To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 556.
558) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (4).
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomi Creutzfeldt's and Chris Gill's research strongly suggests that not only was there a tendency for for ombudsman schemes suchas Os:property to be both procedurally and substantively biased in favour of the body being investigated but that they were also under pressure from those self-same bodies to act as the "gate-keeper" of their resources.
In short, the bodies being investigated had rigged the schemes to their own financial advantage.
The managers of capitalism have managed to capture the redress of their mismanaged capitalism.
We wrote to Gillian Fleming the OS:Property Ombudsman on 3rd September 2010:
"Dear Gillian Fleming,
I am writing in response to your letter dated 24th August 2010. Yet again you have chosen not to answer the questions I sought to raise about Monk and Partners. Furthermore, the contradictions in the written responses I have received also do not appear to warrant a reply from you either.
I should like to take issue with you when you state:
'I would reiterate that the question whether The Firm has acted in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct is a matter for the professional body concerned, which in this case would be the RICS.'
The questions I tried to raise were;
a) Was it reasonable for an Ombudsman to accept evidence gathered from a RICS member that involved unsolicited visits to a complainant's home when that member had made it abundantly clear they had no intention coming to the property when, 'rainwater was cascading down the interior walls?'
- Your response was that you hadn't been able to look at the photographs.
b) I asked you to explain what you meant when you said that they, 'weren't strictly relevant to the Building Survey.'
- You chose not to answer the question.
c) Why were The Firm making, 'goodwill gestures' in the first place if there was indeed nothing wrong with the original survey?
- You chose not to answer that question either.
According to your fair and independent judgement this is all perfectly reasonable otherwise why would you arrive at your conclusion?
This is what I mean by bias and collusion."
Q. Mr Clark, this Ombudsman does not look at the evidence or answer complainants' questions so where is the systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts or inquiries as to the character, activities and background of her fee-paying member?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 26 December 2016
Wednesday, 21 December 2016
The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating. (556)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 556.
556) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (3).
Dear Mr Clark,
Gillian Fleming's letter continued,
"You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note, saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered suspect. While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now. As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues. There was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript and its relevance.
You make other statements about, collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
(Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, letter 20th July 2010)
Where to begin?
This was supposed to be a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a complex and expensive property complaint. We sent Gillian Fleming our complaint and when we got nowhere we sent further evidence in the form of photographs and the transcript of a telephone conversation.
Regarding the photographs - the ombudsman, "did not seek them out."
Q. Why didn't the ombudsman seek them out? It was her duty as an ombudsman to do so after all.
As for the transcript - "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
Q. Why was there no opportunity for the ombudsman to consider our transcript or its relevance? She should have made one - it's her job.
How convenient all this was for Gillian Fleming's fee-paying Member and how inconvenient and expensive for her Member's client, us.
The Curious Conclusions To Investigations At The RICS Appointed Ombudsman Services:Property:
1) "You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered as suspect."
- "You now supply".... the ombudsman's tone could hardly be less welcoming, it's as if we've put her to a great inconvenience. The inconvenience of having to look at evidence.
- Strange to say but the Firm's little memos to their ombudsman (which we obtained through the Data Protection Act) seem to have been accepted unquestioningly.
- There was no, "you now supply memos" from the ombudsman to her fee-paying Member. That can't be right.
- Why didn't we get a copy of them too?
- The evidence contained in the transcript directly contradicted what was said in the Firm's file note.
- Had the ombudsman done her job as set out in the company's Terms of Reference and actually looked at the evidence she would have had to conclude that the Firm's evidence was indeed suspect and been forced to rule accordingly.
- Instead, and to get around the problem of actually looking at the evidence, she dreamt up the bizarre excuse that, "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
2) "While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now."
- Why? You're supposed to take a complainant's complaint seriously and not be surprised when they hand you evidence.
- There were no dates in the Firm's file notes as to when the Firm revisited our home. We asked the ombudsman to take that into consideration too.
- There was nothing put in writing in the Firm's file notes regarding what had been agreed with them regarding works to be carried out to our home - hence our complaint about being kept waiting 226 days for repairs that in the end were never carried out.
- We provided the ombudsman with evidence in the form of a transcript and she didn't look at it.
Q. Mr Clark, where is the ombudsman's systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts?
Q. Mr Clark, why didn't the ombudsman make inquiries as to the character, activities and background of her fee-paying Member?
3) "As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues."
