Ombudsman Needed - Brass Neck And Conscience Bypass Essential (509)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 509
.
509) Ombudsman Needed - Brass Neck And Conscience Bypass Essential.

Dear Mr Clark,

We've already attempted to point out that power without accountability - checks or counterbalances - is tyrannical. Combine that with Prime Ministers who as a point of principle refuse to answer questions on the floor of the House of Commons and the tone is set for the rest of The Establishment and those aspiring to get their snouts into The Golden Trough.

As taxpayers we pay people not to answer our questions and call this democracy.

The first rule for those intent on rising up the food chain - social mobility in early 21st century - is: Never Answer Questions.

Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's research was in part funded by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor. They say;
"The project was delivered in partnership with the PHSO, which is currently under close scrutiny from a group of ombudsman watchers called, 'PHSO the Facts.' Several other UK ombudsman schemes have one or more ombudsman watcher groups, so that this phenomenon and the outputs of this project are likely to be of significant interest within the ombudsman community."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists.)

We tried taking our complaint about the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman which was like asking the Camorra to investigate crime in Naples.

We acted more in hope than expectation.

Things did, however, start quite promisingly. We were invited to submit further evidence to Dame Julie Mellor's department to support our complaint and this we did. It included the remarkable claim by a former employee that the Ombudsman Service's investigating officers masqueraded as the ombudsman by cutting and pasting the ombudsman's signature onto reports written by them and then sending the bogus reports out to unsuspecting complainants. It was a cunning wheeze dreamt up by a new section head in order to clear a backlog of complaints. It seems to have worked spectacularly well and the executives rewarded themselves with a back-slapping celebratory party to celebrate just how civil their justice had been.

We thought this was corrupt.

Dame Julie Mellor didn't agree.

It would seem that because the ombudsman, the new section head and their investigating officers are only accountable to government and its docile monitors for the estate agent side of the charade and not the surveyors side (which is "regulated" by the RICS which means it isn't) there was nothing she could apparently do.

Except threaten to prosecute us should we disclose her department's detailed findings in our case. As far as Dame Julie Mellor was concerned this private redress scheme can cut and paste the ombudsman's signature onto reports written by minions until the cows come home. Apparently, there's nothing that she can do about it.

We admire, "PHSO the Facts" and wish them every success in their seemingly hopeless task - of bringing Dame Julie Mellor to account. Who knows, Naomi Creutzfelt and Chris Gill's project may play a crucial part in this quest for justice and accountability.

Q. Mr Clark, is a brass neck and conscience bypass essential requirements for the job of ombudsman in post-Brexit Britain?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Sajid Javid, Dame Julie Mellor and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property "a company formerly trading as he SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.

Please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thank you. Steve Gilbert.

Ombudsman Watchers - A Bit Like Crime Watchers But Different. (508)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 508.

508) Ombudsman Watchers - A Bit Like Crime Watchers But Different.

Dear Mr Clark,

Ombudsman Watchers are a bit like Crime Watchers but only different. With Crime Watchers something is actually done about the crimes being perpetrated on the public.

In, "Online Activism" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill attempt to explain what they mean by the term, "Ombudsman Watcher."
"We call online these online activist consumer groups, 'ombudsman watchers ' after one of the first such websites to be set up. The aim of the project was to help policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders of ombudsman schemes by exploring the drives for this particular form of protest and the ways in which this social phenomenon can be better understood and managed to ensure the continued legitimacy of ombudsman schemes. A key goal for the project was to lead to an exchange of views between ombudsman schemes and ombudsman watchers."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-activists)

We believe that the term, "ombudsman watcher" is in itself problematic implying a passive voyeuristic fascination with the social phenomenon of ombudsman and their devious pro-business schemes which miss-sell what they call, "civil justice" to an unsuspecting public. But we admire the original Ombudsman Watcher for what they are attempting to achieve.

It's just that we prefer the term, "Ombudsman Activist."

However, the important relationship - the one between ombudsmen and their bosses - would have made for a really interesting project, but as the researchers admit, their aim was: to help policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders of ombudsman schemes and not it would seem ombudsman watchers.

