Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewas Report. By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6: Martin Lewis (2)

Martin, your report, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform" fails to name ANY of the those you had, "off the record" discussions with. Time to put the record straight. Re-write your report and name names especially those at Ombudsman Services. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign: campaigning for justice for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6: Martin Lewis (1)

Martin you, "fact-checked" the maladministration at Ombudsman Services for your whitewash report: Sharper Teeth etc. Would you say the CEO was, "a fit and proper person" to head such a scandalous scheme? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign: campaigning for justice for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse.

"Watching The Watchers Watch The Ombuds Watchers Watch The Ombudsmen." A Reply To - "Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds." (Creutzfeldt N. + Gill C.) Social and Legal Studies by: The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 5: Academics 1.

"Watching The Watchers Watch The Ombuds Watchers Watch The Ombudsmen:" A reply to - "Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds." (Creutzfeldt N, + Gill C.) Social and Legal Studies by: The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Dear Friend, The speed, fairness and independence of a nation's justice system is a measure of the health its democracy. Judging by the short reign of chaos, denial and terror at the government approved and "monitored" Ombudsman Services:Property one pillar of the justice establishment has spectacularly imploded and is now beyond repair. But where are the politicians? Where is the political will to radically overhaul a failed system of administrative justice? If RICS the regulator and the government monitors of the government approved Ombudsman Services:Property had done the jobs they were paid to do then there would have been no need for us to write this reply. But they didn't. And so we are. We were inspired to respond to Creutzfeldt N+Gill C's article by: Huw Beynon's, Working For Ford / Get Up Stand Up | Playing For Change | Song Around The World (13.769.897 views) / Eyal Weizman +Fazal Sheikh: "The Conflict Shoreline, Surprise and Disappointment" / that private sector ombuds were excluded from this article / a difficulty with the terms, "Against the law" and "With the law / a disagreement with the authors over some of their conclusions and continued focus on the watchers and not the watched / a need for a rigorous understanding of ombuds and how and why they operate in the way they do and an objection to being labelled a, "watcher." "Watcher: a person who watches television or films - Cambridge English Dictionary." Or, "Watcher: a person who closely follows or observes someone or something - Merriam-Webster Dictionary." The second definition is slightly less demeaning. "Watchers," if our experience is anything to go by, do a great deal more than just watch. Perhaps "activists" or "protesters" would be a far more suitable word for their hours of voluntary unpaid activism and banging of heads on doors that never seem to want to open. There is no lottery funding or charitable status available for the likes of us. The authors seem to acknowledge this on p. 33 in their section: A Collective Approach to Gaming and the Communal Dynamics of Protest. Collective "protest" being "the means through which complainants rendered helpless could regain a voice" rather than being "shut out in the cold." "Protester" or "activist" seem far more appropriate lables to be given. The authors begin by stating, "The article argues that legal consciousness provides an appropriate theoretical lens for studying user experiences of ombuds processes and a useful framework for understanding the ways in which people make sense of experiences, construct ideas about justice and make decisions about what action to take in response to dissatisfaction." Is it not also a political consciousness? Isn't the whole process of being systematically denied justice by the state and its civil servants and politicians - political? Especially when the financial stakes are so high as they were at Ombudsman Services:Property. We're not talking about a kettle that refused to boil. The Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, Gillian Fleming was moved to write that the financial implications of a £25K award made against her fee-paying members could be crippling especially at a time of financial constraint. She forgot to mention the financially crippling effects of NOT making such an award to complainants at just such a time. They were, after all, the aggrieved party. The link between fee-paying members who fund the "service" and ombuds' decisions and their pro-business ombudspeak could be easily followed until 2011 when DJS Research were suddenly replaced and the company minutes disappeared from it website. However, for future researchers of ombuds schemes such a line on enquiry is surely essential if academics are serious about understanding the political-economy of ombuds in rigged (or captured) market economies in the early 21st century. (2) The approach adopted by Huw Beynon's in, "Working For Ford" was markedly different and succeeded in giving the production line workers he surveyed a sense of worth and dignity. They were able to forge a collective response something that we accept is denied to complainants. Perhaps a buddy/advocacy network needs to be established so that already stressed complainants have somebody (or body) to help through their "customer journey?" The workers at Fords responses to the situation they'd been placed in and how they sought to assert control over a work load imposed by an assertive management are - explained. The "ombuds" in Creutzfeldt +Gills' paper remain shadowy figures. The starring actors never set foot on the stage. Many people who turn to these "ombuds" - a wide range of individuals all with varying skills (some with very few) - but all sharing that same ridiculous name - are often desperate and vulnerable people. Their experiences of the Byzantine / Kafkaesque / mind-numbingly idiotic processes and ombudspeople they come up against in their hours of greatest need can be - and often are -traumatic. Especially so when handed an eye-wateringly ludicrous decision for all their trouble. And no hope of appeal. The "Final Decision." It sounds eerily like something out of Germany between the two world wars especially when The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman kept referring to the people he was sitting in judgement on as: a stock of work. Each given a number and then summarily dispatched. There is no in-depth analysis of what led ombuds watchers / activists / protesters to fight back. No Weberian "ideal-type" ombuds or Gold Standard as Martin Lewis (1) erroneously insists upon from which named ombus all-too regularly diverge or what led to that divergence. And which caused some to fight back. With Huw Beynon you knew why the good guys were good and why the bad guys were bad. The workers were most certainly going to stand up for their rights. When we were promised by Jonathan May of the then OFT a "speedy" fair" and "independent" "investigation" of our complaint by Gillian Fleming the then property ombudsman At Ombudsman Services:Property that is what we expected. When we got the opposite we too decided to stand up for our rights. How did this particular ombuds diverge from an ideal type of ombuds - one that is: fair, speedy and truly independent? Please see: www.blogger.