Page 5 should be read in conjunction with Chapter 3: TWITTER: Replying to @O61percentC @MartinSLewis and @GMB Chapter 3 of Sharper Teeth begins by telling us that The Ombudsman Association is - "self-regulatory." We'll return to the philosophy of self regulation later when discussing Consumer Focus / The RICS / and its regulation - or almost total lack of it - of its Members and Firms. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin's Ch 3 opens by saying that The Ombudsman Association principles, "state that the primary role of ombudsmen must be to handle complaints about maladministration." Let's be clear about this - their principle aim is handle complaints about maladministration. But do they? Maladministration and Whistleblowing Policies: TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB The BIOA / OA once required all participating member schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign phoned Ombudsman Services to ask if they had one. They didn't. We phoned the OA but didn't get an answer. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Your desk research will have revealed that the CO of Ombudsman Services was told by his board to have an "honest" look at the scheme's performance and that the Independent Assessor had been shocked at the maladministration she had uncovered. The CO of OS was on the board of OA. Here we have a situation where the Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services and Board member of The Ombudsman Association - whose primary purpose is to investigate maladministration - is investigating his own maladministration. There was NO intervention by The OFT. NO intervention by The Ombudsman Association and NO mention of it in Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. All talk of "fit+proper person," unimpeachable integrity and Gold Standard governance seems faintly ridiculous when no-one is regulating the regulators. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB The 2011 Annual Report states" But are we delivering the excellent service to which we aspire? This year the board has supported CO Lewis Shand Smith in taking a close and honest look at what we are actually delivering." Q. Martin where was the property report? So we have: shocking maladministration, an illogical ombudsman and a Chief Ombudsman who brags that the brand is marching on - superb - all singing and dancing when the evidence clears says otherwise. Q. Martin, why wasn't this in your report? This revelation - that the Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services was told he needed to take a "close" and Honest" look at what was being delivered at the company - needs to be linked with notions of a "fit+proper person" below and DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, you would have been aware of the Ombudsman Services:Property's maladministration and its property ombudsman's habit of "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner." (DJS Research) TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin the 2006 Articles of Association of OS Ltd under: Powers and Duties of the Board state it should: c) ensure that the CO satisfactorily administers the affairs and conduct of the business of the service Q. What conversation did you have about the scheme's maladministration? Q. Why do you recommend giving these people "Sharper teeth?" Their final report stated that the Chief Ombudsman's Property Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services combined not arriving at decisions "in a logical manner" with a strong complainant perception of partiality. Partiality towards the scheme's fee-paying members. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, you would have been aware of the Ombudsman Services:Property's maladministration and its property ombudsman's habit of "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner." (DJS Research) Q. Why do you recommend giving these people "Sharper Teeth?" Then there's the company's refusal to comply with their Association's stipulation that ALL schemes were required to have a Whistleblowing Policy. Fit and proper persons? TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, given that the CO of Ombudsman Services also sat on the board The Ombudsman Association - whose principle role was to handle complaints about maladministration - your on the record fact-check with him must have been a difficult one. Q. Why wasn't this in your report? TWITTER: Please answer the question.@O61percentC·Jul 25 Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Under: Governance - the organisation goes on to state, "If a scheme is to be credible, all stakeholders must have confidence in it and in the independence and effectiveness of the office holder in the role of investigating and resolving consumer or public service complaints." In reality the "governance" turned out to be: The Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services investigating instances of his own company's maladministration himself. And the Whistleblowing Policy? TWITTER: Please answer the question.@O61percentC·Jul 25 Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, The Ombudsman Association later removed the r requirement for participating schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. Employees are no longer protected. Q. Does this not breach Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Q. Martin, how does having a CO of Ombudsman Services who was also a board member (and chair) of The Ombudsman Association handling complaints about his own scheme's maladministration satisfy all those requirements listed in the previous tweet? Your report doesn't say. Q. Are these "fit+proper persons" doing "fit+proper things?" If schools can be subjected to the full rigours of an Ofsted inspection why not ombudsmen and their various nefarious schemes? The abject failure of certain APPGs to hold certain government departments to account is a worrying reflection of the crumbling twilight state of democracy in no-answers / post-Brexit / post transparency and post accountability Britain. Can we even trust Martin Lewis and his MSE empire? Given his refusal to work with us but instead stand by his misleading and inaccurate report the answer must sadly be - No. TWITTER: Replying to @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, can you please explain to the British consumer why you "stand by" Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform's Recommendation 2? • Particular focus should be paid to: the ease of complaining; to the speed at which complaints are processed; and to the perception of fairness among those who complain to ombudsmen. • Ineffective ombudsmen must be stripped of the right to use the word in their title. • There should be a form of ‘fit and proper’ approved-persons test for people in senior roles in ombudsmen. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could approve such persons. We are strongly opposed to this recommendation. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign supports Recommendation3: Recommendation 3: The 8-week rule should be shortened and needs vital exceptions • Unless a deadlock letter is received, consumers generally need to wait 8 weeks before using an ombudsman (but it can be more). • If the complaint is about debt issues, payday loans, credit brokers or black marks on credit files, then waiting 8 weeks could leave consumers in crisis. • The 8-week rule was created in a non-digital age. But in this digital age with instant credit scoring and decisions, 8 weeks is simply too long. That time should be reduced to somewhere between 2-4 weeks – as a blanket rule across all ombudsmen. • There should also be exceptions so people who are in crisis due to an unresolved complaint can escalate to an ombudsman sooner Please answer the question.@O61percentC·Jul 25 Replying to @O61percentC @MartinSLewis and @GMB Martin, why wasn't the requirement for ALL ombudsman schemes to have a whistleblowing policy in your list of recommendations? Given the self-regulation of maladministration by those at Ombudsman Services and The Ombudsman Association why was your report silent on this matter? RECOMMENDATION 4: ALL OMBUDSMAN SCHEMES MUST HAVE A WHISTLEBLOWING POLICY.