- Our complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and being kept waiting 226 days for essential work to be carried out to our home. Work that was not confirmed in writing, not put into the Firm's File notes and never completed.
- Why? Because it would seem that the Firm never had any intention of carrying out the work, otherwise things would have been very different.
- A significant issue was the water cascading down the walls and the refusal of the Firm to come to our home. The ombudsman having, "considered" this last point made no comment.
4) "You make other statements about collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
- Apart from being homo sapiens we share very little in common with this ombudsman. Although some could be forgiven for thinking that ombudsmen have evolved into another life form altogether.
- When the majority of complainants have their cases mishandled in this way, then it's hard not to conclude that this company is failing the public on an industrial scale.
- DJS Research are no longer conducting Customer Satisfaction Reports for this RICS appointed company. Try finding any meaningful data on its performance in handling complex property disputes. They no longer bother to ask the complainant if they're satisfied or not with their consumer journey.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 556.
556) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (3).
Dear Mr Clark,
Gillian Fleming's letter continued,
"You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note, saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered suspect. While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now. As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues. There was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript and its relevance.
You make other statements about, collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
(Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, letter 20th July 2010)
Where to begin?
This was supposed to be a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a complex and expensive property complaint. We sent Gillian Fleming our complaint and when we got nowhere we sent further evidence in the form of photographs and the transcript of a telephone conversation.
Regarding the photographs - the ombudsman, "did not seek them out."
Q. Why didn't the ombudsman seek them out? It was her duty as an ombudsman to do so after all.
As for the transcript - "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
Q. Why was there no opportunity for the ombudsman to consider our transcript or its relevance? She should have made one - it's her job.
How convenient all this was for Gillian Fleming's fee-paying Member and how inconvenient and expensive for her Member's client, us.
The Curious Conclusions To Investigations At The RICS Appointed Ombudsman Services:Property:
1) "You now supply a transcript of the conversation and present that against the Firm's file note saying that you had asked that the Firm's evidence be considered as suspect."
- "You now supply".... the ombudsman's tone could hardly be less welcoming, it's as if we've put her to a great inconvenience. The inconvenience of having to look at evidence.
- Strange to say but the Firm's little memos to their ombudsman (which we obtained through the Data Protection Act) seem to have been accepted unquestioningly.
- There was no, "you now supply memos" from the ombudsman to her fee-paying Member. That can't be right.
- Why didn't we get a copy of them too?
- The evidence contained in the transcript directly contradicted what was said in the Firm's file note.
- Had the ombudsman done her job as set out in the company's Terms of Reference and actually looked at the evidence she would have had to conclude that the Firm's evidence was indeed suspect and been forced to rule accordingly.
- Instead, and to get around the problem of actually looking at the evidence, she dreamt up the bizarre excuse that, "there was no opportunity for us to consider your transcript or its relevance."
2) "While you referred to the conversation before I concluded your complaint, I am somewhat surprised that your transcript was not made available before now."
- Why? You're supposed to take a complainant's complaint seriously and not be surprised when they hand you evidence.
- There were no dates in the Firm's file notes as to when the Firm revisited our home. We asked the ombudsman to take that into consideration too.
- There was nothing put in writing in the Firm's file notes regarding what had been agreed with them regarding works to be carried out to our home - hence our complaint about being kept waiting 226 days for repairs that in the end were never carried out.
- We provided the ombudsman with evidence in the form of a transcript and she didn't look at it.
Q. Mr Clark, where is the ombudsman's systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts?
Q. Mr Clark, why didn't the ombudsman make inquiries as to the character, activities and background of her fee-paying Member?
3) "As I have said, your complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and that is what we considered, along with subsequent events as far as those events were relevant to determining the significant issues."
- Our complaint was about the adequacy of the Building Survey and being kept waiting 226 days for essential work to be carried out to our home. Work that was not confirmed in writing, not put into the Firm's File notes and never completed.
- Why? Because it would seem that the Firm never had any intention of carrying out the work, otherwise things would have been very different.
- A significant issue was the water cascading down the walls and the refusal of the Firm to come to our home. The ombudsman having, "considered" this last point made no comment.
4) "You make other statements about collusion, failing the public and hiding data. I do not share your views."
- Apart from being homo sapiens we share very little in common with this ombudsman. Although some could be forgiven for thinking that ombudsmen have evolved into another life form altogether.
- When the majority of complainants have their cases mishandled in this way, then it's hard not to conclude that this company is failing the public on an industrial scale.