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. But surely it is the ombuds who should be being placed under the researcher's array of theoretical templates and probed by their investigational tool-kit and not just those victims who chose to fit back? In: "The Ombudsman Enterprise + Administrative Justice" (2011) by Buck t, Kirkham R and Thompson B Ch 6 "Accountability" - we read that the ombudsman enterprise is an, "unelected institution employed to provide assurance to Parliament and the wider population as to the efficacy of Government - the interaction of these different bodies is important if the most effective form of accountability is to be achieved. The ombudsman is an institution endowed with remarkable power that itself needs to be called to account. Not only can an ombudsman fail due to error or incompetency, but an ombudsman can fail through timidity." We believe the ombuds we came up against - the one who DJS Research described as: "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" who didn't "routinely ask her members questions" or answer ours is ably described by the above authors. Perhaps their - error / incompetency / timidity schema could form a grid into which all ombuds can be allocated according to their proneness for: error, incompetency and timidity? We also had some difficulty understanding Figure 3: An integrated legal consciousness model for analysing interactions between citizens and ombuds systems. (p20) It seems that after being fitted-up by the ombuds responsible for their injustice the activist/protester is then being fitted into a grid - a grid which really doesn't seem go far in explaining the causes of that injustice in the first place. It would be interesting to know if they were indeed victims of: error / incompetency / timidity or a combination of all three? And we are talking about ombuds injustice on an industrial scale. A production-line of injustice. With assertive ombuds all spouting ombudspeak. Much of which makes little or no sense. How can Lewis Shand Smith's "superb model of ADR" at Ombudsman Services need to be "closely and honestly looked at" if it truly were, "superb?" Do we want empirical scholarship for empirical scholarship's sake when thousands of anonymous individuals are being mugged by largely unregulated and unaccountable ombuds? Ombuds who routinely fail Buck Kirkham and Thompson's need to be held to account? When citing Hertogh's, "anonymous people who have lost confidence in the law" shouldn't the focus of attention be on: * the decisions that caused those people to lose confidence? * the individuals/ombuds who caused them to lose their confidence? In a modern democracy worthy of its name ALL such decisions must be digitalised and put on the internet for public scrutiny. That would help to resolve the accountability and transparency deficit. A standardised form, scrutinised regularly by a combination of MPs. consumer groups and protester/activists. We would question why in the low grid/low group individual dissent section such individuals are described as being "with the law." If you are resisting the law how can you be, "with the law?" The idea that individuals, "Defer" to appalling ombuds decisions is also problematic. The authors claim: "Alternatively, deference may have a more positive form as individuals feel personally aggrieved, but recognise the the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome and need to defer to community values." Why would individuals feel the need to be personally aggrieved if the outcome is legitimate? Or how can you combine feeling, "personally aggrieved" at an appalling miscarriage of justice and accept that a shockingly bad decision is, "legitimate?" Placing people somewhere on a grid comes at a cost. The words we use to describe who we are and what we attempt to do are enormously important - it's what helps make watchers / activists / protesters: watchers / activists / protesters. The words Creutzfeldt and Gill use to describe us and what we do seem at times remote. We agree that the, "law's hegemonic role in sustaining domination" (Morgan Kuch 2015) is in urgent need of understanding given we are now living through what one former ombudsman has called, "the Golden Age of the Ombudsman." So that these "Golden People" can be suitably regulated, held to account and perhaps even have some of the shine taken off them when imprisoned. That would in itself require a radical understanding of the historical context in which these new Sun Gods came to flourish: a time when British capitalism dominated by a free market ideology demanded de-regulated markets and a bonfire of the regulations. A time when rigged or "captured" markets (Piketty) gave rise to rigged and captured redress. Or as one Ombudsman Services Annual Report put it - our members want to see that their money is being spent wisely - that we are adding value to their business practices. No mention of complainants' practices. Their "outcomes" certainly did add that value. It's how ombuds made redress: "Good For Business." Huw Beynon's use of structured interview surveys in, "Working For Ford" might have been helpful in the research and on page 21 the authors admit as much. They say, "This would have allowed us to deepen our analysis of ombuds watchers legal consciousness." But what of their political consciousness? An examination of ombuds legal/political/economic consciousness would be timely and interesting especially given their habit of: error / incompetency and timidity. But what about the validity of the activists' campaigns? And why isn't there a grid or continuum being devised into which ombuds and their schemes can be placed to publicly account for their: fairness, speed and independence in resolving complainants' disputes. As well as their: error / incompetency and/or timidity? And one also for the regulators which would help explain why regulators regularly don't get it right in the first place. The question as to why the formal justice system should cause so many to question - and some to resist it - never seems to get asked. We are told on page 16 "They eventually dissent from the wider system of political and legal redress which they come to see as complicit in preserving an unjust status quo. Importantly, that status quo is understood by the ombuds watchers as legally sanctioned, with ombuds being a part of the legal and political system that is, in the words of one of the groups, 'corrupt by design.'" Isn't it corrupt by design? If it wasn't wouldn't it look very different? If it actually did all the things it said on its tin we wouldn't be here would we. But we are. Surely, an