To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 581.
581) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged Paying For The Cost Of Nursing Care.
Dear Mr Hunt,
Livewell Southwest's CEO, Professor Waite, told us that our late father's medical records suggested that his health suddenly deteriorated in the last two weeks of his life and that this was not predictable.
He didn't say what it was in our father's records that led his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer to this conclusion or why it was not predictable.
This is the rigged market in NHS funded nursing care in operation.
Q. Mr Hunt, hasn't Professor Waite given the game away and isn't this the fall back position for all those Anonymous Desktop Reviewers up and down the land - they simply tell the patients for whom they have a duty of care that: "His/her health suddenly deteriorated in the last two weeks of their life. This was not predictable. Here's the bill for the full cost of their nursing care minus the last two weeks of their life?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com.
Saturday, 22 April 2017
Friday, 21 April 2017
Jeremy Corbyn is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice. (580)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
And
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 580.
580) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, (both Magdalene College, Cambridge University)
Yesterday's BBC interviewers seemed completely nonplussed by the idea that the society their organisation's been reporting on since 1922 is rigged by a self-perpetuating elite which is still drawn predominately from Oxbridge graduates.
For instance, Tony Hall. Baron of Birkenhead, educated at Keble College, Oxford University and Director of the BBC, doesn't seem to have given Theresa May, St Hugh's College, Oxford University a particularly hard time of it since she totally capitulated to the Daily Mails, "Enemies of the People" rant. The Home secretary, Amber Rudd, Cheltenham Ladies College, also went AWOL as did the mouse-like Elizabeth truss, Merton College, Oxford University.
Obviously, the Daily Mail's proprietor, The 4th Viscount Rothermere, Gordonstoun, $1.3 billion (most of which is no0 doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) wields enormous power and the ability to wreck the lives and careers of others far less privileged than himself.
It seems that the flip-flopping Prime Minister believes this to be, "fair" otherwise she would have followed her own advice and; stepped up, challenged Rothermere's vested interests and righted the wrong of that sinister and deeply threatening headline.
But she didn't.
Clearly, today's Establishment is beset by internecine rivalries just like in medieval times.
Baron Ashcroft's, KCMG, PC, £865 million (most of which is no doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) thoughts on his then leader, David Cameron, Eton and then Brasenose College, Oxford University, being just one salacious example.
However, when it comes to answering our questions - or the questions of The Little People in general - The Establishment seamlessly comes together - with seven years of stonewalling silence.
Perhaps that's because the public school I went to was Plymouth Public Secondary School, perhaps it's because I don't have a title or maybe it's down to not having a million quid in the bank. The result remains the same - stonewalling silence.
Seven years of stonewalling silence - Jeremy Corbyn said yesterday;
"We will overturn the rigged system. The Conservatives will never do that. Seven years of broken promises show us that: on wages, the deficit, the NHS, our schools, our environment." And we would add - The Establishment's private civil justice schemes where The Little People pay the price for business' incompetence and inefficiency.
It's how society is rigged. Otherwise it would be very different.
Q. Mr Hunt, will you please ask Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, for the name of his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer, the one who was responsible for the horrendous decision in our late father's case?
Q. Mr Hunt, is such a total lack of transparency and accountability in the NHS, Conservative party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services' maladministrators have produced no data on their woeful performance in mismanaging property complaints since 2015. Is this total lack of transparency and accountability in Government approved private redress schemes, Conservative Party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, so-called average financial awards have plummeted from £1.522.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in the maladministrators' last report. Is this fair? Or is not a fine example of rigged private redress in a rigged society?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
And
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 580.
580) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, (both Magdalene College, Cambridge University)
Yesterday's BBC interviewers seemed completely nonplussed by the idea that the society their organisation's been reporting on since 1922 is rigged by a self-perpetuating elite which is still drawn predominately from Oxbridge graduates.
For instance, Tony Hall. Baron of Birkenhead, educated at Keble College, Oxford University and Director of the BBC, doesn't seem to have given Theresa May, St Hugh's College, Oxford University a particularly hard time of it since she totally capitulated to the Daily Mails, "Enemies of the People" rant. The Home secretary, Amber Rudd, Cheltenham Ladies College, also went AWOL as did the mouse-like Elizabeth truss, Merton College, Oxford University.
Obviously, the Daily Mail's proprietor, The 4th Viscount Rothermere, Gordonstoun, $1.3 billion (most of which is no0 doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) wields enormous power and the ability to wreck the lives and careers of others far less privileged than himself.
