Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape by Lewis Shand Smith and Nial Vivian. A Review by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Dear Luke, Oxford University Faculty of Law Justice and Society and Monk and Partners, This is our review of, "Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape" by Lewis Shand Smith and Nial Vivian. We would be happy to answer any questions you will have, travel to Oxford to talk about it and see it published. Dedication 1: "It is better to content oneself with other more modest less exciting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion, and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." (Primo Levi - If This is a Man). Dedication 2: "We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor - please refer to the Surveyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eyewateringly 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." (Julia Hearnden.) Dedication 3: "He suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case..In hindsight I should have written to him after each visit." (David Monk MRICS of Monk and Partners) Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape by Lewis Shand Smith and Nial Vivian. A Review by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Far from being a salutary force for good one that brings rapid justice to consumers who in ever increasing numbers are being mugged in broad daylight, we regard certain ombudsmen and their shady schemes, as being more akin to a quasi-religious sect. A sect with its own language - ombudspeak. Its own arcane rituals - rituals such as creating commandments and then ignoring them the moment they become an inconvenience. And heralds of extravagant promises of heaven on earth to those brought low by Rip-off Britain Plc. Only to then abandon their stock of work by the wayside when they, the Ombuds, divine it's time to terminate their stocks' customer journeys. Despite having had our email accounts repeatedly hacked and a virus disguised as pornography dumped on our Blog we still have over 800 pages of information concerning Ombudsman Services and the various organisations associated with it. Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape has provided a useful template for the information we've gathered. One that could add far greater detail to the twenty-four subheadings below which we've deployed as part of our criticism of this policy brief. This policy paper is remarkable. Remarkable in the sense that the devil is - there is little or no detail. And no detail whatsoever of Lewis Shand Smith's time at Ombudsman Services where he referred to individual complainants as a "stock of work." 1 Self-regulation: "The civil justice landscape is undergoing a major shift in the UK. The courts, already costly and complicated, deter the individual from pursuing civil justice when the potential settlement of their dispute is dwarfed by the expenditure they will need to make and the time they will need to commit. Opportunities for business to self-regulate and improve practice are also impeded by the lack of a wider understanding of what causes complaints and a holistic view of consumer attitudes towards a product, service, or the contact they have with businesses." (our emphasis) RICS, the reluctant regulator, has been very business-like in seizing the opportunities self-regulation has to offer its Members and Regulated Firms. According to RICS they are incredibly effective "behind the scenes" lobbyists in Parliament. A fact Lewis Shand Smith will no doubt have been made fully aware of during his tenure as CEO / Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services when RICS members Steven Gould and Walter Merricks were closely involved with the scheme. The first ever meeting of Ombudsman Services:Property was at RICS headquarters, 12 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AD.A short stroll from Parliament. Where, "behind the scenes political influencing and engagement work" could proceed unhidered. The relationship between "the civil justice landscape" and the actual "justice" consumers occasionally get is never fully explored in the authors' brief. This often abusive relationship between Ombudsperson and Complainant is one that needs to be fully investigated and understood if consumers are ever going to get the fairness and the justice they deserve but all too often fail to ahceive. What exactly is "self-regulation?" And how do its many forms impact upon the consumer? Under, "Matters RICS cannot investigate" RICS state: "we cannot award compensation or force Members or Regulated Firms to do anything or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules or Regulations." So much for RICS Rules and Regulations. Unsurprisingly, their self-regulating Firms acted accordingly, consumers suffered as a result, got referred to the RICS "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property and suffered again. Something Lewis Shand Smith should be fully aware of. Firms like Monk and Partners, who made an agreement to carry out essential repairs to our home. The stress of being kept waiting 226 days for repairs that never happened was horrendous. "I believe David should honour his commitment now it has been given. I will therefore request that David instruct the builder in writing this week to carry this out at our expense." Letter from Simon JH Cook BSc. Monk and Partners then really did keep us waiting 226 days, failed to live up to their promise and then packed us off to their appointed ADR scheme, Ombudsman Services:Property. It was their, "no risk strategy." Something Lewis Shand Smith will also be fully aware of as we tried asking him to answer 100 questions of complaint. But without success. Consumer Focus also shone a light on this self-regulatory black hole when they reported: "Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the consumers' interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in the RICS' apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms." RICS' inadequately regulated Members and Regulated Firms can't even be persuaded to keep and maintain a proper professional Case File. Far too much regulation as far as they're concerned, whereas it's what teachers, nurses and doctors are expected to do morning noon and night. Sadly for consumers, Consumer Focus was closed down. RICS' inadequately regulated Members seized the opportunity, honed those business practices that were not working in the public interest and laughed all the way to the bank after first depositing their clients at their, "appointed" ADR scheme, Ombudsman Services:Property. Here their bewildered clients all-to-often experienced mind-numbing incompetency before being told they were free to find a solution that suited them better - elsewhere. In short, this was the Complainant's consumer journey. One business practice Monk and Partners deployed was to tell us they would no longer phone or visit our home, as apparently there was no longer any point in doing so, and then do just exactly that - visit it without our knowledge or consent. Photograph it without our knowledge or consent. Probably enter it also without our knowledge or consent and then send the "evidence" they had secretly gathered off to their waiting Property Ombudsman who saw nothing remotely wrong with this whatsoever. So, truth be known and it always should, there was a purpose after all: to save on the expense of actually carrying out the repairs to our home we were promised months previously. There was an agreement to repair our home. We didnt break it. We complained to Gillian Fleming, their appointed Property Ombudsman who couldn't bring herself to criticise her fee-paying Member. Her explanation for the 226 day delay went beyond all known logic and is part of those 800 pages of additional information. 2 Christopher Hamer (the former Property Ombudsman) - Why Not Stop Things Going Wrong in the First Place? Now this is the sort of logic we've come to admire. It's in pitiful short supply. RICS have a Royal Charter and in return for which are expected to, "work for the public good." One wonders how failing to abide by agreements and then monitoring and subjecting their clients to some sort of surveillance is for the public good. We did try asking The Rev Sand Smith for his thoughts on this distressing behaviour but he didn't respond to this either. RICS, in return for their Royal Charter, hand a substantial amount of their day to day running to the Privy Council. This involves a group of senior politicians meeting in secret. And this is supposed to be a democracy. Clearly, the Privy Council find RICS Members' development of practices that did not work in consumers' interests to be of no concern to them otherwise they would have acted to protect consumers and the public good. We tried raising this with Nick Clegg's office when he was masquerading as Deputy Prime Minister but we didn't get a response from him either. You cannot but fail to notice an alarming pattern of behaviour emerging here. The clam-like mentality of those in positions of power and their steadfast refusal to grace a straightforward question with an honest, carefully reasoned answer. Individuals in our dying democracy are still free to raise questions with those in positions of power. They just shouldn't expect to get an answer anytime soon. This is what we have come to understand as the political economy of redress. At the present time the civil justice landscape is most certainly, "Good for Business" but, "Alarmingly Bad for Justice and Democracy." 3 A, "wider understanding of complaints?" And what does an Ombuds' investigation of a complaint entail? DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports provided a detailed analysis of consumers' experiences of RICS' business practices, what caused consumers to complain and their widespread dissatisfaction with how Ombudsman Services:Property had handled their cases. Complaints about surveys and evaluations rose year on year. Just like Consumer Focus, DJS Research were silenced and lost the contract to continue to report independently on the scheme's woeful performance in handling complaints from their fee-paying, self-regulating Members and Regulated Firms. Although for RICS, and those RICS Members monitoring the Memorandum of Understanding between RICS and its "appointed" ADR scheme, this performance must have been seen as being, "effective" as nothing was done to change it. Our complaint, like so many others who unsuccessfully complained to Ombudsman Services, was about the poor quality of Monk and Partners' Full Structural Survey. No-one at this ADR scheme was prepared to comment on their fee-paying Members' professional conduct. To do so would not have been good for their Members' business practices. Or, "added value to them." The whole pro-Member ethos of those Ombudshelpers running the scheme for their RICS paymasters is there to see in the company's minutes and Annual Reports. All you had to do was read it. Yet the Terms of Reference are quite specific on this matter. At 10 b) it states that the duty of the ombudsman is, "to report to the RICS Regulatory Body any cases which involve serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by RICS Member Firms." We asked Lewis Shand Smith why this hadn't happened but did not get a reply. The "holistic" view was one of widespread increasing consumer dissatisfaction. 4 Persons of Interest: Professor Dame Janet Finch, Sociologist and Chair of Ombudsman Services: Prof. Dame Janet Finch wrote, "But are we delivering the excellent service to which aspire? Asserting our commitment to excellence is not the same as delivering this in practice." (Annual Report 2011) DJS Research had already provided the answer to the sociology professor's question. It was a resounding: NO. She continued with, "This year the board has supported Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith in taking a close and honest look at what we are actually achieving." In the previous Annual Report, Lewis Shand Smith had less than honestly described the ombudshambles at Warrington as being a superb model of ADR. It was anything but and tragically for consumers and for transparency and accountability, those who were actually taking that really close and honest look at was going on at this scheme - DJS Research - were replaced. A close honest look? On the subject of Professor Finch, the TES 3rd Feb 2011 reported, "Rejected candidate says appointment process was shambles from start to finish.." and Professor Wheeler added, "This is hardly a 21st century standard of accountability or a great start for a process that depends upon trust or confidence. Did Janet Finch run Keele like this? If she did, I have no doubt that it was an interesting experience? We've often pondered - who exactly is a person of unimpeachable integrity and do such people still exist in our decaying democracy. If so, in what numbers? This barren landscape of little trust or complainant confidence is not the one envisioned by the authors of the 2013 Directive. At 31) They state: "ADR entities (should) resolve disputes in a manner that is fair, practical and proportionate ..on the basis of an objective assessment of the circumstances in which the complaint is made." How can this possibly be expected to happen when one paragon of virtue is extolling another to take an honest look at what they're actually achieving? Or a landscape populated by abandoned complainants, refugees from British justice, whose only permitted word of protest was, "dissatisfaction." A view inadvertently supported by Martin Lewis' error-strewn report for Yvonne Fovargue's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection, Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform, when it revealed that close on 84% of consumers were now dissatisfied with the performance of the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman's performance in mis-handling their complaints and up from 61% when we had begun our complaint. A 23% climb in complainant dissatisfaction. DJS research's data was removed from the public record. The question we've been asking is why did those in positions of power choose to not to act on its recommendations but to hide it from the public record? No-one in a position of power has been prepared to provide an answer. Certainly not Professor Dame Janet Finch or Lewis Shand Smith. It became the sociology of silence. "Private sector ombudsman schemes can bridge this gap, but much of the sector still operates without one. As a result, an uncharted, though by all estimates large, number of consumer disputes are deprived of the option to seek out-of-court resolution." Our solicitors advised us not to pursue a course of legal action against Monk and Partners as it could financially ruin us but to do so against the roofing contractors who had done a job on our home. This proved to be good advice. It took us five years but eventually we won and were awarded costs. 