- DJS Research are no longer conducting Customer Satisfaction Reports for this RICS appointed company. Try finding any meaningful data on its performance in handling complex property disputes. They no longer bother to ask the complainant if they're satisfied or not with their consumer journey.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 20 December 2016
The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating. (555)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 555.
555) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (2).
Dear Mr Clark,
To its great discredit the UK government permits ombudsman schemes to operate in a grey area without clear or fixed criteria and without the requirement to provide consumers with a clear definition of what they - ombudsmen - take to be an, "investigation."
Mr Clark, wouldn't you agree that It's hard to trust someone who doesn't see the need to define just what exactly it is they're doing.
We thought we'd help ombudsmen over the apparent hurdle they've created for themselves by defining what it is they're supposed to be doing.
Investigate:
- carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts.
- make inquiries as to the character, activities or background of someone.
"Systematic," "formal," "facts," "inquiries," "character," "activities" or "background of someone." As none of this happened in our case, then - and if the above definition is correct - we quite obviously didn't get an investigation but something else. A cover-up perhaps? A stitch-up?
Certainly, a miscarriage of private justice.
For example:
COMPLAINT ABOUT M AND PARTNERS Our ref: 510458. 20th July 2010
"Dear Mr G.
COMPLAINT ABOUT M AND PARTNERS
I am writing in response to the email of 16 July.
You say that a failure to give my view on whether the Firm should have come to visit when you told them about water pouring down the walls and hallway is, in effect a refusal. You may hold to that opinion but I do not agree."
You may hold to that opinion but I do not agree....
Q. Mr Clark, this is supposed to be an investigation of a complaint by an ombudsman. We asked the ombudsman for her opinion on the Firm's integrity and customer care but all we got was a master-class in ducking and diving, "you may hold that opinion but I do not agree."
So much for making inquiries as to the character, activities or background of someone or discovering and examining facts.
Whether the ombudsman refused to give us an answer or not completely misses the point - at the end of the day when all's said or done, she didn't answer our question. Surely, her evasiveness when it comes to answering complainants' questions raises further questions about her independence and ability to objectively investigate complaints.
I didn't give you an answer because I don't like you.
I didn't give you an answer because I couldn't think of one.
I didn't give you an answer because to have done so would have meant making inquiries as to the character, activities and background of my fee-paying Member and carrying out a systematic inquiry into the facts.
If the ombudsman does not agree with our opinion that she's refused to give us an answer then her company's Terms of Reference state quite clearly that she is duty bound to provide us with an explanation as to why she hasn't given us an answer.
They state, "It shall be the duty of the ombudsman
8.6 (f) To give reasons for any decisions made or conclusion reached."
We didn't receive a reason from the ombudsman for her decision not to answer questions about her fee-paying Member.
Q. Mr Clark. either the ombudsman didn't know her duties as an ombudsman and therefore shouldn't have been an ombudsman or knew her duties as an ombudsman and deliberately misled a complainant in which case she shouldn't have been allowed to continue as an ombudsman. When are you going to investigate ombudsmen who freely operate outside the remit of their Terms of Reference?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 555.
555) The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating (2).
Dear Mr Clark,
To its great discredit the UK government permits ombudsman schemes to operate in a grey area without clear or fixed criteria and without the requirement to provide consumers with a clear definition of what they - ombudsmen - take to be an, "investigation."
Mr Clark, wouldn't you agree that It's hard to trust someone who doesn't see the need to define just what exactly it is they're doing.
We thought we'd help ombudsmen over the apparent hurdle they've created for themselves by defining what it is they're supposed to be doing.
Investigate:
- carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts.
- make inquiries as to the character, activities or background of someone.
"Systematic," "formal," "facts," "inquiries," "character," "activities" or "background of someone." As none of this happened in our case, then - and if the above definition is correct - we quite obviously didn't get an investigation but something else. A cover-up perhaps? A stitch-up?
Certainly, a miscarriage of private justice.
For example:
COMPLAINT ABOUT M AND PARTNERS Our ref: 510458. 20th July 2010
"Dear Mr G.
COMPLAINT ABOUT M AND PARTNERS
I am writing in response to the email of 16 July.
You say that a failure to give my view on whether the Firm should have come to visit when you told them about water pouring down the walls and hallway is, in effect a refusal. You may hold to that opinion but I do not agree."
You may hold to that opinion but I do not agree....