It seems that the flip-flopping Prime Minister believes this to be, "fair" otherwise she would have followed her own advice and; stepped up, challenged Rothermere's vested interests and righted the wrong of that sinister and deeply threatening headline.
But she didn't.
Clearly, today's Establishment is beset by internecine rivalries just like in medieval times.
Baron Ashcroft's, KCMG, PC, £865 million (most of which is no doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) thoughts on his then leader, David Cameron, Eton and then Brasenose College, Oxford University, being just one salacious example.
However, when it comes to answering our questions - or the questions of The Little People in general - The Establishment seamlessly comes together - with seven years of stonewalling silence.
Perhaps that's because the public school I went to was Plymouth Public Secondary School, perhaps it's because I don't have a title or maybe it's down to not having a million quid in the bank. The result remains the same - stonewalling silence.
Seven years of stonewalling silence - Jeremy Corbyn said yesterday;
"We will overturn the rigged system. The Conservatives will never do that. Seven years of broken promises show us that: on wages, the deficit, the NHS, our schools, our environment." And we would add - The Establishment's private civil justice schemes where The Little People pay the price for business' incompetence and inefficiency.
It's how society is rigged. Otherwise it would be very different.
Q. Mr Hunt, will you please ask Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, for the name of his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer, the one who was responsible for the horrendous decision in our late father's case?
Q. Mr Hunt, is such a total lack of transparency and accountability in the NHS, Conservative party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services' maladministrators have produced no data on their woeful performance in mismanaging property complaints since 2015. Is this total lack of transparency and accountability in Government approved private redress schemes, Conservative Party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, so-called average financial awards have plummeted from £1.522.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in the maladministrators' last report. Is this fair? Or is not a fine example of rigged private redress in a rigged society?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Monday, 17 April 2017
Ombudsman Services: A Spreadsheet For Phil, Greg, Theresa And The Rest Of The Team. (579)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 579.
579) Ombudsman Services: A Spreadsheet For Phil, Greg, Theresa And The Rest Of The Team.
Dear Mr Clark,
The maladministrators at Ombudsman Services have more front than Harrods.
In their 2010-11 Annual Report they tell us;
"The Regulators look closely at our satisfaction levels when renewing and approving our schemes."
The Regulators certainly approve and renew the maladministrators' schemes - but as for looking closely at what they're approving and renewing - well, see for yourself Mr Clark.
2008-9:
No data is available! DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports appear to have disappeared - airbrushed out of history.
2009-10:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
260 £1.511.76p 2 in 3 £375 59%
2010-11:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
428 £900 overall sat. levels £366.493 59%
low. Majority diss.
with logic of its
recommendations.
2011-12:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
525 ? ? £1.112.132 57%
2012-13:
Forms Ave Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
589 ? ? £73.030 60%
2013-14:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
697 £100 MAS 8% £1.412.624 41% + other 20%
("satisfaction is higher among those experiencing mutually acceptable settlement" BMG Research p.12. But with property complaints that was a paltry 8%. So 92% had an Ombudsman's decisions forced on them. BMG seem to have overlooked this fact. Why?)
2014-15:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
934 £100 MAS 5% £4.069.107 Top 3: 43%
2015:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
680 £50 MAS 2% ? ?
2016-17:
There would appear to be no data for the whole of 2016 up till April 2017, whatsoever, for the Regulators or Government Monitors to monitor, approve or renew.
The trends are obvious for all to see, that's if they can be bothered to look. Quite clearly the Regulators and Government Monitors were happy to look at nothing. It's what Regulators in this country seem to excel at especially the ones approving and renewing Ombudsman Services' schemes. Schemes being the operative word.
What Ombudsman Services maladministrators like to call, "financial awards" plummeted from £1.511.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in in 2014-15 for Property complaints. This is despite DJS Research's warning to the company's executives that this was a major source of dissatisfaction - along with an Ombudsman who contrived to, "arrive at decisions in an illogical manner."
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the logic behind the Property Ombudsman's strange ability for, "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" not one of getting her fee-paying Members off the hook and in doing so saving them thousands of pounds and isn't this corrupt?
Shehan Sladin, Head of Enquiries and Reporting Centre, (OFT) told us;
9 January:
"Your email of 9Jan raises concerns relating to the findings of customer satisfaction surveys conducted by DJS Research Ltd. These surveys indicate that a majority of those questioned were dissatisfied with OSP's final decision You have suggested in your various emails that these findings bring into question the suitability of the OSP redress scheme...