This apparent bias towards the perpetrators of the crime - ombudsman schemers - at the expense of their victims and advocates (the ombudsman activists) is further underlined by the researchers' commitment to better understand and manage what activists are attempting to achieve so as to;
"ensure the continued legitimacy of ombudsman schemes."

It would seem from this perspective that ombudsman activists are the ones in need of, "management" and not ombudsman schemers. To the neutral this must appear conceptually confusing, upside down and back to front.

Furthermore, what legitimacy would that be? And why, continued? To us Ombudsman Services:Property  was never legitimate in the first place. Hence the need to critically explore the relationship between ombudsmen and their bosses, those shadowy figures who like to operate behind the scenes - or stakeholders as they're known here.

Simply by parking their tanks on Victoria Tower Gardens and proclaiming, "civil justice" shouldn't mean that ombudsman schemers are automatically granted legitimacy by an unquestioning and compliant Parliament. .

Q. Mr Clark, doesn't legitimacy have to earned and just exactly how does maladministrating consumers' complaints earn it?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Oliver Colvile, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing rebranding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.

Please comment either on the blog or by emailing - shockingsurveys1@gmail.com Thanks.
Steve Gilbert.

The Unacceptable Face Of Capitalism (507)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
For Clarity - Attempt 507.

507) The Unacceptable Face Of Capitalism.

Dear Mr Clark,

A headline in today's Telegraph tells us,
"Sir Philip Green should be stripped of his knighthood unless he funds BHS's £750m pensions deficit, MPs say."

Surely, this is wrong?

Shouldn't it have said,
"Philip Green has been stripped of his knighthood, will refund BHS' pension fund, will compensate BHS staff and will serve time in Wormwood Scrubs, MPs say."

Why are MPs still soft on knighthoods and soft on the causes of knighthoods if post-Brexit anti-Establishmentarianism is now all the rage?

Q. Mr Clark, aren't maladministrating Ombudsman Services executives not also part of the unacceptable face of rigged market capitalism?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Mark Prisk, Norman Lamb, Francis Maude, Nick Clegg, Michael Fallon, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of their ombudsman's illogical final decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.

Yours sincerely,
steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing - shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.

Academics Ask: Should Troublesome David Take On Goliath? (506)

To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 506.

506) Academics Ask - Should Troublesome David Take On Goliath?

Dear Mr Clark,

When your research is in part funded by Dame Julie Mellor, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, it must make being unbiased and totally objective - difficult.

Point 8 of Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's Executive Summary is concerned with troublesome ombudsman watchers. They say;
"The influence of ombudsman watchers and the degree to which they should be engaged with is likely to remain a troubling issue for ombudsman schemes. This involves balancing the need to address negative publicity and the desire to draw lessons from the experiences of dissatisfied complainants, at the same time as recognising that this risks privileging potentially unrepresentative perspectives."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the ombudsman-system-engaging-online-citizen-activists)

What is troubling for democracy and the citizens it purports to represent and protect, is that a government intent on privatising justice should see its approved ombudsman schemes in need of monitoring by ombudsman watchers.

Something is seriously wrong with ombudsman schemes and the people running them. That's troubling.

That dissatisfied complainants are rendered powerless by ombudsman schemes is troubling.

That dissatisfied complainant's only hope for something approaching redress is reduced to the potentially privileging perspectives of ombudsman watchers is also troubling.

That academics should see criticisms of ombudsmen cosying up to regulators, arriving at decisions in an illogical manner and maladministrating complaints as, "negative" publicity is troubling.

That researchers should conceptualise their research in such language is troubling.

What is David supposed to do? Write a letter of complaint, address it to Goliath and hope that that brings him crashing down?

Q. Mr Clark, don't you agree that it is troubling that government does nothing to protect its citizens from ombudsman schemes, choosing instead to leave the job to ombudsman watchers?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Oliver Colvile and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing e-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.

Please comment either on the blog or by emailing - shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks.
Steve Gilbert.

Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists 7. (505)

To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 505.

505) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists 7. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.

5. Ombudsman Schemes Are A Law Unto Themselves.

Dear Mr Clark,

We suggested to Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill that it might be a good idea if both sides met on the same day as there were several questions we wanted to ask Ombudsman Services:Property, but apparently this wasn't possible. There was to be no dialogue. It would seem that the ombudsman schemes were not prepared to countenance such a democratic exchange of viewpoints and information.