5 Directive 2013/11/EU - A Beacon of Hope in a Regulatory Brexit Wasteland: Directive 2013/11/EU, due for implementation before the next UK general election in 2015, requires Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities, the wider group to which ombudsman schemes belong, to be available for all business-to-consumer disputes. This provides a huge opportunity for consumers to obtain a route to justice across the aspects of daily life in which it has so far been difficult for most to access. If successfully implemented, the Directive will allow for a greater visibility of the functioning of the free market, and so for better regulatory action and business practice. A, "route to justice?" For the unsuspecting complainant full of hope and high expectations as they eagerly set forth on their "customer journey," the route to justice at Ombudsman Services:Property was uphill all the way. The flashing hazard warning signs so carefully erected by DJS Research were hastily dismantled and ditched. The Firm that replaced DJS Research would have consumers believe there was a safe, well-lit, well-maintained road ahead but (and against OFT stipulations) there were no further in-depth DJS-like Property Reports. For two years there was no report whatsoever and the truly damaging data so carefully compiled by DJS Research never again appeared in any subsequent Customer Satisfaction Report. Surveys on the Ombudsman Services website only go back to 2016. As a sociologist Professor Dame Janet Finch seemed to have had a mortal fear of statistics, a condition now officially recognised as "statistics anxiety." The bad news was buried. With the departure of DJS Research, everything appeared to be sweetness and light. A truly miraculous turnaround achieved by the simple expedient of replacing a team of researchers who researched with one that didn't look too hard for fear of what they might find and who avoided a paper trail opting instead to phone Complainants at home. There were no in-depth Property Reports. Something the OFT had insisted on when first approving the scheme on behalf of the British taxpayer. However, a careful appraisal of the scant data that was made available for public scrutiny reveals a year-on-year decline in the amount of so-called "financial award" given to complainants by the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman at a time when property prices were quickly going in the other direction. The Directive 2013/11/EU did indeed provide a huge opportunity for consumer justice. So why wasn't it seized on by Ombudsman Services or the Parliamentary Group chaired by Dame Helena Kennedy? A group to which Lewis Shand Smith made his observations (June 2017) and one to which we offered to make ours. We even offered to pay our own way there and back. An offer that Dame Helena Kennedy simply ignored. We're coming to the conclusion that Parliament exists soley for important people not for ordinary individuals with real grievances who struggle to live in a real world increasingly populated by self-regulating businessmen with ever sharper business practices that are most certainly not working in the consumers' interests. "The purpose of this policy brief is to illustrate how new and existing private sector ombudsman schemes can ensure that, in the implementation of the Directive and beyond, the best outcomes for consumers, business, and the wider market can be achieved, with ombudsman schemes established as an essential component within the continuum of administrative and civil justice." We sent Dame Helena Kennedy a series of questions about the EU Directive in response to Lewis Shand Smith's appearance. 32) of Directive 2013/11/EU: states, "The independence and integrity of ADR entities is crucial in order to gain Union Citizens' trust. The ADR mechanisms will offer a fair and independent outcome The natural person or collegial body in charge of ADR should be independent of all those who might have an interest in the outcome and should have no conflict of interest which could impede him or it from reaching a decision in a fair, impartial and independent manner." We tried asking Dame Helena Kennedy: a) How can Ombudsman Services:Property comply with that requirement for independence when Steven Gould, Director of Professional Regulation for RICS, is a Board Member? b) Or when RICS have a Memorandum of Understanding with their appointed ADR scheme? c) Or when are in "regular close contact" to ensure the "effective" resolution of disputes? d) How can a "decision not arrived at in a logical manner" (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports) be fair, impartial or independent? Dame Helena Kennedy did not reply. The court system has long seemed inappropriate for the financially trivial consumer dispute, because consumers feel that their issues are insignificant for such an expensive and time-consuming procedure in what is such an unfamiliar arena. This is the context in which ombudsman schemes are now operating. At Lewis Shand Smith's Ombudsman Services the Property "brand" appointed by RICS and micromanaged by RICS for its "efficient" resolution of their Members' disputes set an arbitrary figure of £25K as the maximum pay-out Complainants could hope for if they won the lottery of successfully negotiating the minefield that comprised of an OS:Property "investigation" of a case and avoided an ombudsman's decision that, "was not arrived at in an illogical manner." (DJS Research) The company's minutes for the 15 Dec 5.8 state, "There had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards." And so, the Property Ombudsman duly lowered them "significantly." Cleary, it wasn't the Complainant who was expressing this concern - their concerns were that the Property Ombudsman was misrepresenting the nature of their cases and arriving at illogical Final Decisions. So, the concern must have been expressed those representing the interests of the fee-paying Members and poorly Regulated Firms. Members who according to the Independent Advisor needed to know those operating the scam were "spending their money wisely" and "lending real value to their business practices." We tried asking; Dame Janet Finch, Lewis Shand Smith, Jonathan May, Yvonne Fovargue MP and Dame Helena Kennedy how any of this met with the 2013/11/EU Directive 32) stipulation that schemes should be independent of all those who might have an interest in the outcome and should have no conflict of interest which could impede him or it from reaching a decision in a fair, impartial and independent manner." But again, no-one replied. It has been suggested that administrative and civil justice as provided by the state is in a crisis. Access to justice is difficult, and for many effectively denied. At the same time, reviews by the Public Administration Select Committee and the Cabinet Office, along with the EU Directive on ADR, mean that both public and private sector ombudsman schemes in the UK are under intense scrutiny. Really? When Lewis Shand Smith's "superb model of ADR" was subjected to DJS Research's intense scrutiny the property ombudsman was found not to be impartial, arrived at decisions in an illogical manner and caused a majority of Complainants to resort to the Further Representation Process where they again failed to achieve justice. (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports) 6 Intense Scrutiny? When we sought to bring these issues to the attention of the OFT, BIS, The All Party Group on Consumer Protection and Dame Helena Kennedy to name but a few, there was no - scrutiny. So why not scrutinise it now? And stop RICS accredited surveyors like David Monk of Monk and Partners from visiting his clients' homes without their knowledge or consent and photographing them? Or making agreements and then not keeping them? Or never committing to anything in writing? Why not stop things going wrong in the first place? And why after all this time does the question still need to be asked? "Alongside this, the growing role of ombudsmen in resolving consumer disputes in the private sector, has demonstrated that another avenue to justice is available. In providing timely, impartial resolutions, addressing the imbalance between the individual on the one hand, and an often powerful business on the other, private sector ombudsmen are providing justice in a modern, real sense." DJS Research and later and inadvertently, Martin Lewis' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Consumer Reform showed that the avenue to justice available at Ombudsman Services:Property was in fact a cul de sac. It was slow, not impartial but an excellent vehicle for RICS fee-paying Members to improve their business models. Where are all the examples of these excellent ombuds schemes? Harmonizing the Consumer Landscape continues with this, "By collating and analysing the data which the resolution of complaints provides, ombudsmen are able to inform the market, regulatory bodies, governments, and businesses alike, and so bring an improvement to the consumer landscape as a whole." The evidence gathered by DJS Research for Lewis Shand Smith's Ombudsman Services clearly states otherwise. Under, Members' Survey 10.41) we're told, " ...just over a half dissatisfied with accepting complaints when appropriate, training, guidance on compiling a case file, efficiency of handling a case file and speed of case resolution." Which was exactly our experience with Monk and Partners and the Case File they kept - or more accurately didn't keep - concerning our complaint. A professionally kept and maintained case file would contain valuable evidence and as such it's anathema to certain RICS surveyors as it would contain evidence that could and should be used against them at some future date. The presence of Steven Gould, RICS Director of Professional Regulation and Consumer Protection, on the Board couldn't, it seems, make his members more professional when it came to the basics of keeping a Case File and thereby afford consumers some modicum of protection. For consumers the consumer landscape closely resembled a minefield. One where no prisoners were taken. Our questions 98 and 99 to Lewis Shand Smith were specifically about the failure of RICS Members to keep professional Case Files and his organisation's abject failure to do anything about it. The Chief Ombudsman did not reply. 7 Recommendation 1: For all RICS Members and Regulated Firms a professionally kept and maintained Case Files must be mandatory. Clearly, for consumers, the self-regulation model is a costly failure. What we find concerning is that no-one operating in ombudsland seems prepared to make the case for mandatory regulation. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), in determining redress for the many people affected by payment protection insurance (PPI); communicating the failings back to the companies, thereby providing the opportunity to change and improve practice; and in notifying the Financial Services Authority, is a specific example of an ombudsman providing an alternative to the courts. Over the years Private Eye spoke far more authoritatively on the Fundamentally Supine Authority than we can ever do. So, can ombudsmen fill the vacuum now created? Can they provide the necessary access to justice, ensuring that individuals are properly heard, that the evidence is appropriately scrutinized, and that the result is fair? Judging by Ombudsman Services:Property's own woeful performance, NO would be the honest answer to that. What Lewis Shand Smith needs to explain to consumers is why after taking that honest look at what he was actually achieving DJS Research were replaced by another organisation who a) used a totally different way of gathering information b) didn't carry out a Customer Satisfaction Report on the property landscape and yet c) found satisfactory satisfaction levels across the sectors. Or why no reports are available for public scrutiny before 2016. Or why OFT "monitors" of this government approved scheme went along with this injustice. The EU ADR Directive sets the requirement of comprehensive private sector ADR provision, and presents schemes with the opportunity to bridge the gaps in the modern justice system. If this impetus is successfully grasped by ombudsman schemes, measurement of the results that follow will set a strong case for expansion of ombudsman practice into other sectors, and strengthening what already exists, thereby potentially providing a springboard from which to revolutionize the justice landscape in the UK. For ADR in the UK, though, a number of obstacles exist that must first be overcome if we are to realize these goals. If ombudsman schemes are to fill the vacuum created, they must become known as the route to justice, and it must be apparent that the outcomes are just. DJS Research set out a strong case for a public inquiry into maladministration and ombudsinjustice at Ombudsman Service at the time when decisions were being made by Dame Janet Finch, Lewis Shand Smith and Gillian Fleming. A key collective decision they took being not to answer our questions. Which in itself breaks their organisation's Terms of Reference. They did not give reasoned reasons for their decisions. One word you will not find in DJS reports is, "harmony." Our honest look at Lewis Shand Smith's superb model of ADR led us to conclude it actually created a route to injustice. A rigged market in ADR. 8 Appearance and Reality: The OmdudsBrand Played on and on and on: With the current plethora of schemes and methods, consumers are confronted with a confusing set of options in pursuing ADR, and Harmonizing the Ombudsman Landscape 2 . HARMONIZING THE OMBUDSMAN LANDSCAPE schemes will need to cooperate, to advertise the brand, and to construct loyalty to that brand, in order to send clear messages to consumers. By streamlining and simplifying access, people will know where to go, and the route to justice will be simple. By harmonizing process, people will know what to expect, when to bring a complaint, and transparency of this process can foster trust. This is trumpet blowing gone mad. We saw what the process was at Ombudsman Services:Property and DJS Research set out its many failings. There were no checks or counterbalances. Regulators didn't regulate and OFT monitors didn't monitor. Complainants were left at the mercy of an ombudsman who was illogical and one who was proselytising. "The route to justice will be simple?" You would indeed need to be very simple to believe that for even just one moment. Lewis Shand Smith was also the Chair of the Ombudsman Association. At that time, The Ombudsman Association had as one of its criteria for membership the need for schemes to have a Whistleblowing Policy. Ombudsman Services, of which he was CEO and Chief Ombudsman did not have a Whistleblowing Policy. We asked the Chief Ombudsman why this was the case but didn't get a reply. Transparent processes that you can trust? Sadly, not in our experience or that of the overwhelming majority of complainants who placed their trust in this shabby scheme. 