analysis of its design couldn't but show it was designed - for it members benefit: to add value to their business practices? Having Gillian Fleming lower so-called financial awards "significantly" could only add to that "benefit." One ombuds, "benefit" is another protester's, "corruption." The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, former Chief Ombudsman and CEO at Ombudsman Services, liked to describe his, "superb model of ADR" as being, "Good For Business." This seems to be as good a starting point as any: Good For Business. Why not deploy it as an ideal type and one to measure ADR schemes against? This could be contrasted with a: Good For Consumers ideal type and a league table of ombuds schemes produced quarterly. Those responsible for their scheme's performance could be held to account by a panel of MPs and ombuds watchers / activists / protesters. With quarterly League Tables of ombuds performance published in the Daily Mail. For example: * Do they offer fee-paying members, "value for money? * Do they add value to their members' business practices? * Do they cut financial awards when asked to do so? * Do they hand out illogical decisions? Or * Do they offer complainants speedy justice? * Do they offer the right financial compensation? * Do they raise financial awards when asked to do so? * Do they allow the complainant the right to challenge those decisions? Is the ombuds: * prone to error * prone to incompetency * prone to timidity or a combination of the above. We should like to suggest academics use Ombudsman Services:Property as a case study. How did it go from being a superb model of ADR to bust in less than a decade? Where was government whilst this happened? Where were the MPs? You are welcome to use the information gathered at www.blogger.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone percent to help you. Ombudsman Services have removed the data detailing the calamity that was its Property "brand" from the historical record. OS:Property could become an "ideal type." The ultimate ombuds case study of the early 21st century. And where did the Ombudsman Services executives attribute blame for its spectacular failure? The system of course. Its new Chair, Tim Clement Jones even blamed complainants for complaining when his "best efforts" were seen by many of them as simply not being good enough. No mention of the individuals it failed or the "detriment" those nameless but numbered individuals suffered. We are - and remain: Case 510458 of The Rev Lewis Shand Smith's workload. One recipient of an OS:Property decision, "Not arrived at in a logical manner" was Julia: "We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor to our complaint - please refer to the Surveyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eye-wateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues. I really do want to tell my story if for nothing more than to help other people" Isn't now time for academic scholarship/research to cease being a "no risk strategy?" Isn't it time it came down off the fence and helped the victims? It's as if The Good Samaritan is being rebuked for failing to administer open-heart surgery or a brain scan in the case of the OS:P ombuds. What is needed is access to the 84% of dissatisfied complainants at Ombudsman Services:Property and a structured survey of their own experience. Something that DJS Research were doing until their contract was mysteriously terminated. We asked the OFT about this. We were told by the HEAD OF ERC@OFT Our ref EPIC/ENQ/E/138617 - "I have investigated this matter and understand that OS:P has confirmed that the new company will ask the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OS:P website." This simply didn't happen. Why? Again Buck, Kirkham and Thompson's Ch 6 is important. Who is holding this powerful institution to account? Just ombuds activists and Buck, Kirkham and Thompson it would seem Q. Why replace DJS Research with another research firm that was going to ask the same questions? When this didn't happen - when the same questions weren't being asked - and when there were NO Property CSRs an innocent bystander couldn't help but come to the conclusion that the executives were intent on breaking the downward spiral of their mishandling of consumer complaints. We wrote to and phoned Ombudsman Services and asked for the contact details of all those property complainants who had unaccountably NOT been asked the same questions but were told that the information we sought was covered by the Data Protection Act. It seems that the law really does protect those who least deserve it. The Chair of Ombudsman Services at that time, Dame Janet Finch, a Professor of Sociology, seemed to have a phobia for statistics and questions concerning her Property brand. We would like to recommend that Chairs of ombuds schemes should be the subject of far greater scrutiny too. Huw Beynon gave us a lasting statement of workers' experiences when on the production line a Ford Motor Co. He didn't sit on the academic fence. The mass production of appalling decisions by legal and quasi-legal ombudsman schemes has all but succeeded in doing the opposite - the victims' experiences are deliberately not being recorded. Their stories aren't being told. Silence is the order of the day. Apart, that is, from the efforts of ombuds watchers / activists / protesters. And Julia. And where ARE the politicians and academics in all of this? Our appeals to Labour's Yvonne Fovargue and Helena Kenndy's committees fell on deaf ears. Three times we contacted all Labour MPs with an email and twice all members of The House of Lords. Baroness Stowell was the only respondent. It seems that no matter what their stated political orientation is when it comes to holding ombuds to account they all stampede for the exit. Career ending issues? ombuds and anything to do with ombuds. We found it difficult to fully understand the second type of Deference mentioned by Creutzfeldt and Gill- "Alternatively, deference may have a more positive form, as individuals feel personally aggrieved, but recognise the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome and need to defer to community values." Again, why would individuals feel personally aggrieved if the outcome of their case was fundamentally legitimate? On p.20 we're told, "In terms of resistance, this may initially take the form of individual dissent, where legal appeals and other strategies (such as writing to MPs or newspapers) are designed to address a perceived injustice." Why is the injustice, "perceived?" It's either an injustice or it isn't. Our appeals for help to our MPs - one Conservative, Oliver Colvile, and one Labour, Luke pollard - are case studies in themselves and show the enormity of the problem. When a Labour Party MP is less helpful than his Conservative counterpart there really is a mountain to climb. Which is why Eyal Weizman and Fazal Sheikh's The Conflict Shoreline and what happened at al-Araqib a historic Bedouin site is so inspirational. Bulldozed more than ninety times the several dozen residents still return and - with help from Israeli activists - rebuild their homes and their lives. Taking