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (4) Page 6.

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent campaign (4) Page 6. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that whoever operates the new scheme(s) needs to be: * A fit and very proper person. * Have statutory powers. * Be transparent and accountable in all they do. * Ensure Whistleblowing Policies are effective. * Publish all decisions online. Aspiration: Comprehensive ombudsman membership in consumer sectors In an ideal world, all companies in consumer sectors would be members of an ombudsman. This could be delivered through a single ombudsman for all consumer complaints, with every business serving consumers being a member; or having one ombudsman per sector, combined with a single body acting as a portal for all ombudsmen, and filtering complaints to the appropriate ombudsman behind the scenes. NO behind the scenes - consumers need full transparency/ accountability. However, this aspiration is far from being implemented; it would require radical, wholesale change. Until that happens, ombudsmen should be reformed to operate at a gold standard, truly distinct from other ADR providers. Your recommendations for monitoring this would be a ongoing disaster for consumers. But it does raise the crucially important issues of: * Unimpeachable integrity in those operating the scheme(s) * Competency. * Trust. * Transparency and accountability. in what is fast becoming a twilight democracy.

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (2) Page 3:

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (2) Page 3: We agree with the following: "• On average, 53% of people who had used an ombudsman said they were put off using an ombudsman again, even a different one. Our research also found: • The current ombudsman landscape is complicated for consumers to navigate. In some sectors there are competing ADR schemes and in other areas there is a lack of ombudsman provision, or ombudsmen with few members. • It can take too long to escalate a complaint to an ombudsman. The 8-week rule was created in a non-digital age, but in this digital age with instant credit-scoring and decisions, 8 weeks is simply too long and should be reduced. • Even when a complaint reaches the ombudsman, consumers feel their complaints are dealt with slowly. • Currently firms are required to say what the approved ADR scheme is in their sector even if they will not work with it, thus giving false hope to consumers. This rule is a farce." "This mixed bag of experiences with ombudsmen devalues the term, and means consumers cannot rely on them as they should be able to. While use of the word ‘ombudsman’ is restricted, we do not believe it is restricted enough." "With the growth of ADR, ombudsmen should be regarded as the gold standard. Only those who meet that gold standard should be called ombudsmen." We disagree: Britain left the gold standard in 1931. What is needed is a transparent and accountable system of democratic accountability. The APPG on Consumer Protection chaired by Yvonne Fovargue refused us permission to address the group The EU Justice Sub-Committee chaired by Baroness Kennedy did likewise. Both committees were supposedly there to protect the consumer. Both seemed more intent on protecting a Chief Executive who needed to take an "honest" look at what he was achieving. This information was available to the public. Why didn't MSE make use of it? Had they done so surely their conclusions would have been radically different and more importantly consumers would have been afforded - protection. "These issues are not academic – they affect real consumers with real disputes. When ombudsmen fail, consumers lose: substantial reform is urgently needed." We beg to differ. These issues are academic. A great deal of valuable, scholarly work exists on the subject of ombudsmen and their schemes and yet MSE makes no mention of it. Steven E Aufrecht: Evaluating Ombudsman Systems 2000: "An ombudsman's job is to investigate and evaluate others. Ombudsmen must be subject to evaluation." The two Parliamentary committees we approached disagree. Trevor Bruck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson: The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice 2011: "The ombudsman is an institution endowed with remarkable power and itself needs to be called to account. Not only can an ombudsman fail due to error or incompetency, but an ombudsman can also fail through timidity." DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services suggest all three were present at this particular scheme.