9 The Gauntlet of Justice: This policy brief will expand on these ideas, with the goal of encouraging ombudsman schemes, as ADR bodies, to take up the gauntlet of justice in the British Isles. Implementing the Directive The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has consulted on the transposition and implementation of the Directive, which is expected to happen before the next general election in May 2015. It is unlikely that legislation will be introduced with the aim of rationalizing the current patchwork landscape in the near future. We wrote to Clive Maxwell (OFT) to throw down the gauntlet, "Under a Freedom of Information Act request - Our ref: IAT/FIOA/134116 I obtained an email sent to the OFT and addressed to Jonathan may in which we sought answers to 100 questions of complaint with both the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Dame Janet Finch and the CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith. The original was lost to us when our email account was hacked into for the second time this year. So far, we have complained to; the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman, the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Dame Janet Finch, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith, The OFT and the BIS who transferred our correspondence - without our knowledge - back to the OFT." When different individuals in different organisations are asked the same questions and fail to answer them isn't that the definition of a cover-up? "We agree with the then Prime Minister David Cameron, when he said on the Andrew Marr Show, 'I think transparency is a key tool so we can all see what's happening." If that is indeed the case - that transparency is a key - why then is there none when it comes to answering questions about the Surveyors Ombudsman Service later rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property? Why did we not receive a response from the OFT to our original complaint? Why haven't we received a response to the issues we sought to raise with the BIS and sent to you by Margaret Housden?" Clive Maxwell, didn't stoop to pick up the gauntlet. The OFT were closed down. Clive Maxwell was appointed Second Permanent Secretary of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in 2022. One very sound political-industrial strategy is to talk about transparency to the British public most especially at election times and then do absolutely nothing about it once you are elected. Civil servants bid their time, steadfastly fail to answer career-threatening questions, rock no boats and then move as of right, up to the next rung on the ladder. Or two if they're particularly diligent in making troublesome queries by members of the public disappear.. 10 Competent: The Directive does, however, set out a number of requirements: A competent authority or authorities will approve new and existing schemes, and can remove those that are not up to the required standard. We've already seen that the OFT set out criteria for the Ombudsman Services' Property "brand" and that the Ombudsman Association had rules of membership which included having a Whistleblowing Policy. So, what happens when the rules get broken and policies ignored? Nothing it would seem. Apart from people deliberately ignoring complaints and thereby covering-up the wrongdoing. The OFT told us that although they had approved the scheme, they had no power to remove that approval or close approved schemes down. Joseph Stiglitz phrased the problem this way, "The main question confronting us today is not really about capital in the twenty first century. It is about democracy in the twenty first century." What could be more undemocratic in the 21st century than ombuds chemes that refuse to be transparent and refuse to be held accountable for the decisions they make? Susannah Hughes 04/06/2013 wrote, "Jonathan May has had sight of our email but you raise issues about which he has no responsibility or knowledge. I know you have also previously written to and had a response from the Consumer Futures Chief Executive, Mike O'Connor. The issues you raise are issues which neither Mr May nor Consumer Futures are involved with. Mr May left the OFT in 2020 having had the most minimal involvement with the codes work while he was there." Although Jonathan May had had sight of our letter, the fact that he had had only the most minimal involvement in setting out the criteria for the scheme he had so carelessly approved on behalf of the British taxpayer in itself needs investigating. In a world where standards are being stood on their head, that's actually very competent. It's competency in covering-up incompetency. But a million miles from the intentions of the EU Directive 2013/11/EU. And an European mainland that's only 20 short miles away. We tried asking Lewis Shand Smith why after taking that hard honest look at what he was actually achieving he didn't remove himself from both the Ombudsman Association or Ombudsman Services. But we still didn't get an answer. 12 EU Directive cont: An outcome to the dispute in question is to be provided within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the full case file by the ADR entity, and if a dispute is to be rejected by the ADR entity this is to be communicated within three weeks. n An ADR entity must meet a strict set of access criteria, which will be assessed and enforced by the new competent authority. Businesses will be required to indicate, if a complaint remains unresolved, whether they use an accredited ADR body. If not, or if an organization uses an unaccredited ADR body, they will be required to highlight what the approved ADR scheme would be in that sector. These requirements present a number of challenges to private sector ombudsman schemes. Merely meeting the minimum requirement of the Directive, though, will be a wasted opportunity to achieve fully functional, cross-sector ADR provision and address the problems that consumers experience when accessing justice. Those problems consumers experienced when not accessing justice were carefully outlined by DJS Research. Problems such as the ombudsman/investigator not understanding the nature of the complaint. Or its complexity. Or misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting the evidence. Or communicating far more frequently with the fee-paying Member than with the Member's complaining client. Or lowering the level of financial awards when pressurised to do so. Ombudsman Services:Property - for the vast majority of complainants - didn't even meet the minimum requirements of the EU Directive. 12 Education: ...this figure had fallen for the first time in many years as a result of their efforts in advertising their role and purpose. It is clear, then, that consumers need to be aware of the availability of ombudsman schemes, and their processes should be transparent, with consumer experience widely shared, to encourage people to come forward without assistance. Consumers also need to be educated in what an ombudsman does and what they can investigate, to encourage a consumer who has an eligible complaint to come forward. For a true picture of the market to be drawn, and for truly inclusive access to justice to be provided, it must become second nature in the consciousness of the consumer to bring a complaint to an ombudsman. A true picture of the Ombudsmarket is indeed an education. The total annual number of consumer complaints is staggering. And vast amounts of money are being saved by incompetent/corrupt BritainPlc simply by referring their complaining clients to their "appointed" ADR schemes. Julia's, "No risk strategy." The investigation of our complaint and that of 84% of others by the time of Martin Lewis' whitewash report Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform, was indeed an education. A true picture of the rigged market in ADR which was originally drawn by DJS Research. The Lewis Report's recommendations, if implemented would be calamitous for consumers. 13 The Conned Consumer Experience: Ombudsabuse / Ombudsinjustice. At Ombudsman Services the consumer experience went from: "overall complainant satisfaction was low" (DJS Reseach 6.28) to, "verbatim comments showed largely positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Services. Results were consistent by sector." (BMG) Only the new researchers had failed to investigate the Property sector. The best way to do this is to standardize the nomenclature; if all bodies approved by the competent authority are called ombudsman schemes, then the ‘ombudsman’ brand can be advertised effectively. This advertising can then be harnessed to make it known what an ombudsman is, what an ombudsman will do, and how to contact one. If the Directive is to be transposed effectively, it will be necessary to help both businesses and consumers learn and understand what it means for them, what they can expect from ADR, how they can access the entity, and what their rights are in doing so. At present, even if someone knows an ADR scheme exists, finding the right one is not easy. A single portal for access, under a single descriptor, should be adopted to make sure that complainants do not have to spend their resources navigating the landscape, but find the process simple and transparent. That being the case, why then did so many property complainants have to exhaust their scant resources jumping through Lewis Shand Smith's Further Representation Process only to yet again fail in their forlorn quest for justice? If consumers and businesses are to trust the process, they should expect to receive a similar outcome to other complaints with a similar content. Ombudsman schemes must publish data which includes decisions on particular cases or types of cases, the process by which they are reached, the reasons for those decisions, and any recommendations or actions required. DJS Research reported that the property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner." Logic would dictate that in the interests of justice the ombudsman should have been sacked. To this day and in line with their approach to transparency and accountability, the executives at Ombudsman Services have never given reasoned reasons for retaining the services of an illogical ombudsman and one required to take an honest look at was being achieved, but dispensing with those of a very competent DJS Research. 14 Competent Authorities? The competent authority or authorities, alongside the Ombudsman Association, should work with ADR bodies to align the practice and processes that they use. For the best possible effect, this should be done with the core model of an ombudsman scheme in mind: for the transparency of process it affords; for the simplification of the landscape; for the benefit of justice for the consumer; for the uniformity of decision; and for the benefits the gathered data can provide to regulation, government, and the consumer. It is clear that a single point of contact would enable increased consumer engagement and would simplify the process for many. We tried asking Lewis Shand Smith, to give a reasoned answer as to why his organisation, Ombudsman Services, didn't have a whistleblowing policy when the Ombudsman Association, of which he was a member and board member, demanded such a policy as condition of membership? But failed to get a reply. We also wrote to the Secretary of the Ombudsman Association to ask him the same question along with a number of others. He said that regrettably he was unable to help us to which we replied that was help enough. He had fulfilled our expectations. Our expectations of candour had by this time all but vanished. People in position of power don't like to answer questions. Max Weber would have described this as a crisis of legitimacy facing those in positions of authority. And where is the competency, transparency and justice in that? 15 Recommendation 2: All ADR Schemes Must Have a Whistleblowing Policy. As the ADR Directive requires the establishment of a helpdesk, this could also be the single point of contact, forwarding complaints to the relevant scheme, which would then complete the contact and begin the investigation processes. With greater harmonization of scheme processes this initial gathering of information could be much more integrated. Working together to achieve greater cooperation and understanding through shared knowledge and process would provide numerous benefits for all stakeholders in the ADR landscape. DJS Research attempted to share their knowledge with British consumers so why did Lewis Shand Smith chose to replace them? Sharing of knowledge gained from complaints is a significant issue for all parties involved in consumer transactions. Recent issues with doorstep selling across the energy sector and poor sales practice in finance have highlighted areas in which regulatory and redress bodies need to liaise fully to enable early warning signs to be spotted, consumer detriment to be halted, and proactive regulatory guidance and government action to be formulated. That being the case, why didn't The RICS adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place and put a stop to those practices that were not working in the consumers' interests, then there would there would have been no need for the charade that was Ombudsman Services:Property? 16 Questionably Independent Schemes: The streamlining of reporting methods on the part of ombudsmen would allow for greater interaction between schemes and regulators, and schemes and other schemes, to take place, and so to coordinate action. The presence of other forms of non-binding or questionably independent schemes within the private sector framework would not allow this joined-up picture of the market to be formed. When we discovered RICS had "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property as their ADR scheme, placed Walter Merricks and Steven Gould on its board, imposed a Memorandum of Understanding on the organisation, was in close and regular contact with those operating the scheme to ensure it "effectively" resolved complaints and did nothing when ombudsman Gillian Fleming significantly lowered the levels of so-called "financial awards," we questioned its independence. The replies we did manage to extract were never actual answers to our questions but either a rephrasing of the question or an evasion. No-one ever gave a reasoned response. This is an alarming trend within the Ombudshood and toxic for democracy. And suggests Joseph Stiglitz was right in suggesting the future of democracy is indeed the big question at the beginning of the 21st century. Nancy Fraser in Crisis Politics, believes, "a relentless push to extend and de-regulate markets is everywhere wreaking havoc" and wonders why, "political elites fail to champion regulatory projects aimed at saving the capitalist economic system from the ravages of out of control markets?" We would add why do certain ombuds schemes exacerbate the situation? 