on the ombuds establishment is a walk in the park in comparison. Although some help wouldn't go amiss. On page 24 there's a: Critique of the Ombuds' Inquisitorial + Bureaucratic Justice. They say, "The inability to satisfy complainants they have received a fair hearing is important to the watchers' critique who argue (in line with procedural justice theory - Lind+ Tyler 1988) that it should be possible to satisfy the parties even when the outcome is unfavourable: If the SPSO delivers a quality report, both sides should be satisfied). If it's a quality report it will be unfavourable to one side. Why at Ombudsman Services:Property was it 84% of the times unfavourable to those bringing the complaint? Why was the ombuds' decision 84% of the time in favour of fee-paying members? This is akin to complainants rolling the dice 100 times and getting 1: 84 times. Yes the dice IS loaded. It would seem that the ombuds was insufficiently inquisitorial on a great many occasions. You could be forgiven for believing it was the fee-paying member who was complaining about their client such was their rate of success. Inquisitorial? We were told by the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman Gillian Fleming she, "Did not routinely ask questions." So we asked her - how can you conduct an investigation of a complaint if you don't answer questions? She didn't answer the question. We asked her for a face-to-face meeting (as was our human right). This was refused on the grounds that had she thought such a meeting necessary she would have ordered one at the time. She might have, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner" (DJS Research) but wasn't illogical enough to risk a face-to-face meeting with us. We have pages of this sort of stuff. One wonders what one is supposed to do in a democracy in which ombudsman don't ask or answer questions, MPs most certainly don't and the media doesn't either. Nor it seems do academics. Mortgages and careers are at stake. What Is To Be Done? We're too old and peace-loving for the armed struggle. Our final area of disagreement is with what is found on page 32. Creutzfeldt and Gill say that the second position adopted by some ombuds activists is, "interestingly naïve" and "given the cynicism which the watchers express about the judicial system and its involvement with maintaining the status quo." Yet on page 28 we're told by (LW- a watcher / activist / protester) that, "The political establishment is ... very reluctant to call into question the integrity of the institution." Just ask Yvonne Fovargue and Helena Kennedy and ALL Labour Party members / members of the House of Lords. Please do. We have but without success. Rather than falling into the trap of being, "interestingly naïve" the authors opt for option 1. An informal, people-friendly arrangement of local committees. Which begs the one big question - why would the hegemonists of the state/quasi-state political-economic-judicial system relinquish their power and be held to account for their corruption, cover-ups and calumny by groups of public spirited, sandal wearing vegetarians? (we include ourselves in this appropriate stereotype) The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: * Answers from; Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Jonathan May, Lewis Shand Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Grant Shapps, Nick Clegg, Steven Gould, Greg Cark, Francis Maude, Gillian Fleming, Andrea Leadsom, Sir Tim Clement Jones, Clive Maxwell, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy, Chuka Umunna. * A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The Surveyors Ombudsman Service or SOS) and the role of The RICS in its "effective resolution of disputes." * Compensation for the victims of illogical Final Decisions. * The setting up of a truly: fair, speedy and independent ADR scheme. 1) Martin Lewis: Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. For Yvonne Fovargue's APPG. 2) Thomas Piketty: Capital i

The "Ombuds watchers": Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds. (Creutzfeldt N + Gill C) Social and Legal Studies. "Watching The Watchers Watch Ombuds Watchers Watch Ombudsmen And Ombudswomen. A reply by The Ombudsmens61percent Campaign.

The "Ombuds watchers": Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds. (Creutzfeldt N, + Gill C.) Social and Legal Studies. "Watching The Watchers Who Watch The Ombuds Watchers Watch Ombuds*" A reply by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Dear Friend, The speed, fairness and independence of a nation's justice system is a measure of the health its democracy. Judging by the short reign of terror at the government approved and "monitored" Ombudsman Services:Property it is now on life-support: "Ombuds watchers": Collective dissent and legal protests amongst users of public services ombuds. (Creutzfeldt N, + Gill C.) Social and Legal Studies. "Watching The Watchers Who Watch The Ombuds Watchers Watch Ombuds*" A reply by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. If RICS the regulator and the government monitors of the government approved Ombudsman Services:Property had done the jobs they were paid to do then there would have been no need for us to write this reply. But they didn't. And so we are. We were inspired to respond to Creutzfeldt N+Gill C's article by: Huw Beynon's, Working For Ford / Get Up Stand Up | Playing For Change | Song Around The World (13.769.897 views) / Eyal Weizman +Fazal Sheikh: "The Conflict Shoreline, Surprise and Disappointment" / that private sector ombuds were excluded from this article / a difficulty with the terms, "Against the law" and "With the law / a disagreement with the authors over some of their conclusions and continued focus on the watchers and not the watched / a need for a rigorous understanding of ombuds and how and why they operate in the way they do and an objection to being labelled a, "watcher." "Watcher: a person who watches television or films - Cambridge English Dictionary." Or, "Watcher: a person who closely follows or observes someone or something - Merriam-Webster Dictionary." The second definition is slightly less demeaning. "Watchers," if our experience is anything to go by, do a great deal more than just watch. Perhaps "activists" or "protesters" would be a far more suitable word for their hours of voluntary unpaid activism and banging of heads on doors that never seem to want to open. There is no lottery funding or charitable status available for the likes of us. The authors seem to acknowledge this on p. 33 in their section: A Collective Approach to Gaming and the Communal Dynamics of Protest. Collective "protest" being "the means through which complainants rendered helpless could regain a voice" rather than being "shut out in the cold." "Protester" or "activist" seem far more appropriate lables to be given. The authors begin by stating, "The article argues that legal consciousness provides an appropriate theoretical lens for studying user experiences of ombuds processes and a useful framework for understanding the ways in which people make sense of experiences, construct ideas about justice and make