While I note your concerns on this point, the research goes onto suggest that this dissatisfaction may be due to customers' expectations about the levels of financial awards rather than the level of service provided. In view of this, it is not clear that the surveys alone suggest that the scheme is unsatisfactory. I can assure you, however, that the OFT receives copies of the surveys in question and will take into account their findings as part of our ongoing monitoring of OSP's redress scheme."
Where to begin?
This is complacency of the highest calibre.
Mr Clark, we're told by a Government civil servant that,
"these surveys indicate that a majority of those questioned were dissatisfied with OSP's final decision " and yet the civil servant goes on to speculate that, "this may be due to customers' expectations about the level of financial awards rather than the level of service provided."
Q. Mr Clark, why the speculation - the "may" - shouldn't the monitor know exactly what it is they are monitoring on behalf of the taxpayer?
Q. Mr Clark, if customers of OSP were dissatisfied with an average, "financial award" of £1.511.76p back in 2009-10, what must their dissatisfaction levels be now that they've plunged to 50 quid and why don't we know?
Q. Mr Clark, why are Regulators, civil servants and politicians approving and renewing the OSP redress scheme when its maladministrating executives steadfastly refuse to gather data on their customers' satisfaction levels?
Unlike the Government civil servant, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Surveys were quite specific in what they say. "May" does not come into it.
Page 7 of their 2009-10 Survey states;
"When asked about the provisional conclusion satisfaction levels were lower. Nearly half were very dissatisfied with the logic of its recommendations, use of evidence and the extent to which they were reasonable."
An Ombudsman's so-called "investigation" into a customer's complaint about what, in essence, amounts to a massive investment of their money - an investment which is largely based on a RICS survey - that is; lacking in logic, lacking in the use of evidence and lacking in reasonableness is an outrage and an affront to any remaining notions of British justice.
Yet it would seem Government reproved this scheme on a nod and a wink.
Your civil servant, somewhat amazingly, didn't consider any of the above to be a customer dissatisfaction with the level of service provided.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't this corrupt and why are Government civil servants and politicians colluding with maladministrators who for the past 17 months haven't published any data on their woeful performance, whatsoever?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 579.
579) Ombudsman Services: A Spreadsheet For Phil, Greg, Theresa And The Rest Of The Team.
Dear Mr Clark,
The maladministrators at Ombudsman Services have more front than Harrods.
In their 2010-11 Annual Report they tell us;
"The Regulators look closely at our satisfaction levels when renewing and approving our schemes."
The Regulators certainly approve and renew the maladministrators' schemes - but as for looking closely at what they're approving and renewing - well, see for yourself Mr Clark.
2008-9:
No data is available! DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports appear to have disappeared - airbrushed out of history.
2009-10:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
260 £1.511.76p 2 in 3 £375 59%
2010-11:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
428 £900 overall sat. levels £366.493 59%
low. Majority diss.
with logic of its
recommendations.
2011-12:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
525 ? ? £1.112.132 57%
2012-13:
Forms Ave Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
589 ? ? £73.030 60%
2013-14:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
697 £100 MAS 8% £1.412.624 41% + other 20%
("satisfaction is higher among those experiencing mutually acceptable settlement" BMG Research p.12. But with property complaints that was a paltry 8%. So 92% had an Ombudsman's decisions forced on them. BMG seem to have overlooked this fact. Why?)
2014-15:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
934 £100 MAS 5% £4.069.107 Top 3: 43%
2015:
Forms Ave. Financial Award Dissatisfaction Surplus Surveys/Valuations
680 £50 MAS 2% ? ?
2016-17:
There would appear to be no data for the whole of 2016 up till April 2017, whatsoever, for the Regulators or Government Monitors to monitor, approve or renew.
The trends are obvious for all to see, that's if they can be bothered to look. Quite clearly the Regulators and Government Monitors were happy to look at nothing. It's what Regulators in this country seem to excel at especially the ones approving and renewing Ombudsman Services' schemes. Schemes being the operative word.
What Ombudsman Services maladministrators like to call, "financial awards" plummeted from £1.511.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in in 2014-15 for Property complaints. This is despite DJS Research's warning to the company's executives that this was a major source of dissatisfaction - along with an Ombudsman who contrived to, "arrive at decisions in an illogical manner."
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the logic behind the Property Ombudsman's strange ability for, "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" not one of getting her fee-paying Members off the hook and in doing so saving them thousands of pounds and isn't this corrupt?
Shehan Sladin, Head of Enquiries and Reporting Centre, (OFT) told us;
9 January:
"Your email of 9Jan raises concerns relating to the findings of customer satisfaction surveys conducted by DJS Research Ltd. These surveys indicate that a majority of those questioned were dissatisfied with OSP's final decision You have suggested in your various emails that these findings bring into question the suitability of the OSP redress scheme...