17 Sustained Political Commitment: Consumer demand and business uptake The ADR Directive does not demand mandatory membership, and if the current environment does not allow for the creation of mandatory ADR above the requirements imposed by the Directive, it will be essential for consumers to be encouraged to actively seek out a business which utilizes an approved ADR scheme and so drive businesses towards membership, and ultimately better practice. Easy-to-access, transparent, and trustworthy ombudsmen schemes, available for all consumer transactions and advertised under a single banner, would greatly encourage consumer usage and provide for simple consumer education on the part of consumer interest groups. The requirement to indicate whether a business utilizes an ADR scheme is designed to incentivize a large proportion of companies to adopt an approved ADR scheme, without requiring mandatory provision for one. Although companies need only inform customers of whether they use approved ADR when a dispute remains unresolved, it is to be expected that consumers will begin to act before they commit to contract for the supply of goods and services. As ADR will not be mandatory for much of the consumer landscape, successful implementation of the Directive will rely on business acceptance and consumer pressure to ensure seamless provision. The EU Directive 2013/11/EU will have been anathema to the Conservative Right-wing free-market fundamentalists who preach a, "bonfire of the regulations" and urge a Singaporean freedom for businesses to develop practices that would ensure profits before the interests of their consumers are ever taken into consideration. Most especially the Directive at:10 when it suggests: "The successful implementation of these schemes requires sustained political commitment and support from all actors, without compromising the affordability, transparency, flexibility, speed and quality of decision-making by the ADR entities falling within the scope of this Directive." The compromise had already happened at Ombudsman Services and seems to have spread rapidly throughout Ombudsland - a portal into ombudsoblivion with thousands of Alices falling down hundreds of rabbit-holes. Day after day. Year after year. Where is the Labour Party in all of this? We tried approaching two Parliamentary Committees chaired by Labour politicians; Yvonne Fovargue and Dame Helena Kennedy. But got nowhere. 18 Business Practice Improvement: To encourage uptake by consumers and businesses requires an ADR sector which is visible and easy to access, and which provides trusted, impartial decisions. Consumers will need to press companies for clarification about whether a business utilizes an ADR scheme that is approved by the competent authority. Ombudsman schemes have reported that in general, participating companies have been positive about the resulting benefits it affords them in terms of consumer loyalty and business practice improvement. The evidence from DJS Research strongly suggests otherwise and that RICS Members' business practices - surveys/valuations/keeping professional case files - remained as unprofessional as ever. A view echoed by Julia Hearnden when she took the time to write to us saying, "We chuckle when we read the reply from our surveyor - please refer to the Sureyors Ombudsman!! That was a no risk strategy for them! It has been eyewateringly ludicrous! We have suffered financial loss and severe health issues." 19 "We must ensure the Members know that we are spending their money wisely": The German Schlictungstelle fuer den Oeffentlichen Personenverkehr (SOeP) reported a general refusal by airlines to participate in its voluntary ADR scheme, which relies upon the participating company to accept the proposed resolution. Some of the initial views expressed by the airlines were that the process adds no value to the industry, that the technical knowledge required of the industry is too complex for the scheme to handle, that the process gave undue weight to the perspective of the consumer, and that airlines themselves are service-minded and know how to satisfy their customers best. Once airlines joined, perspectives shifted dramatically. Airlines began to show an eagerness to refer unresolved disputes to the body, and although the decisions are not legally binding on companies, 80% of remedies were implemented. Consumers actively searching out a company with an accredited ADR scheme will in turn push companies to take the initial step of signing up to an approved ombudsman or ADR body; once part of a scheme, the clear benefits of belonging will reinforce and streamline access, which, together with a harmonized process, will drive this consumer action. In this scheme 20% or 1 in 5 remedies were not implemented and the ombudsman's decisions are not legally enforceable which is an improvement on Ombudsman Services and its property brand. At Ombudsman Services, more and more complainants received less and less civil justice yet they complained more and more. Once again, a careful examination of the Annual Reports and Accounts offers an insight into the loyal pro-member mentality of those operating the scheme with a sect-like devotion to their paymasters. Richard Brown revealed that, "money comes from annual membership subscriptions and case files .... we must ensure that the members know that we are spending their money wisely and that they have a well-run, efficient service that adds real quality to their own business processes." But hang on a minute what about the victim, the complainant like Julia who was expecting an independent, well-run and efficient service to thoroughly investigate her complaint without fear or favour? What about her business practices? What about her health needs? Didn't the system abuse her? This is what we mean by Ombudsabuse. Perhaps Roger Jefferies inadvertently provided the 61% rising to 84% of dissatisfied Complainants with the answer, "Likewise, some complainants consider the redress awarded by the Ombudsman is insufficient because it does not provide an incentive for the firm to improve its performance. In other words, a complainant wants to see a Firm penalised when a financial award is made. It is quite clear however from the Terms of Reference that any financial award made by the Ombudsman is intended to compensate the complainant and is not intended to be, and may not be, a penalty." This is a remarkable insight into the thought processes of those taking the decisions at Ombudsman Services. Perhaps the redress is insufficient because it's - insufficient? Hasn't the data shown Ombudsman Services failed in its stated objective of improving their Members' business practices? And why is Mr Jefferies linking what he and his colleagues considered to be overly generous compensation with - a penalty? Quite clearly, Roger Jefferies and Ombudsman Services are so bent over backwards beavering away to accommodate their fee-paying Members that they've completely lost sight of the Complainant. Is it any wonder Members like Monk and Partners' operate in the way they do? At Ombudsman Services:Property, it was very much a case of, "We're paying your rather comfortable salaries so do as your told." Or as we chose to put it - this is the political economy of rigged Alternative Dispute Resolution in action. As we said at the time - in a truly fair and independent ADR scheme, all awards would be made on the merits of each and every individual case. 20 Rip-Off Britain With its Rip-Off Ombudsman Scams: The potential effect of this seamless provision, in a harmonized and streamlined landscape, is likely to have additional benefits beyond providing consumers with access to justice and improving business practice. Case law is built up through the courts and the establishing of precedence. This is an area where ombudsman schemes have no determinations on cases that fall under the remit of one scheme, yet sharing significant elements with cases falling under the jurisdiction of another. Decisions based on these determinations already inform regulatory and government decisions, through reporting of systemic failure and complaint figures and types. The constantly shifting environment and immediacy of digital communications and online service provision in the modern age is at odds with the delays inherent in lengthy court cases before a decision is reached. Given the ability of ombudsman schemes to reach their conclusions relatively rapidly, they enable action to be taken in what is as close as possible to a real-time basis. Analysis of patterns of behaviour across sectors and the conclusions drawn by ombudsman schemes could support additional proactive action by regulatory bodies. There wasn't just one elephant in the room at Ombudsman Services - a RICS Director of Regulation - but a whole herd of them. No wonder the Complainant was crowded out. In the above paragraph the idea that ombudsman schemes such as Ombudsman Service:Property had an ability to, "reach conclusions relatively rapidly" would be laughable if it weren't for systematic injustice each and every victim was made to suffer at the hands of an illogical ombudsman, a proselytising ombudsman in search of his honesty. a Chair in mortal fear of crummy statistics and a group of maladministrating executives for bad measure. As Lewis Shand Smith was writing, "Our reputation hinges upon our ability to resolve complaints quickly and accurately ... our decisions are our product ... we have a superb model that provides high quality outcomes to consumer complaints.." DJS Research were reporting, "8.24, To be effective the SOS (later rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the general consensus of opinion." Clearly, there never was any harmony here. 21 Myths of the Early 21st Century - The Fair and Independent Ombudsman: It is time to recognize that the ombudsman is no longer an alternative to the courts, but an essential and integral part of the justice system. As such it is time to come of age. To lift the public profile of ombudsman schemes so that people know who they are and what they are; to simplify access for those using ombudsman schemes; to harmonize processes and standards so that members of the public know what to expect; and to feed back findings to influence and change policy and practice. We think the time is long overdue for a truly fair and independent close and honest look at the disharmony, dysfunction and disinformation that surrounded this particular ombuds scheme so that what really happened can be properly appraised. From the Complainant's perspective the rhetoric was off the scale and the performance standards, abysmal. While they take law, regulation, and legal decisions into account, it is not for them to interpret or determine points of law. With the reduction in the number of cases being heard by courts and tribunals, this essential element of our judicial system is weakened, and the rule of law compromised. What could be more compromising to the rule of law than an ombudsman scheme that is judged not to be impartial by independent researchers? For ombudsman schemes, this presents a problem in that they will not be able to draw on legal decisions as one of the cornerstones of the dispute resolution they practise. Is there anything ombudsmen can do to mitigate? Yes, in a limited but influential way. By receiving, investigating, and resolving the individual cases brought, ombudsmen gain a unique knowledge. They can influence behaviour and decision-making by publishing what they find, by feeding back on poor performance, and by issuing guidance on how to improve. Through DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports that unique knowledge of poor decision making and poor performance gave the ombudsmen at Ombudsman Services a unique knowledge of just how bad they were and so they did the opposite to what's stated above. They hid the evidence. What a carefully nurtured shambles. A shambles that is, "Good for Business" but seriously, "Bad for Justice and Democracy." 22 A Free Market a Market Rigged in Favour of Business? Directive 2013/11/EU, due for implementation before the next UK general election in 2015, requires Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities, the wider group to which ombudsman schemes belong, to be available for all business-to-consumer disputes. This provides a huge opportunity for consumers to obtain a route to justice across the aspects of daily life in which it has so far been difficult for most to access. If successfully implemented, the Directive will allow for a greater visibility of the functioning of the free market, and so for better regulatory action and business practice. The purpose of this policy brief is to illustrate how new and existing private sector ombudsman schemes can ensure that, in the implementation of the Directive and beyond, the best outcomes for consumers, business, and the wider market can be achieved, with ombudsman schemes established as an essential component within the continuum of administrative and civil justice. A few hours research will reward the careful researcher with a clear vision of how The RICS mantra of "self-regulation" in a free-from-meaningfully regulated market really does lead to the most consumer unfriendly practices. Even the basics aren't there, like professionally maintained case files. The idea that ombudsman schemes like Ombudsman Services:Property were an essential component of administrative and civil justice is a total nonsense as was so eloquently demonstrated by DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports. 