decisions about what action to take in response to dissatisfaction." Is it not also a political consciousness? Isn't the whole process of being systematically denied justice by the state and its civil servants and politicians - political? Especially when the financial stakes are so high as they were at Ombudsman Services:Property. We're not talking about a kettle that refused to boil. The Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, Gillian Fleming was moved to write that the financial implications of a £25K award made against her fee-paying members could be crippling especially at a time of financial constraint. She forgot to mention the financially crippling effects of NOT making such an award to complainants at just such a time. They were, after al, the aggrieved party. The link between fee-paying members who fund the "service" and ombuds' decisions and their pro-business ombudspeak could be easily followed until 2011 when DJS Research were suddenly replaced and the company minutes disappeared from it website. However, for future researchers of ombuds schemes such a line on enquiry is surely essential if academics are serious about understanding the political-economy of ombuds in rigged (or captured) market economies in the early 21st century. (2) The approach adopted by Huw Beynon's in, "Working For Ford" was markedly different and succeeded in giving the production line workers he surveyed a sense of worth and dignity. They were able to forge a collective response something that we accept is denied to complainants. Perhaps a buddy/advocacy network needs to be established so that already stressed complainants have somebody (or body) to help through their "customer journey?" The workers at Fords responses to the situation they'd been placed in and how they sought to assert control over a work load imposed by an assertive management are - explained. The "ombuds" in Creutzfeldt +Gills' paper remain shadowy figures. The starring actors never set foot on the stage. Many people who turn to these "ombuds" - a wide range of individuals all with varying skills (some with very few) - but all sharing that same ridiculous name - are often desperate and vulnerable people. Their experiences of the Byzantine / Kafkaesque / mind-numbingly idiotic processes and ombudspeople they come up against in their hours of greatest need can be - and often are -traumatic. Especially so when handed an eye-wateringly ludicrous decision for all their trouble. And no hope of appeal. The "Final Decision." It sounds eerily like something out of Germany between the two world wars especially when The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman kept referring to the people he was sitting in judgement on as: a stock of work. Each given a number and then summarily dispatched. There is no in-depth analysis of what led ombuds watchers / activists / protesters to fight back. No Weberian "ideal-type" ombuds or Gold Standard as Martin Lewis (1) erroneously insists upon from which named ombus all-too regularly diverge or what led to that divergence. And which caused some to fight back. With Huw Beynon you knew why the good guys were good and why the bad guys were bad. The workers were most certainly going to stand up for their rights. When we were promised by Jonathan May of the then OFT a "speedy" fair" and "independent" "investigation" of our complaint by Gillian Fleming the then property ombudsman At Ombudsman Services:Property that is what we expected. When we got the opposite we too decided to stand up for our rights. How did this particular ombuds diverge from an ideal type of ombuds - one that is: fair, speedy and truly independent? Please see: www.blogger.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. But surely it is the ombuds who should be being placed under the researcher's array of theoretical templates and probed by their investigational tool-kit and not just those victims who chose to fit back? In: "The Ombudsman Enterprise + Administrative Justice" (2011) by Buck t, Kirkham R and Thompson B Ch 6 "Accountability" - we read that the ombudsman enterprise is an, "unelected institution employed to provide assurance to Parliament and the wider population as to the efficacy of Government - the interaction of these different bodies is important if the most effective form of accountability is to be achieved. The ombudsman is an institution endowed with remarkable power that itself needs to be called to account. Not only can an ombudsman fail due to error or incompetency, but an ombudsman can fail through timidity." We believe the ombuds we came up against - the one who DJS Research described as: "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" who didn't "routinely ask her members questions" or answer ours is ably described by the above authors. Perhaps their - error / incompetency / timidity schema could form a grid into which all ombuds can be allocated according to their proneness for: error, incompetency and timidity? We also had some difficulty understanding Figure 3: An integrated legal consciousness model for analysing interactions between citizens and ombuds systems. (p20) It seems that after being fitted-up by the ombuds responsible for their injustice the activist/protester is then being fitted into a grid - a grid which really doesn't seem go far in explaining the causes of that injustice in the first place. It would be interesting to know if they were indeed victims of: error / incompetency / timidity or a combination of all three? And we are talking about ombuds injustice on an industrial scale. A production-line of injustice. With assertive ombuds all spouting ombudspeak. Much of which makes little or no sense. How can Lewis Shand Smith's "superb model of ADR" at Ombudsman Services need to be "closely and honestly looked at" if it truly were, "superb?" Do we want empirical scholarship for empirical scholarship's sake when thousands of anonymous individuals are being mugged by largely unregulated and unaccountable ombuds? Ombuds who routinely fail Buck Kirkham and Thompson's need to be held to account? When citing Hertogh's, "anonymous people who have lost confidence in the law" shouldn't the focus of attention be on: * the decisions that caused those people to lose confidence? * the individuals/ombuds who caused them to lose their confidence? In a modern democracy worthy of its name ALL such decisions must be digitalised and put on the internet for public scrutiny. That would help to resolve the accountability and transparency deficit. A standardised form, scrutinised regularly by a combination of MPs. consumer groups and protester/activists. We would question why in the low grid/low group individual dissent section such individuals are described as being "with the law." If you are resisting the law how can you be, "with the law?" The idea that individuals, "Defer" to appalling ombuds decisions is also problematic. The authors claim: "Alternatively, deference may have a more positive form as individuals feel personally aggrieved, but recognise the the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome and need to defer to community values." Why would individuals feel