While I note your concerns on this point, the research goes onto suggest that this dissatisfaction may be due to customers' expectations about the levels of financial awards rather than the level of service provided. In view of this, it is not clear that the surveys alone suggest that the scheme is unsatisfactory. I can assure you, however, that the OFT receives copies of the surveys in question and will take into account their findings as part of our ongoing monitoring of OSP's redress scheme."
Where to begin?
This is complacency of the highest calibre.
Mr Clark, we're told by a Government civil servant that,
"these surveys indicate that a majority of those questioned were dissatisfied with OSP's final decision " and yet the civil servant goes on to speculate that, "this may be due to customers' expectations about the level of financial awards rather than the level of service provided."
Q. Mr Clark, why the speculation - the "may" - shouldn't the monitor know exactly what it is they are monitoring on behalf of the taxpayer?
Q. Mr Clark, if customers of OSP were dissatisfied with an average, "financial award" of £1.511.76p back in 2009-10, what must their dissatisfaction levels be now that they've plunged to 50 quid and why don't we know?
Q. Mr Clark, why are Regulators, civil servants and politicians approving and renewing the OSP redress scheme when its maladministrating executives steadfastly refuse to gather data on their customers' satisfaction levels?
Unlike the Government civil servant, DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Surveys were quite specific in what they say. "May" does not come into it.
Page 7 of their 2009-10 Survey states;
"When asked about the provisional conclusion satisfaction levels were lower. Nearly half were very dissatisfied with the logic of its recommendations, use of evidence and the extent to which they were reasonable."
An Ombudsman's so-called "investigation" into a customer's complaint about what, in essence, amounts to a massive investment of their money - an investment which is largely based on a RICS survey - that is; lacking in logic, lacking in the use of evidence and lacking in reasonableness is an outrage and an affront to any remaining notions of British justice.
Yet it would seem Government reproved this scheme on a nod and a wink.
Your civil servant, somewhat amazingly, didn't consider any of the above to be a customer dissatisfaction with the level of service provided.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't this corrupt and why are Government civil servants and politicians colluding with maladministrators who for the past 17 months haven't published any data on their woeful performance, whatsoever?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Sunday, 26 March 2017
98% / Ombudsman Services:Property / Gibraltar's Ombudsman. (578)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 578.
578) 98% / Ombudsman Services:Property / Gibraltar's Ombudsman.
Dear Mr Clark,
DJS Research, a truly independent organisation, were responsible for producing three remarkable Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services, an organisation whose independence is a 21st myth promulgated by its maladministrating executives.
Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of Ombudsman Services, would have us believe that;
"We aim to provide a first class service for dispute resolution for our members and their customers. In achieving our aims we shall be; accessible, consistent, honest, effective and efficient."
(Professor Dame Janet Finch)
First class? Accessible? Consistent? Honest? Effective? Efficient?
How you come to understand each of those benchmark pledges largely depends on whether you're a Member of Professor Finch's club or a dissatisfied complainant. But perhaps we should apply each of those criterion to Professor Finch herself:
House of Commons BIS Committee: Open Access: Fifth Report Of session 2013-14 -
Our Inquiry:
22) "The Finch report's conclusions and recommendations were therefore made without a detailed, up to date assessment of the existing open access policies in the UK, and worldwide, and of their success rates. Despite the fact that Green currently provides seven-eights of the 40% of the UK's research outputs that open access, the role of repositories was unequivocally demoted in the Finch Report."
A lack of detailed up to date assessment and roles unequivocally demoted.
At the same time as the merits, or otherwise, of the Finch Report were being scrutinised, the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Finch, was implementing Mutually Acceptable Settlements (MAS) at Ombudsman Services:Property - the key strategy in what was supposed to be a more efficient working practice. One that replaced the OS:Property's totally shambolic Provisional Conclusions.
In the company's 2013-14 Annual Report, 94% of complainants rejected Professor Dame Janet Finch's Mutually Acceptable Settlements, there was no financial breakdown of, "financial awards" and Property complainants were not asked if they were; satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their customer journey - as had been the case previously.
23) "We are surprised by this recommendation and the Government's acceptance of it, especially given its considerable investment in repositories in recent years...The evidence we received suggests the problem with this is that the case accepted by the Government was based on the Finch Report's incomplete evaluation of Green open access, which did not consider the available evidence."
Professor Finch did not consider the available evidence.
Evidence continues to be a problem at Ombudsman Services. In 2012-13 on page 15 of the company's Annual Report we're told that those replacing DJS Research had developed a new method of conducting Customer Satisfaction Surveys - they telephoned complainants - and in doing so somewhat amazing discovered, "positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction." This had not been the case previously.