23 A Disintegrating Justice System in Rigged Market Capitalism: The landscape Increasingly, using administrative and civil courts and tribunals is not a viable option for citizens and consumers. The Woolf reforms, as implemented, mean that mediation and other forms of ADR should be attempted or at least considered before proceeding to the judicial process. The drastic cuts effected in legal aid mean that the risks of using courts and tribunals are greater, with complainants choosing to represent themselves in an unfamiliar arena, leading to cases taking longer and with greater chance of failure. Employment tribunal applications between January and March this year have fallen by 67%1 compared with the same period last year, with up-front payment for access introduced in July 2013. This whole process has been described as the 'privatisation of civil and administrative justice', and the potential for rationalizing and improving administrative justice has been considerably weakened by the abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. And what better example of this disintegrating justice system than RICS and its rigged ADR scheme - where "scheme" appears to be the operative word: Ombudsman Services:Property? Max Weber, would have described it as an Ideal Type. That the further away from this model those designing a new one could get the better that would be for consumers and for justice. Karl Marx, would have described it as an example of how capitalist power captures and controls the justice system to serve its own ends - one of which is the unfettered accumulation of wealth. And Emile Durkheim on reading what we have read would have seriously reconsidered suicide. A rigged market in so-called justice to accompany a deregulated rigged market in surveying. The bad-cop, bad-cop scenario. The court system has long seemed inappropriate for the financially trivial consumer dispute, because consumers feel that their issues are insignificant for such an expensive and time-consuming procedure in what is such an unfamiliar arena. This is the context in which ombudsman schemes are now operating. For Ombudsman Services:Property complainants the disputes were far from being financially trivial. The issues, as Julia reminded anyone who cared to listen, were far from being trivial, a point seemingly lost on the Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming. In the Annual Report 2011, she wrote, "However, an award may not be enough for the consumers who can only see that something has gone wrong and they are out of pocket. As reported last year, making a direct connection between the two is not always straightforward especially in surveying complaints." Earlier we saw that there was no such hesitancy when it came to the Members knowing that their money was being spent, "wisely." So, why weren't awards enough? And why were these experts struggling to make a direct connection between a sub-standard Monk and Partners Full Structural Survey and the amount their client happened to be out of pocket? And, most importantly, where is the independence? Once again, DJS Research provided important insights. As does the 2011 Annual Report where the Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming wrote, "We have worked with the enquiry team - the first point of contact for consumers - to improve their knowledge so that they understand the complexity of property complaints." Our correspondence with the Property Ombudsman was something else - a journey into a region beyond all known logic - not only echoing Julia's eyewateringly ludicrous experience but DJS Research's 6.21 observation that the Property Ombudsman's decisions were, "not arrived at in a logical manner." We didn't even get an award for our troubles. It has been suggested that administrative and civil justice as provided by the state is in a crisis. Access to justice is difficult, and for many effectively denied. Over a decade ago, DJS Research presented the case that the "civil justice" provided by Ombudsman Services was in a crisis - how could consumers access justice when those supposedly investigating their complaint didn't routinely ask their Members difficult questions, kept messages from Members undisclosed, misrepresenting what they - the Complainant - was saying, failed to hand them Members' evidence, sent them into Further Representation Processes and then, if they were lucky, fobbed them off with a fiver for their troubles? They couldn't. As was revealed by 84% of those responding to the Lewis' Report. To lift the public profile of ombudsman schemes so that people know who they are and what they are; to simplify access for those using ombudsman schemes; to harmonize processes and standards so that members of the public know what to expect; and to feed back findings to influence and lift the public profile of ombudsman schemes so that people know who they are and what they are; to simplify access for those using ombudsman schemes; to harmonize processes and standards so that members of the public know what to expect; and to feed back findings to influence and change policy and practice. We should like to close by lifting the public profile of the Utilities Adjudicator, George Harrington, who in response to our complaint about gaslighting by British Gas came up with this gem: "as the Complainant has failed to secure a remedy above that which was offered by the Respondent, I determine the Claimant's claim fails." This is British civil justice at its most absurd. It's an example of just how the rigged market in redress is allowed to operate in rigged market capitalism. In this system power resides securely with business and is laundered through a cleaning service provided loyal and devoted ombudsacolytes who endlessly chant the mantras of "superb ADR," "happy customer journeys" and "contented consumer landscapes" but are sharp enough to never lose sight of the economic reality that it's business who's paying their salaries. In George Harrington's particular corner of Ombudsland, a Complainant will always fail to secure a remedy above that which has been offered by a Respondent because the Respondent already knows that the Utilities Adjudicator will always determine that their remedy is sufficient in the first place and so why offer more? Conclusion: Alternative Dispute Resolution really is Good For Business. But alarmingly Bad for Justice and Democracy. 24 Recommendation 3: There is an urgent need for a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services at the time of Lewis Shand Smith, Dame Janet Finch and Gillian Fleming. Thank you for taking the time to read our review and for ombudssing it. Anyone who approaches the subject objectively is an ombudsperson as set out in the Directive 2013/11/EU. Children make excellent ombudssers. Please join with us in seeking a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services at the time of Lewis Shand Smith, Dame Janet Finch and Gillian Fleming. Peace and justice to all in 2023. Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsman61percent Campa

UtilitiesADR Adjudicator George Harrington's - "Investigation" of Gaslighting by British Gas. Please Judge it For Yourself. Feel Free to Comment.

The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator, George Harrington came to the following flawed and disappointing decision in my complaint against British Gas: "IN THE MATTER OF A DETERMINATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE UTILITIESADR SCHEME BETWEEN: STEVE GILBERT Claimant -and- BRITISH GAS Respondent FINAL DETERMINATION Purchase 1. On 9th December 2021, the Respondent’s engineer failed to attend the Claimant’s property to complete an Annual Service his boiler (“the Service”). Reference to Adjudication 2. Disputes and differences have arisen between the parties which, being unable to resolve amicably, they have agreed to refer to adjudication under the UtilitiesADR Scheme Rules 2021 (“the Scheme Rules”). The Scheme Rules provide for determination by documents only. 3. It was determined that the complaint fell within the UtilitiesADR Jurisdiction (as defined with the Scheme Rules). Information and Evidence 4. I have relied upon the information and documentation supplied by both the Claimant and the Respondent, as contained on the UtilitiesADR portal, as at the date of this determination, which I have fully reviewed. Reasons for Decision 5. The Reasons upon which this Decision are based are set out and annexed to this Decision and form part of the Decision. 2 Decision 6. I NOW, having carefully considered the evidence and written submissions of the parties, HEREBY DECIDE AND DIRECT as follows: i. The Claimant’s claim fails. " MADE AND PUBLISHED on 21st July 2022. By George Harrington at UtilitiesADR, 12/14 Walker Avenue, Stratford Office Village, Wolverton Mill, Milton Keynes MK12 5TW. "3 REASONS These Reasons are given with and form part of this Determination Generally 1. The Claimant has set out his claim fully within the information and documentation provided. I have of course read all the documents submitted by both parties, but I do not need to deal with each and every dispute of fact in this Decision." George Harrington may well have read all the documents submitted to him but the question raised by the decision he arrived at is: how carefully? I strongly disagree with his claim not to have needed to deal with each and every dispute of fact because it has led to his questionable decision in my case. A case of Gaslighting by British Gas. The point I wish to make is that as an UtlitiesADR Adjudicator, he really does need to deal with the deliberate and repeated gaslighting by British Gas employees and the extremely worrying safeguarding issue of British Gas having no idea where their contractors are or what they claim to be doing otherwise these unacceptable practices will continue. These issues have been brought to his attention. The UtilitiesADR organisation cannot simply ignore them. His decision in my case will simply reinforce what British Gas are already doing and getting away with. Action needs to be taken to protect consumers. 1) The extremely serious issue of Gaslighting by British Gas has not been adequately addressed by this Adjudicator. That in itself could be considered to be Gaslighting and it surely impacted on the derisory amount of money offered by British Gas as "compensation." An amount George Harrington regarded as being, "reasonable in all the circumstances." 2) The equally serious issue of safeguarding - and the total lack of it in this case - has also been glossed over. My friends and family were outraged by the knowledge that British Gas did not now were their so-called "trusted" contractors were 100% of the time (or what they fraudulently claimed to be doing). Somewhat worryingly, this Adjudicator wasn't. If he had been then his decision would have been different. But it wasn't. "UtilitiesADR adjudications are intended to be a simple, cost effective way of resolving disputes. " 3) Surely, UtilitiesADR adjudications must be fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances. Not a rubber stamp for appalling working practices. This has indeed been "cost effective" for the Gaslighters at British Gas. How much would a solicitor charge for this letter? The point I've been trying to make is until such adjudications are "cost effective" for complainants, British Gas have absolutely no incentive to improve the way they operate. "2. The parties must understand how an Adjudicator approaches this type of dispute, which is no different in its essential elements from the approach which a judge would adopt in a Court of Law. UtilitiesADR adjudications are not however intended to be dealt with as strictly as if they were High Court or County Court litigation." 4) This is contradictory. If the approach adopted by an UtilitiesADR Adjudicator is not as strict as that of a judge in a Court of Law, then it is inadequate. Sadly for the victims of injustice, proof of its inadequacy can be found in the way the decision in my case was arrived at. "3. It is commonplace in such adjudications that conflicts of evidence arise, and the mere fact that the Adjudicator finds in favour of one party on a particular issue, does not mean that the other is deliberately telling an untruth." ​5) This is an example of accepting second best as being good enough. It isn't. It leads to poor decision making, injustice and the maintenance of a pro-business, pro-low standards status quo. It is now 226 days since I was told there was someone in my home servicing a boiler and carrying out a repair when all the time there wasn't. 226 days since I demanded to know where this "trusted" contractor was. 226 days since the "trusted contractor" had had no time to forget where he was or what he was doing because I had asked his managers where he'd gotten to within minutes of his not getting to me. All of this has been ignored by the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator because according to him this, "does not mean the other is deliberately telling an untruth." This adjudication is so slack as to be unjust. After being repeatedly gaslighted by British Gas and then given a ludicrous explanation for the "trusted contractor's'" dodgy memory and even dodgier equipment - the Adjudicator determines that an "apology" is sufficient. He might have convinced himself, "that it won't happen again" but I haven't and neither have my friends or family. "Reasons for Decision The Law 1. I note that the date of purchase was after October 2015. This means that the applicable law to consider is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“the Act”). 2. This complaint relates to the service provided by the Respondent. In this respect, the Act provides: a. that services must be carried out with ‘reasonable care and skill’ (Section 49);" 6) British Gas​ and it's "trusted contractor" repeatedly tried to convince me that the non-existent service had been caried out, "with reasonable care and skill." Because of the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator's less than strict approach to the facts he was able to determine that a later apology - after they'd been caught out at British Gas - was appropriate. This ruling puts at risk thousands of British Gas customers. It exposes them to fraud and the mental suffering caused by being Gaslighted by British Gas employees. No, and apology is not sufficient. Things need to change. And quickly. A lackadaisical UtilitiesADR Adjudicator is not going to be the person to bring that urgent change about. He was apparently content to be merely following slack orders. "b. that anything said or written to the consumer by the Trader, that the consumer takes account of when agreeing to enter into the contract, will be taken to form part of the contract (subject to being able to prove that such words were said or written) (Section 50); c. that, where no price is fixed for the service, the consumer shall only be obliged to pay a ‘reasonable price’ (Section 51); and d. that, where a time for completion of the service is not agreed, the service will be provided within a ‘reasonable amount of time’ (Section 52). 4 3. In circumstances where it is determined that any of the provisions of the Act have been breached, the trader has an obligation to provide the appropriate remedy, such as providing the service again, remedying the part of the service that fell below the standard or providing the consumer with a full or partial refund. " 7) What is, "a reasonable price?" What is, "a reasonable amount of time?" And is it reasonable for British Gas and the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator to determine this between themselves without any input from consumers? No, it isn't. The applicable remedy will depend on the circumstances. Claimant’s position 4. The Claimant’s position is set out within the UtilitiesADR portal. In summary, the Claimant’s issues are: a) The Claimant states that the Respondent failed to keep an appointment to service his new boiler on 9 th December 2021. He complained to the Respondent about this on the same. 8) That should say, "day." "b) The Claimant states that 55 days into his complaint he was cold-called by Chicka Robert and told that someone has indeed serviced his boiler on 09th December 2021." 