Q. Mr Clark, this is supposed to be an investigation of a complaint by an ombudsman. We asked the ombudsman for her opinion on the Firm's integrity and customer care but all we got was a master-class in ducking and diving, "you may hold that opinion but I do not agree."
So much for making inquiries as to the character, activities or background of someone or discovering and examining facts.
Whether the ombudsman refused to give us an answer or not completely misses the point - at the end of the day when all's said or done, she didn't answer our question. Surely, her evasiveness when it comes to answering complainants' questions raises further questions about her independence and ability to objectively investigate complaints.
I didn't give you an answer because I don't like you.
I didn't give you an answer because I couldn't think of one.
I didn't give you an answer because to have done so would have meant making inquiries as to the character, activities and background of my fee-paying Member and carrying out a systematic inquiry into the facts.
If the ombudsman does not agree with our opinion that she's refused to give us an answer then her company's Terms of Reference state quite clearly that she is duty bound to provide us with an explanation as to why she hasn't given us an answer.
They state, "It shall be the duty of the ombudsman
8.6 (f) To give reasons for any decisions made or conclusion reached."
We didn't receive a reason from the ombudsman for her decision not to answer questions about her fee-paying Member.
Q. Mr Clark. either the ombudsman didn't know her duties as an ombudsman and therefore shouldn't have been an ombudsman or knew her duties as an ombudsman and deliberately misled a complainant in which case she shouldn't have been allowed to continue as an ombudsman. When are you going to investigate ombudsmen who freely operate outside the remit of their Terms of Reference?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 15 December 2016
Ombudsman Services:Property - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (554)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 554.
554: The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating.
Dear Mr Clark,
All too often, what passes for the, "investigation" of a consumer's complaint by ombudsmen often only succeeds in making a mockery of the British judicial system - we're kangaroos being lined up to go to their court. It's time we took back control.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tells us that,
"Generally, some participants felt the confidentiality of ombudsman schemes' processes was used as a smokescreen. It was harder for people to understand and access the fairness of ombudsman processes compared with those which are more visible, such as courts. This was exacerbated by the fact that ombudsman schemes were seen to operate in a grey area without clear and fixed criteria. There was no definition of an investigation nor did the term 'maladministration' and 'fair and reasonable' provide any clear criteria or standards against which actions could be judged."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/ oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists.)
In other words ombudsmen make it up as they go along.
At Ombudsman Services:Property there are two categories of evidence; Members' evidence, which is accepted unquestioningly by their ombudsman and complainants' evidence which is subjected to bizarre and bewildering distortions before being binned. It seems that the ombudsman will go to any length to discredit what complainants say.
In our case we sent in photographic evidence (as had our surveyor) only to be told that the ombudsman, "had not sought them - the photographs - out."
Mr Clark, wouldn't you agree with us that it's hard to conduct a serious investigation when you don't look at the evidence.
In light of this failure to seek out the evidence we asked the ombudsman for an independent resurvey only to be told that had she considered this necessary she would have asked for one at the time.
Perhaps the ombudsman's reasoning behind her decision was that to have done so - ie ordered a resurvey - could have resulted in an independent confirmation of what we had been saying all along and thus have forced her to find against her fee-paying Member.
The RICS would not have seen this as, "an effective resolution of a dispute" and so she didn't.
Q. Mr Clark, how can this be either, "fair" or "reasonable?"
Q. Mr Clark why doesn't this organisation publish data on the number of requests made by complainants for independent resurveys and the number of requests which are subsequently granted by the ombudsman?
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of it ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 554.
554: The Ombudsman's Investigations Need Investigating.
Dear Mr Clark,
All too often, what passes for the, "investigation" of a consumer's complaint by ombudsmen often only succeeds in making a mockery of the British judicial system - we're kangaroos being lined up to go to their court. It's time we took back control.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tells us that,
"Generally, some participants felt the confidentiality of ombudsman schemes' processes was used as a smokescreen. It was harder for people to understand and access the fairness of ombudsman processes compared with those which are more visible, such as courts. This was exacerbated by the fact that ombudsman schemes were seen to operate in a grey area without clear and fixed criteria. There was no definition of an investigation nor did the term 'maladministration' and 'fair and reasonable' provide any clear criteria or standards against which actions could be judged."
(www.ox.law.ac.uk/sites/files/ oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists.)
In other words ombudsmen make it up as they go along.