the need to be personally aggrieved if the outcome is legitimate? Or how can you combine feeling, "personally aggrieved" at an appalling miscarriage of justice and accept that a shockingly bad decision is, "legitimate?" Placing people somewhere on a grid comes at a cost. The words we use to describe who we are and what we attempt to do are enormously important - it's what helps make watchers / activists / protesters: watchers / activists / protesters. The words Creutzfeldt and Gill use to describe us and what we do seem at times remote. We agree that the, "law's hegemonic role in sustaining domination" (Morgan Kuch 2015) is in urgent need of understanding given we are now living through what one former ombudsman has called, "the Golden Age of the Ombudsman." So that these "Golden People" can be suitably regulated, held to account and perhaps even have some of the shine taken off them when imprisoned. That would in itself require a radical understanding of the historical context in which these new Sun Gods came to flourish: a time when British capitalism dominated by a free market ideology demanded de-regulated markets and a bonfire of the regulations. A time when rigged or "captured" markets (Piketty) gave rise to rigged and captured redress. Or as one Ombudsman Services Annual Report put it - our members want to see that their money is being spent wisely - that we are adding value to their business practices. No mention of complainants' practices. Their "outcomes" certainly did add that value. It's how ombuds made redress: "Good For Business." Huw Beynon's use of structured interview surveys in, "Working For Ford" might have been helpful in the research and on page 21 the authors admit as much. They say, "This would have allowed us to deepen our analysis of ombuds watchers legal consciousness." But what of their political consciousness? An examination of ombuds legal/political/economic consciousness would be timely and interesting especially given their habit of: error / incompetency and timidity. But what about the validity of the activists' campaigns? And why isn't there a grid or continuum being devised into which ombuds and their schemes can be placed to publicly account for their: fairness, speed and independence in resolving complainants' disputes. As well as their: error / incompetency and/or timidity? And one also for the regulators which would help explain why regulators regularly don't get it right in the first place. The question as to why the formal justice system should cause so many to question - and some to resist it - never seems to get asked. We are told on page 16 "They eventually dissent from the wider system of political and legal redress which they come to see as complicit in preserving an unjust status quo. Importantly, that status quo is understood by the ombuds watchers as legally sanctioned, with ombuds being a part of the legal and political system that is, in the words of one of the groups, 'corrupt by design.'" Isn't it corrupt by design? If it wasn't wouldn't it look very different? If it actually did all the things it said on its tin we wouldn't be here would we. But we are. Surely, an analysis of its design couldn't but show it was designed - for it members benefit: to add value to their business practices? Having Gillian Fleming lower so-called financial awards "significantly" could only add to that "benefit." One ombuds, "benefit" is another protester's, "corruption." The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, former Chief Ombudsman and CEO at Ombudsman Services, liked to describe his, "superb model of ADR" as being, "Good For Business." This seems to be as good a starting point as any: Good For Business. Why not deploy it as an ideal type and one to measure ADR schemes against? This could be contrasted with a: Good For Consumers ideal type and a league table of ombuds schemes produced quarterly. Those responsible for their scheme's performance could be held to account by a panel of MPs and ombuds watchers / activists / protesters. With quarterly League Tables of ombuds performance published in the Daily Mail. For example: * Do they offer fee-paying members, "value for money? * Do they add value to their members' business practices? * Do they cut financial awards when asked to do so? * Do they hand out illogical decisions? Or * Do they offer complainants speedy justice? * Do they offer the right financial compensation? * Do they raise financial awards when asked to do so? * Do they allow the complainant the right to challenge those decisions? Is the ombuds: * prone to error * prone to incompetency * prone to timidity or a combination of the above. We should like to suggest academics use Ombudsman Services:Property as a case study. How did it go from being a superb model of ADR to bust in less than a decade? Where was government whilst this happened? Where were the MPs? You are welcome to use the information gathered at www.blogger.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone percent to help you. Ombudsman Services have removed the data detailing the calamity that was its Property "brand" from the historical record. OS:Property could become an "ideal type." The ultimate ombuds case study of the early 21st century. And where did the Ombudsman Services executives attribute blame for its spectacular failure? The system of course. Its new Chair, Tim Clement Jones even blamed complainants for complaining when his "best efforts" were seen by many of them as simply not being good enough. No mention of the individuals it failed or the "detriment" those nameless but numbered individuals suffered. We are - and remain: Case 510458 of The Rev Lewis Shand Smith's workload. One recipient of an OS:Property decision, "Not arrived at in a logical manner" was Julia: "We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor to our complaint - please refer to the Surveyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eye-wateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues. I really do want to tell my story if for nothing more than to help other people" Isn't now time for academic scholarship/research to cease being a "no risk strategy?" Isn't it time it came down off the fence and helped the victims? It's as if The Good Samaritan is being rebuked for failing to administer open-heart surgery or a brain scan in the case of the OS:P ombuds. What is needed is access to the 84% of dissatisfied complainants at Ombudsman Services:Property and a structured survey of their own experience. Something that DJS Research were doing until their contract was mysteriously terminated. We asked the OFT about this. We were told by the HEAD OF ERC@OFT Our ref EPIC/ENQ/E/138617 - "I have investigated this matter and understand that OS:P has confirmed that the new company will ask the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OS:P website." This simply didn't happen. Why? Again Buck, Kirkham and Thompson's Ch 6 is important. Who is holding this powerful institution to account? Just ombuds activists and Buck, Kirkham and Thompson it would seem Q. Why replace DJS Research with another research firm that was going to ask the same questions? When