To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 536.
536) Professor Dame Janet Finch's Final Foreword.
Dear Mr Clark,
We saw that when the maladministrators advertised for a new chair they insisted upon the new incumbent having unimpeachable integrity. Only time will tell...
Meanwhile, we see that the present incumbent has said;
"The annual report covers a short year of nine months..."
(Prof Finch: Foreword 2015 Annual Report)
Q. Mr Clark, is the short year an echo of how this lot short change consumers - especially those with complex and expensive property complaints?
Q. Mr Clark, does the short year not also mirror the shortness of Professor Dame Janet Finch's Annual Property Reports which went from 13 pages when she took over to a paltry one and a bit at the time of her departure?
During her time as chair transparency and accountability have virtually vanished - just look at the dismal Property Reports which are now reduced to a pale shadow of their once former glory.
Telephone surveys? Bet they never happen.
Q. Mr Clark, how does this meet the EU Directive EU/11/2013 requirement for ADR schemes to be fair and transparent?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 9 October 2016
Friday, 7 October 2016
The Cost Of Ludicrous Decisions From OS:P And Livewell Southwest Ltd. (535)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 535.
535) The Cost Of Ludicrous Decisions From OS:P And Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Dear Mr Clark,
We seen how an ombudsman's illogical Final Decision results in a massive bill for the complainant whilst letting member surveyors off the hook.
The same is happening at Livewell Southwest Ltd only here its the cost of care that's being handed to the unfortunate individual..
We wrote to Professor Waite:
Dear Professor Waite,
It is clear that at the point of an atrocious decision from the Anonymous Livewell Southwest Ltd Desk Top Reviewer that the NHS becomes extremely expensive for his/her victim.
There is one Cardiff based law firm - Hugh James Nursing Care - that has so far recouped £80 Million for its clients all of whom are the victims of shocking decisions regarding the battle over who should pay for the cost of care.
And that's just one law firm.
That the countless number of individuals who have contributed to the cost running the NHS and the salaries it pays its top executives, through paying their taxes, should need the services of a solicitor or advocate to reclaim what is rightly theirs in the first place, shows the system up for what it is - little better than an extortion racket.
Anonymous individuals handing people for whom they have a duty of care a one line sentence and a massive bill.
Q. Professor Waite, until this rotten and corrupt system is scrapped shouldn't the victims of all those dreadful decisions be reimbursed in full the costs they've been forced to incur when claiming back what was rightfully theirs in the first place?
Q. Mr Clark, if the Prime Minister is sincere in what she says about executive pay and justice for the consumer shouldn't she be ordering a public inquiry into organisations like OS:Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd?
Yours sincerely,
teve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 535.
535) The Cost Of Ludicrous Decisions From OS:P And Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Dear Mr Clark,
We seen how an ombudsman's illogical Final Decision results in a massive bill for the complainant whilst letting member surveyors off the hook.
The same is happening at Livewell Southwest Ltd only here its the cost of care that's being handed to the unfortunate individual..
We wrote to Professor Waite:
Dear Professor Waite,
It is clear that at the point of an atrocious decision from the Anonymous Livewell Southwest Ltd Desk Top Reviewer that the NHS becomes extremely expensive for his/her victim.
There is one Cardiff based law firm - Hugh James Nursing Care - that has so far recouped £80 Million for its clients all of whom are the victims of shocking decisions regarding the battle over who should pay for the cost of care.
And that's just one law firm.
That the countless number of individuals who have contributed to the cost running the NHS and the salaries it pays its top executives, through paying their taxes, should need the services of a solicitor or advocate to reclaim what is rightly theirs in the first place, shows the system up for what it is - little better than an extortion racket.
Anonymous individuals handing people for whom they have a duty of care a one line sentence and a massive bill.
Q. Professor Waite, until this rotten and corrupt system is scrapped shouldn't the victims of all those dreadful decisions be reimbursed in full the costs they've been forced to incur when claiming back what was rightfully theirs in the first place?
Q. Mr Clark, if the Prime Minister is sincere in what she says about executive pay and justice for the consumer shouldn't she be ordering a public inquiry into organisations like OS:Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd?
Yours sincerely,
teve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
"Amber Rudd's father was involved in business she ran despite being declared unfit." The Guardian.(677)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 533,
533) "Amber Rudd's father was involved in business she ran despite being declared unfit."