At Ombudsman Services:Property there are two categories of evidence; Members' evidence, which is accepted unquestioningly by their ombudsman and complainants' evidence which is subjected to bizarre and bewildering distortions before being binned. It seems that the ombudsman will go to any length to discredit what complainants say.
In our case we sent in photographic evidence (as had our surveyor) only to be told that the ombudsman, "had not sought them - the photographs - out."
Mr Clark, wouldn't you agree with us that it's hard to conduct a serious investigation when you don't look at the evidence.
In light of this failure to seek out the evidence we asked the ombudsman for an independent resurvey only to be told that had she considered this necessary she would have asked for one at the time.
Perhaps the ombudsman's reasoning behind her decision was that to have done so - ie ordered a resurvey - could have resulted in an independent confirmation of what we had been saying all along and thus have forced her to find against her fee-paying Member.
The RICS would not have seen this as, "an effective resolution of a dispute" and so she didn't.
Q. Mr Clark, how can this be either, "fair" or "reasonable?"
Q. Mr Clark why doesn't this organisation publish data on the number of requests made by complainants for independent resurveys and the number of requests which are subsequently granted by the ombudsman?
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up and challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrong of it ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 27 November 2016
Why you won't get your day in court. (553)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 553.
553) "Why you won't get your day in court" Jed S Rakoff.
(www.nybooks.com/articles/2016)
Dear Mr Clark,
This timely article about the ballooning role of private arbitrators in the USA mirrors what we've ben saying about The Golden Age of The Ombudsman here in the UK.
Jed S Rakoff, writing for the New York Review of Books, concludes, "Why you won't get your day in court" by stating,
"Arguably even worse, the situation I've described reinforces the belief of citizens that the courts are not an institution to which they can turn for justice, but are simply a remote and expensive luxury reserved for the rich and powerful."
How true. Just try asking Rebekah Brooks.
The advice our solicitor gave us was not to take legal action against our RICS poorly regulated surveyor as, "it could be financially ruinous." Heeding his advice we turned to the RICS appointed ombudsman. This turned out to be financially damaging but not ruinous.
The Ombudsman Services:Property sales pitch to the unwary consumer is that it is both, "fair" and "independent." We believe it is neither. When an expensive purchasing decision goes badly wrong, surveyors have devised a scheme that ensures they don't pick up the tab, they've rigged it so that their client does.
The proliferation of ombudsman schemes here apes the growing trend for arbitrators in the USA.
Jed S Rakoff tells us,
"A seventh factor is the increasing diversion of legal disputes to regulatory agencies."
That,
"A further result is that most legal disputes are rarely decided by judges and almost never by juries."
And still another result is,
"that the function of the judiciary as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches and as an independent forum for the resolution of legal disputes has substantially diminished - with the all too willing acquiescence of the judiciary itself."
Here, politicians, civil servants and Privy Councillors have acquiesced in the mushrooming of such schemes and then shuffled their papers and looked the other way when the schemes they so readily approved failed to deliver on their extravagant and wildly exaggerated promises.
Money seems to be the determining factor here.
We're further told that,
"The arbitrator is limited, however, in the relief she can afford employees or consumers even if she should find in their favour - the company imposed agreements that mandate arbitration typically also prohibit an award of punitive damages or the convening of a class action that would include others who have the same or similar complaints."
Ombudsman Services:Property do not define what they mean by a proportionate financial award even if they should find in favour of the complainant and hand one out.
The Concepcion Case and the late Justice Antonin Scalia also has a resonance with what is happening here. That case,
"Has attracted much criticism because of what some legal commentators view as its strained reasoning, which they typically ascribe to the pro-business stance of the court's majority when Scalia was part of it."
We've always said that strange reasoning abounds at OS:Property and one only has to read its Minutes and Annual Reviews to see its rampant pro-business bias.
Just as Congress delegated judicial powers and responsibilities to administrative agencies, so Parliament handed them to private ombudsman schemes.
"These agencies, which are branches of the executive, then create their own internal courts, with procedures that bear little resemblance to those found in the judiciary. Furthermore, these administrative courts are run by judges who are selected by, paid by and subject to review by the administrative agencies themselves. Yet Congress, often at the behest of the President, has given increasing powers to these courts, whose independent status is often doubtful."
Here in the UK we have maladministrating ombudsmen, some of whom arrive at decisions in an illogical manner, who tell us what civil justice is.
We believe it's rigged.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 553.
553) "Why you won't get your day in court" Jed S Rakoff.