Even Yasser Arafat and Yitzak Rabin had managed to shake hands on that momentous day back in 1993 but a coming together of ombudsman watchers and ombudsman schemes was a step too far - for the ombudsman schemes

Point 7 of Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's Executive Summary examines the willingness, or otherwise, of ombudsman schemes to take on board criticism and act upon it. They say,
"Some ombudsman schemes had been very proactive in terms of engagement. However, it is not clear, from the ombudsman scheme's perspective, engagement is likely to result in learning for service improvement. There was variation in the degree to which ombudsman schemes had found the critiques of ombudsman watchers constructive and useful and to what extent those critiques had informed service improvements and resulted in meaningful dialogue."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)

We had no meaningful dialogue with the Ombudsman Services executives and they refused to accept our criticisms of their, "service."

When significant sums of money rest on an ombudsman's illogical decision, corruption is never far away.
However, the executives do appear to have read what we and others had said in criticism of their business practices because they:
- removed the company's highly revealing minutes from its website.
- replaced DJS Research with another organisation.
- significantly changed the reporting of OS:Property's performance in investigating consumers' complaints.
- and battened down the hatches and adopted a siege mentality.

Forget PPI. This is miss-selling, "civil justice" on an industrial scale.

The only dialogue Ombudsman Services:Property has had was with government over how best to implement the EU Directive on ADR and how to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.

The RICS even installed Mary Thorogood as its UK Parliamentary Affairs Manager. She talked of the,
"on-going political influencing and engagement work to achieve better regulation of letting agents," but the better regulation of surveyors had clearly slipped her mind.

We asked your department if the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign could have a Parliamentary Pass too so that we could also try our hand at political influencing and engagement work - lobbying - but we didn't receive a reply.

This scheme's approach to engagement with their countless victims (countless because the company no longer provide any statistics on complainant dissatisfaction) is best summed up in their sod-off letter in which they helpfully suggest that the complainant is perfectly free to take their complaint elsewhere and, "find a solution that suits them better." 

The only really meaningful dialogue - the one that's right on the money as it were - is the one between the RICS and its appointed hired hands at OS:Property. The RICS Memorandum of Understanding lays down the law;
"RICS and OS:Property will work together.....to meet the agreed aims of ensuring that:
- there is regular communication to foster the effective resolution of complaints by OS:P."

Nowhere do RICS the Regulator say what they actually mean by the term, "the effective resolution of complaints." 

It is key to the con.

Q. Mr Clark, when the RICS tells OS:Property what the effective resolution of a complaint is, how can the OS:Property ombudsman be in any meaningful way - independent?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Ombudsman Schemes Don't Do What They Say On The Tin. (504)

To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 504.

504) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Citizen Activists 4. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.

4. Ombudsman Schemes Don't Do What They Say On The Tin.

Dear Mr Clark,

Point 6 of the Executive Summary is one of the most contentious so far. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us,
"At the same time, the critiques put forward by the ombudsman watchers may highlight the way in which the public misunderstand the role of ombudsman schemes and be indicative of an apparent gap between public expectation and what ombudsman schemes are set up to provide."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)

This point would seem to suggest that the public are in some way responsible for putting the cart before the horse, getting the wrong end of the stick and trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The implication being that ombudsman watchers are the ones who have somehow got it wrong. It's all been one huge and unfortunate misunderstanding. If only they'd read the small print more carefully.

But what if the information contained there was misleading?

Surely, the onus must always be on those setting up these schemes in the first place. Why aren't they totally specific about what they are and are not aiming to do? Why do they leave it to their victims to second guess what their, "good intentions" might be? Who stands to benefit more from these misunderstandings: consumers or the businesses ombudsmen front?

We suspect it's the ombified businesses with their suspect, "business practices."

What also needs to be researched is not just the relationship between ombudsmen and their victims but the one between ombudsmen and those markets that so generously permitted them to, "ombuds" them. What is the quid pro quo?

For example, the RICS, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property to clear its mess up for them and watches its appointees closely to ensure that they do. The quid pro quo here is financial - instead of facing huge and potentially crippling insurance claims, legal costs and damages, surveyors, through their, "appointed" ombudsman scheme, (and having the "investigations" of complaints carefully monitored for, "effectiveness") tend to walk away scot-free never having had to put their hand in their pocket. The RICS even pay their fees.