(www.guardian.co.uk)
Dear Mr Clark,
We're told by the Guardian that although; "unfit to direct any company whether private or public" it seems that he did anyway - his daughter's - Amber "Red Mist" Rudd's.
We can only stand back and applaud the Guardian's noble attempt at asking the Home Secretary a question - we know how frustrating that can be. As for answers...
The Guardian's was simple and straightforward: how had Rudd junior ensured that Rudd senior was not involved in the day-to-day running of Lawnstone?
For someone usually so voluble, Amber Rudd was uncharacteristically silent. Her father also said nothing.
Q. Mr Clark, is it any wonder that the RICS involve themselves in the day-to-day running of its independent appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property when they see yet another politician flouting The Rules - and they're not even European Rules?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 533,
533) "Amber Rudd's father was involved in business she ran despite being declared unfit."
(www.guardian.co.uk)
Dear Mr Clark,
We're told by the Guardian that although; "unfit to direct any company whether private or public" it seems that he did anyway - his daughter's - Amber "Red Mist" Rudd's.
We can only stand back and applaud the Guardian's noble attempt at asking the Home Secretary a question - we know how frustrating that can be. As for answers...
The Guardian's was simple and straightforward: how had Rudd junior ensured that Rudd senior was not involved in the day-to-day running of Lawnstone?
For someone usually so voluble, Amber Rudd was uncharacteristically silent. Her father also said nothing.
Q. Mr Clark, is it any wonder that the RICS involve themselves in the day-to-day running of its independent appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property when they see yet another politician flouting The Rules - and they're not even European Rules?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 29 September 2016
Eye-Wateringly Ludicrous Decisions. (534)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
(but also to all who care about justice, transparency and accountability)
For Clarity - Attempt 534.
534) Eye-Wateringly Ludicrous Decisions.
Dear Mr Clark,
Eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions are not the sole preserve of an OS:Property ombudsman.
We wrote to the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd.
"Dear Prof Waite,
We are told that the NHS is still free at the point of delivery although there are those who claim that this is a political mirage.
The NHS is most certainly not free at the point of a Livewell Southwest Ltd Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's eye-wateringly ludicrous decision.
At this point the NHS becomes very un-free and expensive.
In our case employing the services of a highly skilled and respected advocate appears to have been no deterrent in in preventing the Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer from arriving at his/her predetermined decision.
Q. Prof Waite, is it Livewell Southwest Ltd policy to keep the identity of their Desk Top Reviewers anonymous so as to facilitate their arrival at ludicrous decisions thus saving the NHS millions of pounds each year whilst at the same time effectively transferring the cost of care onto their victims?"
Q. Mr Clark, this strategy of handing NHS patients eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions regarding the cost of their care appears to be happening on an industrial scale. When is it going to end?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
(but also to all who care about justice, transparency and accountability)
For Clarity - Attempt 534.
534) Eye-Wateringly Ludicrous Decisions.
Dear Mr Clark,
Eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions are not the sole preserve of an OS:Property ombudsman.
We wrote to the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd.
"Dear Prof Waite,
We are told that the NHS is still free at the point of delivery although there are those who claim that this is a political mirage.
The NHS is most certainly not free at the point of a Livewell Southwest Ltd Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's eye-wateringly ludicrous decision.
At this point the NHS becomes very un-free and expensive.
In our case employing the services of a highly skilled and respected advocate appears to have been no deterrent in in preventing the Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer from arriving at his/her predetermined decision.
Q. Prof Waite, is it Livewell Southwest Ltd policy to keep the identity of their Desk Top Reviewers anonymous so as to facilitate their arrival at ludicrous decisions thus saving the NHS millions of pounds each year whilst at the same time effectively transferring the cost of care onto their victims?"
Q. Mr Clark, this strategy of handing NHS patients eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions regarding the cost of their care appears to be happening on an industrial scale. When is it going to end?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The RICS OS:Property and NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping Of Complaints.. (533)
To The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
(and those running La La Land)
For Clarity - Attempt 533.
533) The RICS OS{Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping of Complaints.
Dear Mr Clark,
At Livewell Southwest Ltd complaints are handled by the simple expedient of ignoring them whereas at the RICS' "chosen scheme" - Ombudsman Services:Property - things are far more sophisticated than that.
Q. Mr Clark, if the RICS' chosen scheme is, "entirely independent" why has it installed two of its placemen at the company?
In the Ombudsman Services:Property 2015 Property sector Report (April-December) they tell us;
"complaints continue to largely involve missed defects by surveyors carrying out RICS survey products."