(www.nybooks.com/articles/2016)
Dear Mr Clark,
This timely article about the ballooning role of private arbitrators in the USA mirrors what we've ben saying about The Golden Age of The Ombudsman here in the UK.
Jed S Rakoff, writing for the New York Review of Books, concludes, "Why you won't get your day in court" by stating,
"Arguably even worse, the situation I've described reinforces the belief of citizens that the courts are not an institution to which they can turn for justice, but are simply a remote and expensive luxury reserved for the rich and powerful."
How true. Just try asking Rebekah Brooks.
The advice our solicitor gave us was not to take legal action against our RICS poorly regulated surveyor as, "it could be financially ruinous." Heeding his advice we turned to the RICS appointed ombudsman. This turned out to be financially damaging but not ruinous.
The Ombudsman Services:Property sales pitch to the unwary consumer is that it is both, "fair" and "independent." We believe it is neither. When an expensive purchasing decision goes badly wrong, surveyors have devised a scheme that ensures they don't pick up the tab, they've rigged it so that their client does.
The proliferation of ombudsman schemes here apes the growing trend for arbitrators in the USA.
Jed S Rakoff tells us,
"A seventh factor is the increasing diversion of legal disputes to regulatory agencies."
That,
"A further result is that most legal disputes are rarely decided by judges and almost never by juries."
And still another result is,
"that the function of the judiciary as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches and as an independent forum for the resolution of legal disputes has substantially diminished - with the all too willing acquiescence of the judiciary itself."
Here, politicians, civil servants and Privy Councillors have acquiesced in the mushrooming of such schemes and then shuffled their papers and looked the other way when the schemes they so readily approved failed to deliver on their extravagant and wildly exaggerated promises.
Money seems to be the determining factor here.
We're further told that,
"The arbitrator is limited, however, in the relief she can afford employees or consumers even if she should find in their favour - the company imposed agreements that mandate arbitration typically also prohibit an award of punitive damages or the convening of a class action that would include others who have the same or similar complaints."
Ombudsman Services:Property do not define what they mean by a proportionate financial award even if they should find in favour of the complainant and hand one out.
The Concepcion Case and the late Justice Antonin Scalia also has a resonance with what is happening here. That case,
"Has attracted much criticism because of what some legal commentators view as its strained reasoning, which they typically ascribe to the pro-business stance of the court's majority when Scalia was part of it."
We've always said that strange reasoning abounds at OS:Property and one only has to read its Minutes and Annual Reviews to see its rampant pro-business bias.
Just as Congress delegated judicial powers and responsibilities to administrative agencies, so Parliament handed them to private ombudsman schemes.
"These agencies, which are branches of the executive, then create their own internal courts, with procedures that bear little resemblance to those found in the judiciary. Furthermore, these administrative courts are run by judges who are selected by, paid by and subject to review by the administrative agencies themselves. Yet Congress, often at the behest of the President, has given increasing powers to these courts, whose independent status is often doubtful."
Here in the UK we have maladministrating ombudsmen, some of whom arrive at decisions in an illogical manner, who tell us what civil justice is.
We believe it's rigged.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property and right the wrongs of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 25 November 2016
From Rigged Rdress To Rigged Elections - Executives Subvert Democracy. (552)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 552.
552) From Rigged Redress To Rigged Elections - How Executives Subvert Democracy.
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill go on to say,
"In addition to the perception that there was a tendency for ombudsman schemes to be both procedurally and substantively biased in favour of the body being investigated, some participants felt that ombudsman schemes were under pressure to 'gate keep' their resources."
For example, in the Ombudsman Services Annual Report - Statutory Report and Accounts 2010, we read,
"We ensure that the Members know we are spending their money wisely and they have a well run, efficient scheme which adds real quality to their own business practices."
So, what "redress" is really all about comes down to mangers showing just how eager they are to spend their Members' money wisely.
And we thought this was supposed to be a redress scheme where complainants had their grievances thoroughly and independently investigated. How wrong we were. Why isn't the complainant having real quality added to their processes?
In effect, complainants are being robbed of their money and of justice. No level playing field here.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill continue,
"This gives rise to the perception that staff were continually looking for ways to close cases down and that the process ended up being a series of hurdles for complainants to fight their way through."
In short, ombudsman schemes such as OS:Property are obstacle courses where there's only one winner - The Member.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property, and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 552.
552) From Rigged Redress To Rigged Elections - How Executives Subvert Democracy.