this didn't happen - when the same questions weren't being asked - and when there were NO Property CSRs an innocent bystander couldn't help but come to the conclusion that the executives were intent on breaking the downward spiral of their mishandling of consumer complaints. We wrote to and phoned Ombudsman Services and asked for the contact details of all those property complainants who had unaccountably NOT been asked the same questions but were told that the information we sought was covered by the Data Protection Act. It seems that the law really does protect those who least deserve it. The Chair of Ombudsman Services at that time, Dame Janet Finch, a Professor of Sociology, seemed to have a phobia for statistics and questions concerning her Property brand. We would like to recommend that Chairs of ombuds schemes should be the subject of far greater scrutiny too. Huw Beynon gave us a lasting statement of workers' experiences when on the production line a Ford Motor Co. He didn't sit on the academic fence. The mass production of appalling decisions by legal and quasi-legal ombudsman schemes has all but succeeded in doing the opposite - the victims' experiences are deliberately not being recorded. Their stories aren't being told. Silence is the order of the day. Apart, that is, from the efforts of ombuds watchers / activists / protesters. And Julia. And where ARE the politicians and academics in all of this? Our appeals to Labour's Yvonne Fovargue and Helena Kenndy's committees fell on deaf ears. Three times we contacted all Labour MPs with an email and twice all members of The House of Lords. Baroness Stowell was the only respondent. It seems that no matter what their stated political orientation is when it comes to holding ombuds to account they all stampede for the exit. Career ending issues? ombuds and anything to do with ombuds. We found it difficult to fully understand the second type of Deference mentioned by Creutzfeldt and Gill- "Alternatively, deference may have a more positive form, as individuals feel personally aggrieved, but recognise the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome and need to defer to community values." Again, why would individuals feel personally aggrieved if the outcome of their case was fundamentally legitimate? On p.20 we're told, "In terms of resistance, this may initially take the form of individual dissent, where legal appeals and other strategies (such as writing to MPs or newspapers) are designed to address a perceived injustice." Why is the injustice, "perceived?" It's either an injustice or it isn't. Our appeals for help to our MPs - one Conservative, Oliver Colvile, and one Labour, Luke pollard - are case studies in themselves and show the enormity of the problem. When a Labour Party MP is less helpful than his Conservative counterpart there really is a mountain to climb. Which is why Eyal Weizman and Fazal Sheikh's The Conflict Shoreline and what happened at al-Araqib a historic Bedouin site is so inspirational. Bulldozed more than ninety times the several dozen residents still return and - with help from Israeli activists - rebuild their homes and their lives. Taking on the ombuds establishment is a walk in the park in comparison. Although some help wouldn't go amiss. On page 24 there's a: Critique of the Ombuds' Inquisitorial + Bureaucratic Justice. They say, "The inability to satisfy complainants they have received a fair hearing is important to the watchers' critique who argue (in line with procedural justice theory - Lind+ Tyler 1988) that it should be possible to satisfy the parties even when the outcome is unfavourable: If the SPSO delivers a quality report, both sides should be satisfied). If it's a quality report it will be unfavourable to one side. Why at Ombudsman Services:Property was it 84% of the times unfavourable to those bringing the complaint? Why was the ombuds' decision 84% of the time in favour of fee-paying members? This is akin to complainants rolling the dice 100 times and getting 1: 84 times. Yes the dice IS loaded. It would seem that the ombuds was insufficiently inquisitorial on a great many occasions. You could be forgiven for believing it was the fee-paying member who was complaining about their client such was their rate of success. Inquisitorial? We were told by the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman Gillian Fleming she, "Did not routinely ask questions." So we asked her - how can you conduct an investigation of a complaint if you don't answer questions? She didn't answer the question. We asked her for a face-to-face meeting (as was our human right). This was refused on the grounds that had she thought such a meeting necessary she would have ordered one at the time. She might have, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner" (DJS Research) but wasn't illogical enough to risk a face-to-face meeting with us. We have pages of this sort of stuff. One wonders what one is supposed to do in a democracy in which ombudsman don't ask or answer questions, MPs most certainly don't and the media doesn't either. Nor it seems do academics. Mortgages and careers are at stake. What Is To Be Done? We're too old and peace-loving for the armed struggle. Our final area of disagreement is with what is found on page 32. Creutzfeldt and Gill say that the second position adopted by some ombuds activists is, "interestingly naïve" and, "given the cynicism which the watchers express about the judicial system and its involvement with maintaining the status quo." Yet on page 28 we're told by (LW- a watcher / activist / protester) that, "The political establishment is ... very reluctant to call into question the integrity of the institution." Just ask Yvonne Fovargue and Helena Kennedy and ALL Labour Party members / members of the House of Lords. Please do. We have but without success. Rather than falling into the trap of being, "interestingly naïve" the authors opt for option 1. An informal, people-friendly arrangement of local committees. Which begs the one big question - why would the hegemonists of the state/quasi-state political-economic-judicial system relinquish their power and be held to account for their corruption, cover-ups and calumny by groups of public spirited, sandal wearing vegetarians? (we include ourselves in this appropriate stereotype) The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: * Answers from; Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Jonathan May, Lewis Shand Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Grant Shapps, Nick Clegg, Steven Gould, Greg Cark, Francis Maude, Gillian Fleming, Andrea Leadsom, Sir Tim Clement Jones, Clive Maxwell, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy, Chuka Umunna. * A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The Surveyors Ombudsman Service or SOS) and the role of The RICS in its "effective resolution of disputes." * Compensation for the victims of illogical Final Decisions. * The setting up of a truly: fair, speedy and independent ADR scheme. 1) Martin Lewis: Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. For Yvonne Fovargue's APPG. 2) Thomas Piketty: Capital in the 21st Century.