Strangely enough, our complaint concerning Monk and Partners was about a host of defects missed by their surveyor who promptly left the company shortly afterwards.
That was good for business but bad for the consumer.
If you look back over the years through their property reports you will see that, "surveys" and "valuations" have always topped the list of consumers' greatest cause of dissatisfaction with surveyors.
Staggering sums of money are involved.
All that seems to have changed in the time OS:Property have been supposedly, "investigating" complaints is that the figures have gone up and not down.
The RICS would appear to have effectively rigged the market in this particular sector.
They have provided their crap surveyors and their crap survey products with a platinum get out of jail free card. Its called The Ombudsman Services:Property Platinum Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free and is Good For Business.
Q. Mr Clark, clearly substandard surveys and valuations are an expensive problem for surveyors, is that why they send their dissatisfied clients to their chosen scheme - OS:Property - to be effectively resolved?
Q. Mr Clark, why has Ombudsman Services:Property been so ineffective in stemming this rising tide in substandard surveys and valuations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
(and those running La La Land)
For Clarity - Attempt 533.
533) The RICS OS{Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Effective Pulping of Complaints.
Dear Mr Clark,
At Livewell Southwest Ltd complaints are handled by the simple expedient of ignoring them whereas at the RICS' "chosen scheme" - Ombudsman Services:Property - things are far more sophisticated than that.
Q. Mr Clark, if the RICS' chosen scheme is, "entirely independent" why has it installed two of its placemen at the company?
In the Ombudsman Services:Property 2015 Property sector Report (April-December) they tell us;
"complaints continue to largely involve missed defects by surveyors carrying out RICS survey products."
Strangely enough, our complaint concerning Monk and Partners was about a host of defects missed by their surveyor who promptly left the company shortly afterwards.
That was good for business but bad for the consumer.
If you look back over the years through their property reports you will see that, "surveys" and "valuations" have always topped the list of consumers' greatest cause of dissatisfaction with surveyors.
Staggering sums of money are involved.
All that seems to have changed in the time OS:Property have been supposedly, "investigating" complaints is that the figures have gone up and not down.
The RICS would appear to have effectively rigged the market in this particular sector.
They have provided their crap surveyors and their crap survey products with a platinum get out of jail free card. Its called The Ombudsman Services:Property Platinum Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free and is Good For Business.
Q. Mr Clark, clearly substandard surveys and valuations are an expensive problem for surveyors, is that why they send their dissatisfied clients to their chosen scheme - OS:Property - to be effectively resolved?
Q. Mr Clark, why has Ombudsman Services:Property been so ineffective in stemming this rising tide in substandard surveys and valuations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 26 September 2016
Accountability 12. (532)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 532.
532) Accountability 12: The Startling Similarities Between Ombudsman Services:Property And Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Dear Mr Clark,
The following email was sent to Oliver Colvile MP and Livewell Southwest Ltd:
"Dear Oliver Colvile,
I first contacted you about Prof Waite and his leadership of Livewell Southwest Ltd on 29th July 2016 but have not yet had a reply from you.
This organisation makes truly appalling decisions free in the knowledge that they will be able to get away with it.
There is no transparency at Livewell and there would appear to be no accountability either.
This is wholly unacceptable in what passes for a modern democracy. Livewell Southwest is an affront to democracy.
I wonder just how many other Plymothians have had similar appalling decisions handed to them without explanation by anonymous functionaries of Prof Waite's organisation?
The similarities between Prof Waite's Livewell Southwest Ltd and The Rev Smith's Ombudsman Services:Property are remarkable and alarming.
Sadly, I will now be complaining to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner about your refusal to acknowledge my complaint about Prof Waite and Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Yours sincerely,
Steve G."
Q. Mr Clark, the standards of transparency and accountability at both these organisations belong in Ceausecu's Romania. Is it the UK Government's business strategy to collude with, and prop up, such appalling organisations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 532.
532) Accountability 12: The Startling Similarities Between Ombudsman Services:Property And Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Dear Mr Clark,
The following email was sent to Oliver Colvile MP and Livewell Southwest Ltd:
"Dear Oliver Colvile,
I first contacted you about Prof Waite and his leadership of Livewell Southwest Ltd on 29th July 2016 but have not yet had a reply from you.
This organisation makes truly appalling decisions free in the knowledge that they will be able to get away with it.
There is no transparency at Livewell and there would appear to be no accountability either.