This ombudsman scheme legitimises poor regulation and incompetence. It is corrupt.

In doing so the RICS have colonised so called, "civil justice" and have devised - rigged/captured - a highly effective way of passing off the cost of their Members' and Regulated Firms' business inefficiency and corrupt practices, onto their clients.

The RICS philosophy is best summed up by Steven Gould, Director of Regulation at the RICS and who is also a Board Member of Ombudsman Services, when speaking on the subject of letting agents. He is the embodiment of the philosophy of self regulation. He said,
"Self regulation properly developed, implemented and efficiently policed, provides the best and most effective means of ensuring consumer protection, without increasing the regulatory burden on business."
(www.property118.com/new-call-for-government-to-regulate-letting-agents)

The key to the door of this ideology is the - without increasing the regulatory burden on business - bit.

It is just plain wrong. Otherwise things would be very different. If, what the Director of Regulation at the RICS said were indeed true, RICS would have done all the above and policed their Members effectively - there would never had been the need for them to have, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property to do their job for them.

Christopher Hamer, the former TPOS ombudsman summed all of this up brilliantly in just one simple sentence,
"Why don't RICS regulate properly in the first place?"

Why don't they?

Is it because to do so would be a burden on their Members' business practices? Regulation being seen a cost - a tax on inefficiency and corruption.

Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill seem to expect consumers to know all of this before they take their complaints to an ombudsman.

We didn't know any of this at the time we were bundled off to OS:Property by our gleeful surveyor. Naively, we thought that the ombudsman was independent and would investigate our complaint, "fairly." We thought ombudsmen were a distant branch of government. The good guys.

We were conned. We didn't con ourselves.

Q. Mr Clark, why don't the RICS efficiently police and regulate their Members and Regulated firms and why do they pass the regulatory burden onto their clients?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Oliver Colvile and Mr Clark.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical final decisions.
- the setting up of a truly fair and independent redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.

Please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.

The Ombudsman Institution - Deterrent Against Injustice? (503)

To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 503.

503) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Citizen Activists. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.

3. The Ombudsman Institution - No Deterrent Against Injustice.

Dear Mr Clark,

Trident has proven to be no deterrent, whatsoever, against the illogical decisions and maladministration of Ombudsman Services that have been raining down on defenceless complainants in ever increasing numbers since it launched its campaign of co-called, "civil justice" back in 2008.

Since then, consumers' Human Rights have been under constant daily attack with governmental knowledge and approval.

Point 5 of Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's Executive Summary states,
"Many of the issues raised by the ombudsman watchers touch upon important and widely recognised dilemmas for the ombudsman institution. These matters are likely to continue to be controversial and, perhaps, require a clearer and more coherently developed position amongst the wider ombudsman community."

A major dilemma for the Ombudsman Property:Service ombudsman is that being sat in the pocket of RICS it's extremely difficult for that individual to actually see what's going on.

Another dilemma for the ombudsman is that the RICS Memorandum of Understanding with its "appointed" company and its close monitoring of what it deems to be, "the effective resolution of disputes" leaves its, "appointed" ombudsman totally lacking in independence.

Added to that, the wider ombudsman community - in the guise of the Ombudsman Association - is that the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services happens to be its Chairman. The Ombudsman Association once had as on of the requirements for club membership the need for member schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. Ombudsman Services doesn't have a whistleblowing policy and, strange to say, now no longer does the Ombudsman Association.

We wrote to the Ombudsman Association to ask them why they no longer had having a whistleblowing policy as a requirement for membership but still had the Ombudsman Service CEO and Chief Ombudsman as its chairmen.

We didn't get a reply.

Ombudsman Services do not answers consumers' questions. The Ombudsman Association do not answer consumers' questions about its member ombudsman schemes failing to answer consumers' questions.

An Ombudsmans61percent recommend:
- Just as drivers and their passengers are required to wear seat belts so all ombudsman schemes must, by law, have a whistleblowing policy.

Q. Mr Clark, when ombudsmen do not answer consumers' questions, how is this in any way, "civil justice" and why has government done nothing to deter such undemocratic behaviour?

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.