9) Why did Chicka Robert wait 55 days before phoning me to tell me someone had indeed serviced my boiler on the 9th December 2021 when a) they hadn't and b) the information on her computer said otherwise? Information which had been provided to George Harrington. 10) Why hasn't the Utilities Adjudicator commented on this? This was deliberate Gaslighting by a British Gas employee. "c) The Claimant states that he phoned the Respondent the next day and was told by two complaints handlers that someone from the Respondent had serviced his boiler on 09th December 2021. He disagreed and averred that no-one from the Respondent had been in his home on that day. The Respondent maintained that his boiler was serviced on that date and that a small repair had been carried out. The Claimant states that he disagreed and told the Respondent that this was ‘gaslighting’. " 11) This is deliberate Gasghting by two more of British Gas' employees. Why hasn't the Utilities Adjudicator passed a judgement on this when quite clearly there was a deliberate strategy by British Gas to Gaslight me? Gaslighting is not fair or reasonable in any circumstance. "d) The Claimant states that he spoke with the Respondent’s Julie Olsen Gas who told him that from the records on her screen that a) he was phoning the Respondent at the same time as the contractor claimed to be servicing his boiler" 12) The Adjudicator completely ignores the importance of this - that Julie Olsen could see that I was telling the truth but that her colleagues had insisted someone was in my home servicing/fixing a boiler when this was obviously not the case. Why? Is it because for him to accept that I was being "Gaslite" he would have had to have accepted the amount of compensation I was being offered was derisory? Someone needs to ask him.​ "b) through "CHAT" had been forced to book another appointment which was also not honoured and had complained c) emailed a complaint to the Respondent at 18.48 on 9 th December 2021. The Claimant states that he added ‘gaslighting’ to his complaint. " 13) I have been repeatedly Gaslighted by British Gas employees and have attempted to raise this a part of my complaint to the UtilitiesADR. It has been completely ignored. Why? "e) The Claimant states that he also added the serious problem of safeguarding to the complaint: a) the Respondent does not know where their engineers/contractors are 100% of the time. b) Do not know with 100% certainty what work their contractors have carried out c) Need to explain fraudulent claims made by contractors for appointments/work claimed for but not carried out." 14) These facts have been completely ignored by the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator. Why? By refusing to comment on these serious matters the Adjudicator would appear to be condoning them. This isn't justice. "f) The Claimant states that given his previous experience of gaslighting by the Respondent's debt collectors on 07th December 2020 when he received a letter from Ashleigh Harlin claiming that he had "no reasonable reason" for not paying an invoice of £3.122.50 for his new boiler installation, he was able to show the Respondent he paid the bill within five days of its receipt." 15) I included this important detail because I believe it is illustrative of the culture of Gaslighting that is allowed to flourish at British Gas. The Adjudicator's stony silence on the matter is deeply concerning. "g) The Claimant is seeking compensation for two missed appointments and £30.00 per appointment for not being paid on time £120.00 and £20800 for ‘Gaslighting’. " 16) This is not quite true. I have tried to bring to the attention of the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator the following: Gaslighting is to be found at both British Gas and its debt collection law firm. That customer complaints numbers are shockingly high. That if there is to be significant and meaningful change at British Gas, its approach to compensation needs to be seriously overhauled. If a solicitor is able to Gaslightlight me and get away with an "apology" then that needs to end. One way of ending it is to pay British Gas customers solicitor's-fees compensation. This has been totally ignored by the Adjudicator. "5 Respondent’s position 5. The Respondent’s position is set out within the UtilitiesADR portal. In brief: a) The Respondent submits that its position has been set out in the Final Response Letter issued to the Claimant on 22 nd February 2022. b) The Respondent notes that the Claimant is unhappy that the Respondent’s engineer failed to arrive as planned on 9 December 2021 to service the boiler. In addition, when the Claimant contacted them to discuss his concerns, their advisors informed him that their systems confirmed the visit had taken place and the service had been completed. The Claimant informed the advisors that no engineer had arrived and asked for clarification on the whereabouts of the engineer on 9 December 2021. As the Claimant did not receive a response to the concerns raised, as the case was still under investigation, he escalated matters to his local MP, Luke Pollard, who asked that the Respondent review matters." 17) The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator has omitted the issues of; fraud, safeguarding and Gaslighting. Is this a serious investigation of a complaint or an exercise in whitewashing? "c) The Respondent notes that during their conversations with the Claimant that they have apologised for the worry and concern this matter has caused. They accepted that the level of service had fallen below the level that they aim to achieve and confirmed that they had spoken with the engineer concerned, to gain a better understanding of what had happened on 9 December 2021. " 18) There is no mention of Gaslighting and the Adjudicator hasn't commented on British Gas' statement that they didn't consider the Gaslighting to actually be: Gaslighting. Which is illustrative of the depth of the problem both at British Gas and at the UtilitiesADR offices. "d) The Respondent explained that the engineer who reported he had visited the Claimant was a trusted contractor, and that whilst he was not able to recall the specific appointment, due to the time that had elapsed, the only conclusion he could reach was that he made an error when updating his appointment reports, or a technical fault affected his submitting the report." 19) The Adjudicator states that he read the evidence submitted to him. Evidence that quite clearly states - and is corroborated by Julie Olsen - that at the same time as the "trusted contractor" claimed to be in my home servicing my boiler I was on the phone asking British Gas where their trusted contractor had gotten to. Certainly not my home. With such a low evidential bar in the court of UtilitiesADR, the Adjudicatorappears to have swallowed this baloney hook, line and sinker. "e) The Claimant has explained that this matter has been both time consuming and stressful, and the Respondent does understand how this situation has made him feel. " 20) This is nonsense and the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator has not only fallen for it but seems to be complicit in its maintenance. If British Gas understood how this situation had made me feel they wouldn't have denied that what they were doing was Gaslighting and George Harrington wouldn't have omitted, it from the evidence he claims to have read. "However, the Respondent feels it is important to confirm that the contractor in question, has been with the company for several years, and they have no reason to believe that the appointment record was deliberately falsified. They are confident that following conversations with their contractor that this situation will not occur again." 21) George Harrington, what happened on 9th December 2021? You claim to have investigated these events. Where was the contractor in question? What was he doing? If he can't remember what he was doing 5 minutes ago why are you so confident that, "this situation will not occur again?" "f) The Respondent has confirmed that they are in agreement that no engineer visit took place on 9 December 2021 and have offered their apologies for the inconvenience caused and acknowledged that they did not arrive on two separate occasions to complete the service and repair. In view of this, the Respondent has provided a gesture of £150.00, which they feel adequately reflects the situation the Claimant encountered. " 22) The "gesture" of £150.00p does not adequately reflect the situation I encountered. Please see 16 above. "g) Whilst the Respondent understands the Claimant’s disappointment with them, they do not agree that the term gas lighting reflect the events. They state that they have made honest mistakes, which they have openly accepted and are attempting to correct them. Their staff have apologised multiple times, which they feel is the very opposite of dishonesty." 23) George Harrington, the Respondent does not understand my disappointment with them because if they did they would not have denied that telling me, their customer, that there was a contractor in my home servicing a boiler when there wasn't, amounted to: Gaslighting. 24) If British Gas are being honest then where was their contractor on the 9th of December 2021 and what was he doing? Honestly, he wasn't there servicing my boiler. 25) They have also not apologised for still not telling me where their trusted contractor was. Which would appear to be the very opposite of honesty. I'm surprised you didn't spot it when investigating my complaint. "6 h) The Respondent confirms that the service and remedial work have now been completed. Claimant’s Comments 6. The Claimant has submitted additional comments, which I have fully considered as part of my review of his complaint." 26) Having fully considered my additional comments on; safeguarding, Gaslighting and fraud how did they influence your review of my complaint? You didn't bother to tell me. "Burden of proof 7. In all legal disputes, whether they are dealt with by the courts or via alternative dispute resolution, one party has the obligation of proving the case. This is known as the ‘Burden of Proof’. 8. The party that has the Burden of Proof must prove, on the balance of probabilities (meaning that it is more likely than not) that its position is correct. 9. In respect of the supply of services contracts, the burden of proving that the service did not meet the statutory rights set out under the Act rests with the Claimant. Issue(s) to be determined 10. The issue for me to determine is: i) What Remedy the Claimant is entitled to (“Issue 1”) Issue 1 11. In circumstances where it is determined that any of the provisions of the Act have been breached, the trader has an obligation to provide the appropriate remedy, such as providing the service again, remedying the part of the service that fell below the standard or providing the consumer with a full or partial refund. The applicable remedy will depend on the circumstances." 27) As UtilitiesADR Adjudicator are you saying that it is acceptable for British Gas to repeatedly Gaslight a customer when not supplying them with a service? Or have I failed your, "Burden of proof" test? You don't say how you arrived at your conclusion. It seems to have come out of thin evidential air. This is not acceptable. "12. The Respondent has confirmed that the service and remedial work have now been completed. The Claimant has not refuted this so I will treat this as a correct statement of fact." 28) What you appear not to have taken into consideration is that if I had not refused to be repeatedly Gaslite by British Gas employees I would have been the victim of fraud. I would have been conned into paying for a service I hadn't received. "13. The Claimant was clearly upset by the Respondent’s repeated failure to acknowledge that the service had not taken place on 9th December 2021. This, in itself, would have caused further understandable frustration. However, the Respondent has since apologised for the experience and service received and accepted that the visit to service the Claimant’s boiler did not take place on 9th December 2021." 29) This is not correct. The Respondent refused to accept that their shocking practice of repeatedly telling a customer that their contractor was in the customer's home carrying out work when the truth of the matter was, he wasn't - amounted to Gaslighting and fraud. They got caught out. They then eventually "apologised". It's an apology issued under duress. I means nothing. "They have further accepted that they did not arrive on two separate occasions to complete the service and confirmed that the engineer who was due to attend on 9th December 2021 7 had been spoken to. Following this, the Respondent has offered assurances to the Claimant that the engineer did not deliberately falsify the records." 30) This is an organisation that denies it Gaslights its customers. It's assurances are hardly reassuring. Why? because I still have no idea where their contractor was or what he was doing on 9th December 2021. You appear to believe this is acceptable. "14. In relation to the Claimant’s claim of compensation, the Claimant has not proven any losses as a result of financial detriment. However, I note the Respondent has provided a goodwill payment of £150.00 to the Claimant in recognition of the two missed appointments and the customer service received. I consider this is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances." 31) The standards you work to are abysmal. £150,00p for being subjected to repeated Gaslighting, missed appointments and the hours and hours it took to complain is not fair and is not reasonable in any circumstance. "15. As the Claimant has failed to secure a remedy above that which was offered by the Respondent, I determine that the Claimant’s claim fails." 32) This is totally absurd. The logic behind this is that British Gas will continue to gaslight their customers, subject them to missed appointments and unacceptable delay safe in the knowledge that any Claimant will never secure more than £150,00. And that if they had by some miracle secured a remedy above that which was offered by the Respondent, they wouldn't have needed to complain to you. "Important Notes: 1. This determination is not binding on the complainant who therefore still has the option to pursue the complaint via the courts. 2. There is no right of appeal in relation to this determination." 33) The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator saves the final injustice in this whole charade for the end. I'm told, "there is no right of appeal to this determination." I will still appeal it because it's the right thing to do. Best wishes, Steve Gilbert.