This is wholly unacceptable in what passes for a modern democracy. Livewell Southwest is an affront to democracy.
I wonder just how many other Plymothians have had similar appalling decisions handed to them without explanation by anonymous functionaries of Prof Waite's organisation?
The similarities between Prof Waite's Livewell Southwest Ltd and The Rev Smith's Ombudsman Services:Property are remarkable and alarming.
Sadly, I will now be complaining to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner about your refusal to acknowledge my complaint about Prof Waite and Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Yours sincerely,
Steve G."
Q. Mr Clark, the standards of transparency and accountability at both these organisations belong in Ceausecu's Romania. Is it the UK Government's business strategy to collude with, and prop up, such appalling organisations?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 22 September 2016
Accountability 11: Ombudsman Services:Property .And Its Regular Evaluation Of Quality / Livewell Southwest Ltd And Its Anonymous Decision Makers (531)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 531.
531) Accountability 11: Ombudsman Services:Property And Its Regular Evaluation Of Quality / Livewell Southwest Ltd And Its Anonymous Decision Makers.
Dear Mr Clark,
Regarding Ombudsman Services:Property, the European Directive - EU/11/2013 - clearly states that,
"ADR entities (such as OS:Property) offering dispute resolution through such procedures should be subject to regular evaluation of their compliance with the quality requirements set out in this Directive including the specific additional requirements ensuring their independence."
We've seen that the OS:Property's Annual Reports and Customer Satisfaction Reports went from a fulsome account of the company's failings to virtually nothing - a postcard from sunny Warrington.
The RICS who can't, apparently, do their job as a regulator and regulate their Firms and Regulated Members in the first place, are - amazingly - able to demand through their Memorandum of Understanding with their appointed company OS:Property, just exactly what they consider to be, "the effective resolution of disputes."
They have (or had) Steven Gould and Walter Merricks sitting on their appointed company's Board. This does not appear to us to in any way meet the EU Directive's requirement for ADRs to be independent.
Q. Mr Clark, how does any of the above meet the EU/11/2013 Directive's requirement that ADRs be independent?
Q. Mr Clark, how can the NHS justify Livewell Southwest Ltd's regime where decisions are made by anonymous functionaries - functionaries who do not support their illogical decisions with substantive evidence?
Let's be honest - the former doesn't and the latter should never be allowed to happen.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Livewell Southwest Ltd's Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Prof Waite, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS). The role of the RICS. And Livewell Sothwest Ltd's anonymous and unsubstantiated decisions.
- compensation for the victims of OS:Property's illogical Final Decisions and maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment, share your story and join the campaign either by contacting the blog or by emailing - shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 531.
531) Accountability 11: Ombudsman Services:Property And Its Regular Evaluation Of Quality / Livewell Southwest Ltd And Its Anonymous Decision Makers.
Dear Mr Clark,
Regarding Ombudsman Services:Property, the European Directive - EU/11/2013 - clearly states that,
"ADR entities (such as OS:Property) offering dispute resolution through such procedures should be subject to regular evaluation of their compliance with the quality requirements set out in this Directive including the specific additional requirements ensuring their independence."
We've seen that the OS:Property's Annual Reports and Customer Satisfaction Reports went from a fulsome account of the company's failings to virtually nothing - a postcard from sunny Warrington.
The RICS who can't, apparently, do their job as a regulator and regulate their Firms and Regulated Members in the first place, are - amazingly - able to demand through their Memorandum of Understanding with their appointed company OS:Property, just exactly what they consider to be, "the effective resolution of disputes."
They have (or had) Steven Gould and Walter Merricks sitting on their appointed company's Board. This does not appear to us to in any way meet the EU Directive's requirement for ADRs to be independent.
Q. Mr Clark, how does any of the above meet the EU/11/2013 Directive's requirement that ADRs be independent?
Q. Mr Clark, how can the NHS justify Livewell Southwest Ltd's regime where decisions are made by anonymous functionaries - functionaries who do not support their illogical decisions with substantive evidence?
Let's be honest - the former doesn't and the latter should never be allowed to happen.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Jonathan May, Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Dame Julie Mellor, Livewell Southwest Ltd's Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Prof Waite, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS). The role of the RICS. And Livewell Sothwest Ltd's anonymous and unsubstantiated decisions.
- compensation for the victims of OS:Property's illogical Final Decisions and maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Please comment, share your story and join the campaign either by contacting the blog or by emailing - shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)