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM: An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent campaign (7) Page 11:

INTRODUCTION We're told that: "In an ideal world consumers would not experience problems with firms or other organisations they interact with. But when something does go wrong, consumers need to be adequately protected. It is always better if consumers and businesses can resolve problems between themselves, but if this has not worked, consumers need a route to seek a remedy. If found in favour of the consumer, that could be monetary redress, an apology or a practical solution." The report tells us that the best performing ombudsman service is the Financial Ombudsman Service. It doesn't tells us who the worst is or why Ombudsman Services:Property went from a 61% consumer dissatisfaction rate to 84% when (mis)handling high-cost consumer complaints. The report doesn't record the dramatic lowering of so-called "financial awards" by the property ombudsman - a drop from £1150.75p to £50 - and it crucially doesn't offer an explanation for it. Perhaps the researchers didn't read the company's minutes or analyse the Customer Satisfaction Reports as carefully as they should have. The report fails to mention that Ombudsman Services:Property was once more accurately called The Surveyors Ombudsman Service (SOS) - a service for surveyors paid for by the members' fees. How this satisfies claims to independence and impartiality isn't explained. The steady year on year increase of dissatisfied clients being despatched to their surveyor's ombudsman isn't mentioned let alone explained. Nor is the reason for that "despatching" addressed: Surveyors' Reports + Evaluations. There was a clear financial incentive in RICS unregulated / self-regulating surveyors NOT resolving their disputes with their clients - they knew that their ombudsman was, "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" (DJS Research: Customer satisfaction Report) and lowering financial awards dramatically. If Martin Lewis didn't know this at the time he did soon afterwards because we sent this to him AND Yvonne Fovargue of the APPG. While consumers can go to court, this is expensive, time-consuming and can be overwhelming. It is often not a realistic option. This is particularly the case when the problem is with a relatively low-cost product or service, as the costs would vastly outweigh any potential benefits. Against this backdrop, a system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has developed as an alternative to going to court. Unlike courts, ADR providers can come to a decision based on fairness, as well as the law. ADR providers can come to a decision based on "fairness" but the mostly don't and certainly not at Ombudsman Services:Property - even MSE's own data tells them this. But for reason they avoided explaining it. ADR encompasses a variety of different bodies that deal with complaints between individuals and organisations. Some ADR providers call themselves ‘ombudsmen’ – and even within this group there is diversity of powers, status in law, and consumer outcomes. This report reviews the landscape of ombudsmen in the UK, seeking to provide a working understanding of: • how ombudsmen fit into the bigger ADR picture • the forms ombudsmen take • the work ombudsmen do • the powers ombudsmen have. Like all empire builders ombudsmen have occupied the landscape accrued enormous powers and to all intents and purposes avoided being held to account - especially by Martin Lewis and Yvonne Fovargue and her APPG. In a key part of its research, MoneySavingExpert.com conducted an online survey of consumer experiences of ombudsmen. The results provided both a detailed and a high-level view of consumers’ perceptions and experiences. The findings show there is a mixed experience of ombudsmen, but on balance the best performing ombudsman in our survey is the Financial Ombudsman Service, particularly when taking into account the consumer perception of its outcomes being put into action. But on one of the worst performing ombudsmen in their survey - the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsmen - they are silent. Sadly for the consumer, Martin Lewis - rather taking into account his evidence and amending his report accordingly - has chosen to "stand by it."

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM. An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (6) Page 8:

SHARPER TEETH: THE CONSUMER NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN REFORM, An Analysis By The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign (6) Page 8: "Methodology A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods were used: • Desk research, including a review of various reports about ombudsmen in recent years, and information from ombudsmen’s websites." There is no appendix. You do not list the reports you studied. For instance given the standout statistic on page 60 - 84% "unfairness" rate of property complainants - did you thoroughly examine DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports. These reports offer a remarkable insight into the shambolic nature of what the OFT had assured consumers would be a "fair," "speedy" and "totally independent" investigation of a consumer's often complex complaint. Did you examine the company's minutes? The OFT who approved and monitored this scheme on behalf of the taxpayer say that there is no requirement for the scheme to publish the minutes of its meetings. How does this sit with the requirement for such schemes to be accountable? How does it meet the requirements of the EU Directive on ADR? Did you scrutinise that report? If so you would have seen that this scheme would have fallen short of what was required. There is also no mention of the Ombudsman Associations' requirements for membership - notably its primary role: to investigate maladministration. How did the Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith, explain his scheme's maladministration of consumers' complaints? Your report doesn't say. It is also silent on the OFT's criteria and how the property ombudsman's habit of "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" meets the requirement to proceed following the principles of natural justice in all the instances. Had you matched this scheme's appalling performance in investigating consumers' complaints with the rules that were there to guide them then surely your report would have arrived at some very different conclusions. But it didn't. Would you care to comment now Martin Lewis? "• Background discussions and on the record fact-checking with organisations mentioned in this report. • Primary research in the form of an online survey conducted between 22 August and 11 September 2017. In total, 1,409 responses were recorded. Consumers were asked about their experiences with various ombudsmen that deal with consumer complaints. For the reasons outlined above, the survey focuses on ombudsmen, but there was space for consumers to submit their views on other similar services if they wished. Consumers also contacted us through social media and other means to share their experiences with us. o While surveyed, the Removals Industry Ombudsman Scheme results have not been included in any of the quantitative data because the number of respondents for this ombudsman was very low and not deemed statistically meaningful." There are no names. Your report doesn't say who you spoke with or what those individuals had to say. Lewis Shand Smith, Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association must surely have spoken about: * the maladministration * the property ombudsman who arrived at decisions in an illogical manner * the dramatic fall in the level of financial award * the investigator's inability to understand the nature of complaints * the misrepresentation of evidence * the erroneous conclusions * attempts by complainants to submit further evidence * refusal of the property ombudsman to ask her fee-paying members questions * her failure to disclose evidence * her failure to mediate in disputes * why when the scheme's rules precluded it from having a RICS member as an ombudsman did it have a RICS member as an ombudsman. Your report makes no mention of this. Why Martin Lewis do you still insist that you stand by it? How does it help protect consumers?

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.