However, whilst managing to telephone Communications complainants and Energy complainants it seems that they totally forgot to telephone Property complainants.
Professor Finch would appear to have considered that the available evidence provided by DJS Research was so damning that it needed burying and so chose to jettison DJS instead of addressing the enormous problems their research had uncovered. Property data seems to have been subsumed within that of Communications, Energy and Copyright.
The OFT were wrong. The same questions are neither being asked nor reported upon.
56) "The same economist was involved with the Government's initial pre-Finch Report analysis of open access, the Finch Report modelling, and the Government's subsequent acceptance of those recommendations. This draws the independence of the Finch report and its economic analysis into question. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT HAD THE FINCH WORKING GROUP COMMISSIONED ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED."
Figures also continued to be a problem at Ombudsman Services. As for independent analysis......
In 2012-13, 94% of complainants rejected the company's MAS , suggesting the new working practice was somewhat less than efficient. Complainants were no longer asked if they thought the Ombudsman arrived at decisions in a logical manner or whether they submitted further evidence and if that evidence was rejected.
The cover-up was under way.
In the 2013-14 Annual Report, 92% of Property complainants rejected Professor Finch's MAS and her independent researchers again forgot to telephone any of the 641 complainants to ask them if they considered her new working practices to be first class, However, if each complainant had received a maximum, "financial award" from her Ombudsman, it would have cost Professor Finch's Members £16.025.000.
57) "We conclude that the Finch Report, the Government and RCUK have failed to assess adequately the existing levels of APCs that are charged by a range of open access journals, both within the uk and worldwide, and instead formed a plan of expenditure based on payments to publishers that, compared to a range of benchmarks including APCs of the largest "pure" Gold publisher, are rather less than competitive."
A failure of assessment and competition.
Professor Dame Janet Finch has suggested that her model for efficient Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) should be the sole one in England - ie, she is proposing a monopoly of private ADR based on the Ombudsman Services, "model."
73) "A recurring theme in this inquiry has been that elements of the scholarly publishing market are dysfunctional. The systematic increase in subscription prices over inflation , the opacity of pricing due to non disclosure agreemets, and the APCs pricing differences between comparable hybrid and pure Gold open access journals have been set out earlier in this report. Together, they demonstrate a lack of transparency and competition in the market which is deeply concerning."
A dysfunctional - rigged - market, lacking in opacity, competition and transparency.
Very much like the dysfunctional - rigged - market in surveying with its attendant dysfunctional - rigged - market in private, "redress" which, for good measure, also lacks; competitiveness and transparency.
In Professor Finch's 2014-15 Annual Report, 95% rejected her MAS and once again her independent researchers failed to ask any of those 887 Property complainants if they were; satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their customer journey. If they had all received the full, "financial award" available it would have cost Professor Finch's club Members, £22.175.000. However, the average, "award" was £100. There was no breakdown of her Ombudsman's, "awards."
93) "However,almost without exception, our evidence has pointed to gaps both in the quantitative and qualitative evidence underpinning the Finch Report's conclusions an recommendations, most significantly a failure to examine the UK's Green mandates and their efficiency."
Quantitative and qualitative failures.
In Professor Finch's 2015 Annual review, 98% of Property complainants rejected her MAS and her independent research company yet again inexplicably forgot to telephone any of the 666 complainants to check on their customer journey. Had those complainants received the company's jackpot in full it would have set the Chair's Members back £16.500.000. But they didn't. The average payout for that year was 50 quid. The Customer Satisfaction Report was down to just 2 pages - DJS Research's were 13 on Property alone. Job done.
If DJS Research's services had been retained and their findings acted upon we believe things would be looking very different for complainants.
First class? Accessible? Consistent? Honest? Effective? Efficient? Only a public inquiry could say with any degree of authority or certainty.
In the meantime please contrast Professor Dame Janet Finch's 98% MAS rejection by dissatisfied Property complainants with Gibraltar's Ombudsman's 98% approval rating - no matter what the outcome.
Q. Mr Clark, at the same time as the House of Commons BIS Committee were detailing the many failings of the Finch Report, the OFT were re-approving Ombudsman Services:Property in the full knowledge that none of the questions asked by DJS Research were being asked by the organisation that replaced them,. How can OFT monitors monitor nothing and do you still assure Property complainants that their complaints will be investigated; fully, fairly and independently by the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 578.
578) 98% / Ombudsman Services:Property / Gibraltar's Ombudsman.