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An analysis by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (1) Page 2:

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM - An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (1) Page 2. "An ombudsman’s job is to resolve complaints, effectively operating as a final referee between the complainant and the body being complained about. This is a crucial role for consumer protection. This report shows that the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) landscape that ombudsmen exist within is a complex maze, full of inconsistencies. Ombudsmen are not equal. Despite sharing a name, ombudsmen have different powers, and vary widely in effectiveness. Key areas where ombudsmen differ include whether membership is compulsory, whether firms can be forced to cooperate, and what happens if companies do not comply. Much of this discrepancy comes from whether or not the ombudsman in question has some form of statutory basis. Many do not. This uneven provision results in some consumers having positive experiences with ombudsmen, but for too many it is a frustrating waste of time. This was shown in our consumer survey results. Respondents self-selected to take part in the survey, so it is to be expected that the results would be a little more negative than in a non-self-selecting poll (as people who have a complaint to make were more likely to participate). Despite this, the results were stark: • Our survey identified serious issues with firms not cooperating with ombudsmen and complying with their decisions (although ombudsmen gave a different view). Consumer responses indicated that the Financial Ombudsman Service’s decisions are most likely to actually be put into action. • The perception of impartiality was called into question by our survey, which found that the majority – 60% – thought the ombudsman was biased against them; 8% thought the ombudsman was biased towards them; and only 31% said the ombudsman was neutral." We agree with MSE that ombudsman "impartiality" is a crucial problem. But it is something the report does not examine or explain. In their second Customer Satisfaction Report for Ombudsman Services, DJS Research reported that 61% thought the ombudsman's decision went against them. Hence - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. This figure rose to 84% (as recorded on page 60 of this report). Again, this startling statistic is left unexplained. "• For only one ombudsman surveyed did the majority of respondents say that the decisionwas fair; for all others, more than 50% of their users said that the decision was unfair." ISSUES: * Ombudsman as referee. Many referees simply aren't up to the job. This report simply avoids examining the reasons why ombudsmen are "unfair." * Who ARE ombudsmen accountable to and why are they NOT being held to account for their "unfairness?"

MARTIN LEWIS - SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. Questions raised by the Report's conclusions/Recommendations. Pt 4 (96)

MARTIN LEWIS - SHARPER: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. Questions raised about the Report's Conclusions/Recommendations. Pt 4 (96) Martin you say, "There are too many ombudsmen with too few powers." Q. Would you give a CO who needed to take an "honest" look at what he was actually achieving MORE power? Q. Or a property ombudsman who arrived at decisions in an illogical manner - more power? 2. Martin, you say that substantial reform is necessary so that consumers can have the confidence to go to an ombudsman and be sure of "a fair hearing." Yet your report doesn't clearly say why that isn't so at present. It glosses over DJS Research's CSRs for Ombudsman Services. 3. Martin, if you had analysed DJS Research's CSRs more carefully wouldn't you have arrived at a far different set of conclusions/recommendations? The CO and property ombudsman at OS didn't need MORE powers - they needed to investigate consumer complaints fairly and diligently. 4. Martin, despite evidence to the contrary you say, "We like ombudsmen. We think they're a good thing." Q. Is an Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman who "arrives at decisions in an illogical manner" a good thing? Q. What is there to like about such a person? 5. Then there's the matter of the instances of maladministration at Ombudsman Services. Q. Would you seriously give such people MORE powers? Q. What is there to like about such people and why are they a good thing? 6. You say "...based on the evidence used in this report, we take the opportunity to make policy recommendations that the APPG may wish to consider." Based on the evidence we have provided would you with would you like to amend those recommendations and if not why not? 7. Money Saving Expert must surely get its expertise from a careful appraisal of the very best data available. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has attempted to provide you with that. We have provided you with evidence and criticised; The OFT, The RICS, The OA, The BEIS and OS. 8. Yet you still insist that you stand by your report and its conclusions and recommendations to the APPG on Consumer Protection. Should your report's recommendations be put into effect we believe consumers would even worse off in terms of protection than they are now. 9. When all has been said and done it comes down to one simple rule: consumers need to be protected from the cowboys - and not the cowboys from their consumers. We believe that without a shadow of a doubt that the cowboys have the sheriff riding with them. Riding roughshod. 10. The scandal is not that ombudsmen don't have enough power but that the power they do have has been abused. The scandal is that governments - and now MSE it would seem - have known about this endemic injustice and still refuse to do anything about it. Things will get worse.