Gaslighting By British Gas

"It is better to content oneself with other more modest and less exiting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion, and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." ― Primo Levi, If This Is a Man • The Truce Dear Mr Jamieson, Thank you for your most recent reply to my complaint with British Gas. You wrote: "23 February 2022 Complaint Reference: 8013254135 Dear Mr Stephen Gilbert HomeCare Reference: 910003910069 Thank you for your email on 04 February 2022 and for the communication received via your Local MP Luke Pollard with regards to the service you received from British Gas Services Limited. As a member of our Executive Office within Customer Relations, I was asked to respond. Please accept my apologies that the level of service you have experienced was not to the standard you were expecting. Your Complaint and Outcome You raised concerns that you waited for an engineer to attend on 09 December 2021 and were disappointed that no visit took place. You were further frustrated that a report on our system shows that an engineer did attend and carried out work. British Gas advisors had maintained that an engineer attended which caused frustration. In addition, you experienced further broken appointments. Having investigated this matter, I would like to apologise for the time spent and stress caused by this situation. 1) You appear to have omitted the most serious and worrying parts of my complaint. They are a) being gaslighted by British Gas employees and complaints handlers and b) British Gas Safeguarding issues. Given the 1000s of missed appointments by British Gas contractors these matters must be treated seriously. YOUR MOST RECENT RESPONSE: My Investigation "From our records, I can see that an appointment was raised on 01 October 2021 for 29 October 2021. This was moved in advance of the appointment on 22 October 2021 to 15 December 2021. I noted that the visit was brought forward on 01 November 2021 for 22 November 2021. I am sorry that the visit was rescheduled a second time on 19 November 2021 for 09 December 2021. Your dissatisfaction was recorded on our systems: reference 8012858302 on 29 October 2021, 8012862120 on 01 November 2021 and under 8012937819 on 19 November 2021. A £50 goodwill payment was issued as an apology on 23 November 2021. I am sorry that you were repeatedly let down." 2) Thank you for your apology for my repeatedly being let down by British Gas. However, Ofgem say that an automatic payment of £30 should be made with an additional £30 being paid if the money isn't paid within 10 days. Can I ask why this didn't happen and why I had to make a complaint? 3) Why wasn't this automatically paid into my account? 4) Are they really "goodwill" gestures? 5) I can't find anywhere on your website or in my account mention of this compensation scheme insisted upon by Ofgem. Have I been looking in the wrong place? "The work history on our system has logged an engineer report on 09 December 2021. The report outlines that an engineer attended 57 Somerset Place where boiler safety checks were completed and a fan replaced. On 09 December 2021 a complaint reference 801019081 was raised to log your dissatisfaction than no engineer had attended. A second complaint reference 8013020197 was raised on 09 December 2021 also. I am sorry that despite our records showing that an appointment took place, no engineer visited the property." 6) I asked British Gas on Thursday 9thDecember what had happened to it contractor but didn't receive a reply. Hence my complaint. Unfortunately, British Gas are still unable to say what caused this to be logged as a visit when on the same day I'd contacted British Gas to say this had not happened. This must surely raise serious concerns about British Gas's failure to safeguard their customers. I regret the delay in our contacting you to discuss your concerns. When a complaint is raised, we aim to respond as quickly as possible. However, our response time can depend on the volume of communications we receive where it can take time to work through these. 7) I still cannot understand why this was ever allowed to happen given I'd taken the time and trouble to alert you about these matters on the very same day and as you say, it was logged by British Gas - on the same day. "Online chat teams updated the complaint notes on 10 & 17 December 2021 as well as 26 January 2022. We have also received your resolver communications. The complaint record was issued to a Customer Manager who spoke with you on 31 January 2022. I have listened to the telephone call where our Customer Manager discussed concerns with the boiler being recently installed but not having its service completed in time. A previous visit on 03 November 2021 was discussed. You were also concerned about sludge being found in the system when you recently bled the system. The appointment had been moved a second time on 26 January 2022 where you waited in for an engineer, received appointment updates but no visit took place. However, the fact that no engineer attended the property on 09 December was the focus of the conversation." 8) 53 days after I had told British Gas that their contractor hadn't arrived for an appointment I was phoned out-of-the-blue and told by Chika Robert that an engineer had actually been in my home servicing a boiler and even carrying out a small repair to it. As you had logged the information I'd given to you on the very day your engineer didn't arrive why did Chika Robert phone me to tell me he had? This is gaslighting surely. 9) Why do British Gas phone their customers out-of-the-blue? 10) Why isn't an initial response put in writing and a time allocated with your customers/complainants to discuss the issues over the phone if necessary? 11) GASLIGHTING: Why have you not addressed this part of my complaint in full? 12) Do you not agree that when a complaints handler contacts a complainant in such a way and then attempts to close the complaint by telling the complainant there was someone in their home when there wasn't, that this is gaslighting especially when the complaint handler made information at her disposal? 13) If this isn't gaslighting by British Gas what is it? 14) How was Julie Olsen able to come to a totally different - and accurate - explanation for what had happened when the exact same information must have been available to her as it was to all your complaints handlers? The manager accepted that it was unclear if an engineer had attended on 09 December 2021. They apologised, confirmed the rescheduled service visit on 29 March 2022 and promised to add a repair for the engineer to look at sludge in the system. 15) Mr Jamieson, you haven't explained how Julie Olsen understood the complexity of the situation but her three other colleagues didn't. When a British Gas customer is repeatedly being told that there are contractors in their home when there aren't - multiple gaslighting - doesn't this indicate that an inquiry needs to be set-up to determine what really is going on at British Gas and the way it handles customers' complaints? 16) In her letter to me dated 31 January 2022 Chika Robert apologises for your poor service levels but not for telling me that a British Gas contractor was in my home carrying out a service and repairs when he wasn't. The key issue of my complaint - gaslighting by British Gas - was ignored by her in her response to my complaint. Was she under instructions to place greater trust in the contractor's version of events over mine? 17) After my conversation with Chicka Robert I checked diaries/emails/etc and contacted British Gas only to be told by two other complaints handlers that a British Gas contractor was in my home on the 9th December servicing my boiler and carrying out repairs. The exact same thing happened again. Were these complaints handlers under instructions to place greater trust in their contractor's version of events over mine? Is this not gaslighting by British Gas's complaint handlers? And if not why not? The Manager agreed that we had let you down on 09 December 2021 and promised to send an email/letter of apology and another confirming the information we hold for 09 December 2021. With these sent, the complaint record was closed with customer agreement. 18) I checked my diaries/emails/mobile phone photographs and re-opened the case the next day. This was because I believed I was being gaslighted by British Gas. As I said in 15) above why was Julie Olsen the only complaints handler not to gaslight me? 19) Are you able to say what percentage of your disputes are settled in the 8th week? And are all complainants cold-called? Wouldn't it be far better to send complainants an email or letter thus giving them the opportunity to sit down and think about the information in front of them? One of the emails sent was a confirmation of the appointment report from 09 December 2021. This was sent in good faith by the advisor, rather than as an attempt to convince you that an engineer had attended contrary to your complaint. While I am sorry for the upset this email caused, the manager you spoke with did not dispute that no engineer attended. 20) Given that I had phoned/CHATTED/emailed British Gas on Thursday 9th December 2021 to ask why their contractor had failed to keep and appointment and it had been logged, can you please explain why such a misleading email was still sent? Due to the nature of your concerns, I have discussed the matter with our engineers Customer Delivery Manager. The engineer in question is a trusted contractor. Due to the time that has passed, the engineer cannot recall the specific appointment. With our records updated to show an appointment being kept with a repair made, the only conclusion the engineer could reach is that he made an error when updating his appointment reports or a technical fault affected his submitting the report. 21) This is from my earlier email to you: When I complained to British Gas at 18.48 on the 9th December 2021 my email asked: "The 12.00 text message stated: 'Your engineer is on schedule and will contact you when you are next' And 'Your engineer is trying to get to you before 1pm but might be late. We will let you know if it changes' It then said how to track progress. I tried to do this but couldn't as my appointment had not been entered into my account. This just never happened. Why didn't you let me know that this had changed? If my engineer was on schedule, where was he/she?" I was clear on the day that the visit hadn't gone ahead because I phoned / CHATTED and emailed British Gas to say it hadn't. Why hadn't my appointment been entered into my account so that I would have been able to monitor his progress? What human error caused this to happen before your contractor failed to turn up for the scheduled appointment? This could be seen as British Gas covering-up for the still non-explained non-attendance of their contractor - something the report and closed appointment record will have shown. This is why I am requesting it through my Data Protection Act request. I respect that our customers prefer to have British Gas direct engineers attend. However, our terms and conditions note that we do can use contractors to help us be there for our customers. Please be assured that we have the same service expectations from all our employees. Based upon or Customer Delivery Managers working knowledge of the engineer who has been with us for several years, he does not believe that the appointment record was deliberately falsified. The situation has been discussed following our internal procedure for feedback. This is to ensure mistakes are learned from. Please be assured that this will not be repeated. No outcome of this feedback can be provided as this is privileged information. 