Dear Mr Clark,
DJS Research, a truly independent organisation, were responsible for producing three remarkable Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services, an organisation whose independence is a 21st myth promulgated by its maladministrating executives.
Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of Ombudsman Services, would have us believe that;
"We aim to provide a first class service for dispute resolution for our members and their customers. In achieving our aims we shall be; accessible, consistent, honest, effective and efficient."
(Professor Dame Janet Finch)
First class? Accessible? Consistent? Honest? Effective? Efficient?
How you come to understand each of those benchmark pledges largely depends on whether you're a Member of Professor Finch's club or a dissatisfied complainant. But perhaps we should apply each of those criterion to Professor Finch herself:
House of Commons BIS Committee: Open Access: Fifth Report Of session 2013-14 -
Our Inquiry:
22) "The Finch report's conclusions and recommendations were therefore made without a detailed, up to date assessment of the existing open access policies in the UK, and worldwide, and of their success rates. Despite the fact that Green currently provides seven-eights of the 40% of the UK's research outputs that open access, the role of repositories was unequivocally demoted in the Finch Report."
A lack of detailed up to date assessment and roles unequivocally demoted.
At the same time as the merits, or otherwise, of the Finch Report were being scrutinised, the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Finch, was implementing Mutually Acceptable Settlements (MAS) at Ombudsman Services:Property - the key strategy in what was supposed to be a more efficient working practice. One that replaced the OS:Property's totally shambolic Provisional Conclusions.
In the company's 2013-14 Annual Report, 94% of complainants rejected Professor Dame Janet Finch's Mutually Acceptable Settlements, there was no financial breakdown of, "financial awards" and Property complainants were not asked if they were; satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their customer journey - as had been the case previously.
23) "We are surprised by this recommendation and the Government's acceptance of it, especially given its considerable investment in repositories in recent years...The evidence we received suggests the problem with this is that the case accepted by the Government was based on the Finch Report's incomplete evaluation of Green open access, which did not consider the available evidence."
Professor Finch did not consider the available evidence.
Evidence continues to be a problem at Ombudsman Services. In 2012-13 on page 15 of the company's Annual Report we're told that those replacing DJS Research had developed a new method of conducting Customer Satisfaction Surveys - they telephoned complainants - and in doing so somewhat amazing discovered, "positive findings with strong levels of satisfaction." This had not been the case previously.
However, whilst managing to telephone Communications complainants and Energy complainants it seems that they totally forgot to telephone Property complainants.
Professor Finch would appear to have considered that the available evidence provided by DJS Research was so damning that it needed burying and so chose to jettison DJS instead of addressing the enormous problems their research had uncovered. Property data seems to have been subsumed within that of Communications, Energy and Copyright.
The OFT were wrong. The same questions are neither being asked nor reported upon.
56) "The same economist was involved with the Government's initial pre-Finch Report analysis of open access, the Finch Report modelling, and the Government's subsequent acceptance of those recommendations. This draws the independence of the Finch report and its economic analysis into question. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT HAD THE FINCH WORKING GROUP COMMISSIONED ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED."
Figures also continued to be a problem at Ombudsman Services. As for independent analysis......
In 2012-13, 94% of complainants rejected the company's MAS , suggesting the new working practice was somewhat less than efficient. Complainants were no longer asked if they thought the Ombudsman arrived at decisions in a logical manner or whether they submitted further evidence and if that evidence was rejected.
The cover-up was under way.
In the 2013-14 Annual Report, 92% of Property complainants rejected Professor Finch's MAS and her independent researchers again forgot to telephone any of the 641 complainants to ask them if they considered her new working practices to be first class, However, if each complainant had received a maximum, "financial award" from her Ombudsman, it would have cost Professor Finch's Members £16.025.000.
57) "We conclude that the Finch Report, the Government and RCUK have failed to assess adequately the existing levels of APCs that are charged by a range of open access journals, both within the uk and worldwide, and instead formed a plan of expenditure based on payments to publishers that, compared to a range of benchmarks including APCs of the largest "pure" Gold publisher, are rather less than competitive."
A failure of assessment and competition.
Professor Dame Janet Finch has suggested that her model for efficient Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) should be the sole one in England - ie, she is proposing a monopoly of private ADR based on the Ombudsman Services, "model."
73) "A recurring theme in this inquiry has been that elements of the scholarly publishing market are dysfunctional. The systematic increase in subscription prices over inflation , the opacity of pricing due to non disclosure agreemets, and the APCs pricing differences between comparable hybrid and pure Gold open access journals have been set out earlier in this report. Together, they demonstrate a lack of transparency and competition in the market which is deeply concerning."