Sharper Teeth: The Customer Need For Ombudsman Reform a Further Update By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (94): DJS Research Set The Gold Standard in Research/Customer satisfaction Reports.

Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform a further update by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (94): DJS Research Set The Gold Standard In Independent Research/Customer Satisfaction Reports. We attempted to raise the following issues with Martin Lewis on twitter but without success: A) THE DEPARTMENT OF BEIS AND THE OMBUDSMAN ASSOCIATION - SETTING GOLD STANDARDS? 1) Martin Lewis, should: Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform be implemented - especially the recommendations that the BEIS and OA set the gold standard in what is to be an ombudsman then consumers will be at an even greater disadvantage than they are today. Both ignored us. 2) The BEIS was the BIS back in the day when our campaign - The ombudsmans61percent Campaign began. We tried raising the issue of an ombudsman who "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner" (DJS Research) with: Vince Cable, Joe Swinson, Sajid Javid and Greg Clark. All of them ignored us. 3) Had Vince Cable, Joe Swinson, Sajid Javid and Greg Clark acted upon our complaint consumers would have been stopped form taking their complaints to an ombudsman who, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner." But they didn't act. Consumer dissatisfaction levels thus rose from 61% to 85%. PLEASE NOTE: we've fact-checked your table on p60 and think the "unfairness" level is 84%. The table is hard to read. 4) On page 8 of the report it states you did "desk research" and "on the record fact checking." DJS Research conducted independent CSRs for Ombudsman Services (2008-11). Their reports are dynamite They stated that the property ombudsman "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner." 5) When you did your "on the record fact checking" with the CEO and Chief ombudsman at Ombudsman Services what did he have to say about his property ombudsman who arriving at decisions in an "illogical manner?" Q. Would you care to comment now? Q. What do you to say to those complainants? 6) We contacted DJS Research to confirm that they had indeed discovered an ombudsman who was arriving at decisions "in an illogical manner." They had They said we could use their name in our campaign. Q. Did you fact check this startling revelation with DJS Research and if not why not? 7) DJS Research also report that: * investigators/ombudsman did not understand the complexity of property disputes. When you did your "on the record fact checking" what did the CEO and Chief Ombudsman have to say to that? When an ombudsman is confused by the complexity of disputes how can this a proper investigation of a consumer's complaint? 8) DJS Research also report that: * investigators/ombudsman did not understand the complexity of property disputes. Q. Martin, when you did your "on the record fact checking" what did the CEO and Chief Ombudsman have to say to that? Is this a proper investigation of a consumer's complaint? 9) DJS Research say: * evidence was omitted and/or misrepresented. When you carried out your "on the record fact checking" with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman what did he have to say to that? What do you say to consumers who suffered this terrible injustice? 10) DJS Research continue: FURTHER REPRESENTATION - 83% had submitted further rep. 66% submitted further evidence. Most complainants said this didn't alter the outcome. Q. What did the CEO and Chief Ombudsman say about this when you contacted him? 11) DJS Research in what was to be their final report state at 8.24: "To be effective the SOS (later rebranded as OS) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the consensus of opinion." Q. What did the CEO say to that? 12) When you desk researched Ombudsman Services minutes what response did you make to: Minutes for Dec 2009: "The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the apparent increases in levels of award." Q. Surely the ombudsman is independent and free to make awards? ISSUES: Independence of Ombudsman / Integrity / Fit-and-proper-person / OFT Guidelines / Role of Regulator. 13) DJS Research have a different take on this. They state, "OSP is different to OS Energy and OS Communications in that the financial implications of complaints are much larger as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. This should be looked at .. the scale of financial award be increased to be more in line with financial losses incurred by the complainant as a result of the problem." (DJS Research) Q. When you had an on the record fact check with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman what did he say to this and why did his property ombudsman instead REDUCE financial awards significantly? 14) The RICS had a Memorandum of Understanding with OS:Property its "appointed" company. It had a Director of Regulation sitting on its appointed company's board. Q. When you fact checked this with the OS CEO how did he justify this in terms of the ombudsman's independence? 15) The RICS monitored its appointed company for "the effective resolution of disputes." Q. When you fact checked this with the OS CEO had did he explain a decision "not arrived at in a logical manner" as being "effective?" Q. Effective for fee-paying members or consumers? B) THE OFT CRITERIA FOR APPROVING OMBUDSMAN SERVICES PROPERTY: When you did desk research you will have read the OFT's criteria for the approval of its approved and monitored ADR scheme - OS:P. Criterion 5 states: "The ombudsman must proceed fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice." Q. Martin how is an illogical ombudsman able to proceed fairly? Q. Where is the the natural justice when an ombudsman is illogical?