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill go on to say,
"In addition to the perception that there was a tendency for ombudsman schemes to be both procedurally and substantively biased in favour of the body being investigated, some participants felt that ombudsman schemes were under pressure to 'gate keep' their resources."
For example, in the Ombudsman Services Annual Report - Statutory Report and Accounts 2010, we read,
"We ensure that the Members know we are spending their money wisely and they have a well run, efficient scheme which adds real quality to their own business practices."
So, what "redress" is really all about comes down to mangers showing just how eager they are to spend their Members' money wisely.
And we thought this was supposed to be a redress scheme where complainants had their grievances thoroughly and independently investigated. How wrong we were. Why isn't the complainant having real quality added to their processes?
In effect, complainants are being robbed of their money and of justice. No level playing field here.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill continue,
"This gives rise to the perception that staff were continually looking for ways to close cases down and that the process ended up being a series of hurdles for complainants to fight their way through."
In short, ombudsman schemes such as OS:Property are obstacle courses where there's only one winner - The Member.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property, and right the wrong of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 20 November 2016
Democratic Window Dressing by Conmen and Phonies (551)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 551.
551) Democratic Window Dressing By Conmen And Phonies.
(with special thanks to Mitt Romney for the conmen and phonies descriptor)
Dear Mr Clark,
The Plan - the one that really gets the job done - is to lie early and to lie often, to lie and lie again.
Mr Farage, Mr Trump and ombudsmen all have one thing in common - a contemptuous disregard for the facts. Modern day snake oil salesmen.
In, "Procedural and practice issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us;
"The process was seen as one sided, with complainants not being made privy to discussions between ombudsman schemes and the bodies investigated. Some participants claimed that one ombudsman scheme shared reports with the body investigated prior to it being shared with the complainant Overall, one participant felt it was, 'democratic window dressing' rather than a serious attempt to investigate issues."
(Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill: Understanding and engaging online citizen activists)
That, in a nutshell, is what happened between the our RICS surveyor and his ombudsman. He exchanged memos and gentle reminders with what was, to all intents and purposes, his secretary. He wound her up pointed her in the right direction and off she dutifully marched. Job done.
We've said many times before that there is a logic behind the OS:Property ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner. The ombudsman is there to do the RICS' bidding - to deliver what they (the RICS) consider to be effective resolution of disputes.
Finding in favour of complainants is not seen as being, "effective." So it doesn't happen.
The so-called, "investigation" of disputes by the RICS, "appointed" ombudsman is simply, "democratic window dressing." We call it rigging the market in private redress in what is now the rigged market phase of capitalism.
A capitalism that rigs referendums and elections, so it would seem.
As for the lie? Its done its job. Time to move on to the next one.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step by, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and right the wrong of their ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and their executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 551.
551) Democratic Window Dressing By Conmen And Phonies.
(with special thanks to Mitt Romney for the conmen and phonies descriptor)
Dear Mr Clark,
The Plan - the one that really gets the job done - is to lie early and to lie often, to lie and lie again.
Mr Farage, Mr Trump and ombudsmen all have one thing in common - a contemptuous disregard for the facts. Modern day snake oil salesmen.
In, "Procedural and practice issues" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us;
"The process was seen as one sided, with complainants not being made privy to discussions between ombudsman schemes and the bodies investigated. Some participants claimed that one ombudsman scheme shared reports with the body investigated prior to it being shared with the complainant Overall, one participant felt it was, 'democratic window dressing' rather than a serious attempt to investigate issues."
(Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill: Understanding and engaging online citizen activists)
That, in a nutshell, is what happened between the our RICS surveyor and his ombudsman. He exchanged memos and gentle reminders with what was, to all intents and purposes, his secretary. He wound her up pointed her in the right direction and off she dutifully marched. Job done.
We've said many times before that there is a logic behind the OS:Property ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner. The ombudsman is there to do the RICS' bidding - to deliver what they (the RICS) consider to be effective resolution of disputes.
Finding in favour of complainants is not seen as being, "effective." So it doesn't happen.
The so-called, "investigation" of disputes by the RICS, "appointed" ombudsman is simply, "democratic window dressing." We call it rigging the market in private redress in what is now the rigged market phase of capitalism.
A capitalism that rigs referendums and elections, so it would seem.
As for the lie? Its done its job. Time to move on to the next one.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step by, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and right the wrong of their ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and their executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)