A dysfunctional - rigged - market, lacking in opacity, competition and transparency.
Very much like the dysfunctional - rigged - market in surveying with its attendant dysfunctional - rigged - market in private, "redress" which, for good measure, also lacks; competitiveness and transparency.
In Professor Finch's 2014-15 Annual Report, 95% rejected her MAS and once again her independent researchers failed to ask any of those 887 Property complainants if they were; satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their customer journey. If they had all received the full, "financial award" available it would have cost Professor Finch's club Members, £22.175.000. However, the average, "award" was £100. There was no breakdown of her Ombudsman's, "awards."
93) "However,almost without exception, our evidence has pointed to gaps both in the quantitative and qualitative evidence underpinning the Finch Report's conclusions an recommendations, most significantly a failure to examine the UK's Green mandates and their efficiency."
Quantitative and qualitative failures.
In Professor Finch's 2015 Annual review, 98% of Property complainants rejected her MAS and her independent research company yet again inexplicably forgot to telephone any of the 666 complainants to check on their customer journey. Had those complainants received the company's jackpot in full it would have set the Chair's Members back £16.500.000. But they didn't. The average payout for that year was 50 quid. The Customer Satisfaction Report was down to just 2 pages - DJS Research's were 13 on Property alone. Job done.
If DJS Research's services had been retained and their findings acted upon we believe things would be looking very different for complainants.
First class? Accessible? Consistent? Honest? Effective? Efficient? Only a public inquiry could say with any degree of authority or certainty.
In the meantime please contrast Professor Dame Janet Finch's 98% MAS rejection by dissatisfied Property complainants with Gibraltar's Ombudsman's 98% approval rating - no matter what the outcome.
Q. Mr Clark, at the same time as the House of Commons BIS Committee were detailing the many failings of the Finch Report, the OFT were re-approving Ombudsman Services:Property in the full knowledge that none of the questions asked by DJS Research were being asked by the organisation that replaced them,. How can OFT monitors monitor nothing and do you still assure Property complainants that their complaints will be investigated; fully, fairly and independently by the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Friday, 24 March 2017
To build a fairer, stronger , better Britain don't we need to radically change The System, Mr Hammond? (577)
To the Business, Energy and industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 577.
577) To build a fairer, stronger, better Britain don't we need to radically change The System, Mr Hammond?
Dear Mr Clark,
At the time of writing, The System still stubbornly remains rigged in favour of those who set it up, manage it and benefit from the practices they've cunningly devised that do not work in their customers' interests. Otherwise things would be different. It stands to reason.
A perfect example of this is the rigged market in private, "civil justice" as devised by Ombudsman Services:Property.
In, "The impact of the system on complainants," Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill tell anyone interested in justice that,
"One participant noted that a particular ombudsman schemes' own customer satisfaction reports shoed significant dissatisfaction with the service being provided. This compared unfavourably to other ombudsman schemes, such as the one in Gibraltar, where the ombudsman had a 98% positive satisfaction score, regardless of outcomes. The acceptance by some ombudsman schemes of reasonably high dissatisfaction rates was seen as problematic by some participants."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/critics-of-ombudsman-system/understanding-and-engaging-onlinwe-citizen-activists. Page 7)
DJS Research's Customer satisfaction Reports were highly critical of Ombudsman Service:Property's, "outcomes." So what did the maladministrating executives do? They replaced DJS Research with an organisation that didn't ask such awkward questions. As a result of this wand-waving-exercise there are no longer any dissatisfied complainants.
Judge for yourself. Just go to www.ombudsman-services.org and look at the evisceration of information from 2010 onwards.
A Hammond-like fascination with spread-sheets and data is urgently needed at OS:Property, and with those civil servants supposedly, "monitoring" this government approved redress scheme on behalf of the taxpayer. The existing, "arrangements" are certainly Good For Business but truly Lousy For Consumers.
Q. Mr Clark, in order to build a fairer, stronger, better Britain shouldn't there now be an urgent inquiry into the maladministered and illogical Final Decisions emanating from Ombudsman Services:Property.?
Q. Mr Clark, aren't ombudsmen who maladminister private civil justice not the True Enemies Of The People?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 577.
577) To build a fairer, stronger, better Britain don't we need to radically change The System, Mr Hammond?
Dear Mr Clark,
At the time of writing, The System still stubbornly remains rigged in favour of those who set it up, manage it and benefit from the practices they've cunningly devised that do not work in their customers' interests. Otherwise things would be different. It stands to reason.