22) I see from various websites including yours and Ofgem's that 1000s of British Gas appointments are being missed. British Gas also don't know for sure where their contractors are or what they are doing. You've also said in your reply to my complaint that the technology at their disposal can sometimes let them down. On top of that when your customers contact you in an attempt to sort out the chaos and their contributions are logged into the system, things still go wrong. Given this set of circumstances, how can you continue to guarantee your customers' safeguarding when your present systems are prone to go wrong? "To be clear, Based upon the information at hand and rather than dispute the situation: I agree that we did not attend on 09 December 2021 and that our records were not accurately updated due to an error. This was a mistake due to human and system error on our part. I respect the frustration this has caused and sincerely apologise for it." 23) Could you please clarify what you say here. What information do you have at hand that could possibly lead you to "dispute the situation?" To dispute the situation would seem to suggest that you think it was possible that your contractor was in my home after all. "I am further sorry that this experience has shaken your confidence in British Gas and that you doubt our commitment to customer safety. Please be assured that we take the safety and well-being of our customers extremely seriously. I agree that mistakes have been made with the broken appointments on 09 December 2021, 26 January 2022 and with a completed work report being submitted in error on 09 December 2021. However, I want to emphases that this does not equate to compromising our customer safety." 24) I am sorry but I disagree you over the matter of customer safety. In this day and age and with a CEO on a £1.1M bonus this shocking record of broken appointments simply shouldn't be happening. British Gas have a situation in which it doesn't know where its contractors are or what they are doing, contractors who are very forgetful, equipment that appears to breakdown at the critical time, reports that are inaccurate and a complaints handling system that waits to the last minute and gaslights customers out-of-the-blue. British Gas's current systems would seem to put customers' safety at a very great risk indeed. "You were disappointed that we could not advise where the engineer had been on 09 December 2022. While the engineer understandably cannot recall each and every appointment from some months ago; the engineer was working through his appointment schedule. As the engineer was a trusted contractor we do not have van tracking data for him. While a large number of engineers have GPS van tracking, we cannot promise this for every occasion a colleague attends an appointment. Having no tracker data does not constitute a safety risk. While an error with your report was made, this does not undermine the engineers actions with other customers or the integrity of our UK-wide staff. " 25) Mr Jamieson, because you still cannot advise me where your engineer was on 09 December 2021 doesn't this serve to underline just how unsafe your present systems are when it comes to guaranteeing the safety of British Gas's customers? 26) I believe these matters need a much wider airing and then consumers can come to their own conclusions about such important issues as; trust, safety and integrity. As I said to Julie Olsen this could all be the result of a series of errors. I further regret that you feel lied to about the appointment taking place on 09 December 2021 by web chat or telephone advisors. 27) I should like to make it very clear that I don't feel "lied" to. It's not a word I would ever use and so you have no need to feel regret. I'm surprised that having listened to my conversations with your complaints handlers, especially with Julie Olsen, you would choose to use such a word. It's also why I've always had my quote from Primo Levi with me since the 1980s. There seems to be no shortcut to finding the truth and in my experience calling people liars is never helpful. "Based upon our communications with you, I do not believe that colleagues have attempted to deliberately mislead you regarding this. When reviewing work history, our frontline colleagues can view appointment records on a customer’s account. In advising that we have a report from 09 December 2021, our colleagues have been outlining the information on our records with the best of intentions of being honest. Unfortunately, detailed investigation was required to appreciate that the report on 09 December 2021 was incorrect. I am sorry that you had to wait for this to be carried out" 28) As I have said above you haven't explained how Julie Olsen was able to see what her colleagues couldn't. It was the same information after all. 29) If this information was automatically uploaded onto your customers' accounts and kept there surely such misunderstandings would become a thing of the past? "I am mindful that when our Customer Relations Team spoke with you on 31 January 2021, the manager did not dispute your concern that the engineer did not attend. Additionally, a further advisor, Julie, spoke with you on 04 to 10 February 2022 and also did not dispute your concerns; nor have I. While I understand your disappointment with British Gas, I do not agree that the term gas lighting reflect the events. We have made honest mistakes which we have openly accepted and are attempting to correct them. Our staff have apologised multiple times. This is the very opposite of dishonesty." 30) Mr Jamieson, I assume you've never been the victim of gaslighting. When out-of-the-blue you're cold-called and told someone actually was in your home servicing your boiler and carrying out minor repairs to it when on the same day that you'd contacted British Gas to ask where their contractor had gotten to - you go into a state of shock. Your brain freezes and you're only half listening to what's being said. The other half of the time you're thinking, "did I let him in and then go and phone British Gas to ask where he was?" That is really unsettling and upsetting. That's gaslighting. 31) The day after being cold-called by Chika Robert and told there was someone in my home when there wasn't I spoke with two other complaints handlers who both said the same thing. There had been a British Gas contractor in my home when I had said there wasn't. This is gaslighting. They didn't preface their comments with "there seems to be some confusion" or "your account is very different to our contractor's." Both told me: there was someone in your home carrying out a service and a minor repair, when I knew that wasn't true. Transcripts/copies of those phone conversations would be most helpful. 32) On this point you still haven't been able to explain to me how Julie Olsen was able to hold a totally different conversation with me when she must have had exactly the same information in font of her as her colleagues. Could you please do so. "Our staff have apologised multiple times. This is the very opposite of dishonesty." 33) I had a written apology from Chika Robert but there was no mention of my complaint about gaslighting. Julie Olsen had no need to apologise for anything. The two other complaints handlers didn't apologise - but I need the transcripts to be sure. And you have apologised for your poor service standards but don't believe I have been gaslighted - which in itself could be construed as gaslighting. To get to the truth of this others would need to investigate what happened, discuss the issues and make reasoned decisions based on what can be verified and demonstrated. I don't think I've been apologised to multiple times. 34) In this response to my complaint you have introduced the words "lied" and "dishonesty." Which is unfortunate. I have contented myself with slowly trying to get to the truth of what went on based on the one hard fact I have - that there never was a British Gas contractor in my home on Thursday 9th December 2021 although a number of British Gas's employees say there was. I understand this to be - gaslighting. But you don't. My conversation with Julie Olsen, which I assume you've listened to, consisted of me saying there must have a series of misunderstandings of confusions and failures to accurately record events. And that these coincidences are all we have to go on. I said all the engineers who'd visited my home had been good and the one who came on the 3rd of November was excellent. And why couldn't all complaints handlers be like her? 35) It does mean however, that unmonitored British Gas contractors are submitting claims for work that hasn't been carried out. Could you please respond to that and explain how that safeguards British Gas's customers? Please be assured that this complaint has been logged on your account with a detailed case file attached. It has been discussed at senior levels and with the employees concerned. With this in mind, every effort to record an accurate investigation and log of events has been taken. Thank you for your feedback about our website, appointment updates on customers online account, customer access to web chat logs and communications with us. At present we are updating our appointment, telephone and online systems. This will provide a transformative service both for our staff and customers. I am confident that you will see a marked improvement when these changes are fully implemented." 36) I'm glad you fell my feed back has been so positive and that marked improvements and changes to your service are on the way. My Conclusion "We communicated by email from 19 February 2022. While a financial sum can rarely reflect the frustration caused, an apology for the impact of the two missed appointments and customer service received, I promised to issue a £150 goodwill payment. I am sorry that we were unable to reach agreement on this matter. Following our internal process for complaint review, I issued your concerns to my Senior Customer Manager Cassie to consider. Cassie agrees that our response is justified." 37) There remains a degree of confusion over what Ofgem say should happen in these circumstances and what you have called "goodwill" payments. If Ofgem's guidelines are right shouldn't I have automatically received two £30 payments for missed appointments plus another two £30 payments for them not being paid on time. That would make £120.00. 38) I will have to content myself with getting to this stage of my complaint but with some important questions still unanswered. Because, regrettably, I feel you have failed to adequately address my complaint about being Gaslighted by British Gas and the safeguarding issues raised by having contractors you have little control over, it would be wrong to accept your goodwill gesture of £150. "I respect that you have received contact from the Financial Ombudsman Service through the online complaints tool Resolver. However, as your products with us are not insurance products, we do not give permission for the Financial Ombudsman Service to investigate the situation. Details on the Utilities ADR are included below." 39) Throughout this complaint I did wonder how Martin Lewis's Resolver worked and now I know. Not very well. I will now be contacting him and seeking his help in this matter. I’d like to thank you for your patience and for allowing me the time to respond to your complaint. I will issue a cheque for £150 to you within 14 working days. While I appreciate that this is not the outcome you had hoped for, please consider this our final position on the matter. 40) Thank you for acknowledging my patience in this matter. My Primo Levi quote has helped guide me through some difficult stages of my customer journey through life. If I'm automatically entitled to Ofgem's £120 (as I understand it) that would be fine. As my complaint is now about to head elsewhere it would wholly wrong to accept your goodwill gesture. The £20,400 compensation claim will have to go on hold for the meantime. You can refer your complaint to the Utilities ADR. Utilities ADR contact details are as follows if you require them: Web address: www.utilitiesadr.co.uk Email: enquiries@cdrl.org.uk Telephone: 020 3540 8063 Post: Utilities ADR 12-14 Walker Avenue Stratford Office Village Wolverton Mill Milton Keynes MK12 5TW If there is anything further that you would like to bring to my attention that has not already been considered, or if anything mentioned above is incorrect, you can speak to me or a member of my team on 0333 202 3307 between 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday. You can also email me at stuart.jamieson@britishgas.co.uk. Yours sincerely Stuart Jamieson Customer Manager Executive Office Stuart Jamieson|Executive Office Customer Manager|Executive Office Customer Relations| ( 0333 202 3307 |* stuart.jamieson@britishgas.co.uk|British Gas Services Best wishes. Steve Gilbert.