A perfect example of this is the rigged market in private, "civil justice" as devised by Ombudsman Services:Property.
In, "The impact of the system on complainants," Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill tell anyone interested in justice that,
"One participant noted that a particular ombudsman schemes' own customer satisfaction reports shoed significant dissatisfaction with the service being provided. This compared unfavourably to other ombudsman schemes, such as the one in Gibraltar, where the ombudsman had a 98% positive satisfaction score, regardless of outcomes. The acceptance by some ombudsman schemes of reasonably high dissatisfaction rates was seen as problematic by some participants."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/critics-of-ombudsman-system/understanding-and-engaging-onlinwe-citizen-activists. Page 7)
DJS Research's Customer satisfaction Reports were highly critical of Ombudsman Service:Property's, "outcomes." So what did the maladministrating executives do? They replaced DJS Research with an organisation that didn't ask such awkward questions. As a result of this wand-waving-exercise there are no longer any dissatisfied complainants.
Judge for yourself. Just go to www.ombudsman-services.org and look at the evisceration of information from 2010 onwards.
A Hammond-like fascination with spread-sheets and data is urgently needed at OS:Property, and with those civil servants supposedly, "monitoring" this government approved redress scheme on behalf of the taxpayer. The existing, "arrangements" are certainly Good For Business but truly Lousy For Consumers.
Q. Mr Clark, in order to build a fairer, stronger, better Britain shouldn't there now be an urgent inquiry into the maladministered and illogical Final Decisions emanating from Ombudsman Services:Property.?
Q. Mr Clark, aren't ombudsmen who maladminister private civil justice not the True Enemies Of The People?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Thursday, 9 March 2017
Philip Hammond - "To build a stronger, fairer, better Britain." (576)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
and
To the Health secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 576.
576) Philip Hammond - "To build a stronger, fairer, better Britain."
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
We thought the Philip Hammond saved his best joke for the end of his speech when he suggested his budget would help to, "build a stronger, fairer, better Britain."
Just exactly how breaking Conservative Party Manifesto pledges exemplifies; strength, fairness and betterness in post-Brexit Britain, he didn't say but today's excuse seems to be that,
"Circumstances have moved on."
Circumstances always move on but things seem to inevitably remain the same for many struggling under the Chancellor's Policies For Austerity.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't a Conservative Party Manifesto in the hands of a Chancellor like Philip Hammond very much like A Full Structural Survey in the hands of an inadequately regulated RICS surveyor - ie not worth the paper they're written on?
The Chancellor told us that,
"everyone should enjoy security and dignity in old age."
Yes they should. So why don't they?
Q. Mr Hunt, isn't the reason why the sick, the elderly and the dying do not enjoy security and dignity in old age, due in large part, to the appalling, inhumane, barbaric extortion racket that masquerades as The National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?
Philip Hammond stated that,
"we are ensuring that local authorities and the NHS work more closely together."
The information I received under the data Protection Act would suggest that that can't come quickly enough for Plymouth City Council, Livewell Southwest Ltd., the "inadequate" NEW Devon and, most importantly, the people of Devon, where it would seem that,
"of course this is only about the money."
Otherwise things would be different. Circumstances need to move on. Rapidly.
The market in social care needs to be embedded in society. It needs to be totally transparent. The healthcare professionals working in it need to be totally accountable when demonstrating their, "duty of care" to the sick, the elderly and dying. At present they hide behind a cloak of anonymity.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
and
To the Health secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 576.
576) Philip Hammond - "To build a stronger, fairer, better Britain."
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
We thought the Philip Hammond saved his best joke for the end of his speech when he suggested his budget would help to, "build a stronger, fairer, better Britain."
Just exactly how breaking Conservative Party Manifesto pledges exemplifies; strength, fairness and betterness in post-Brexit Britain, he didn't say but today's excuse seems to be that,
"Circumstances have moved on."
Circumstances always move on but things seem to inevitably remain the same for many struggling under the Chancellor's Policies For Austerity.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't a Conservative Party Manifesto in the hands of a Chancellor like Philip Hammond very much like A Full Structural Survey in the hands of an inadequately regulated RICS surveyor - ie not worth the paper they're written on?
The Chancellor told us that,
"everyone should enjoy security and dignity in old age."
Yes they should. So why don't they?
Q. Mr Hunt, isn't the reason why the sick, the elderly and the dying do not enjoy security and dignity in old age, due in large part, to the appalling, inhumane, barbaric extortion racket that masquerades as The National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?
Philip Hammond stated that,
"we are ensuring that local authorities and the NHS work more closely together."
The information I received under the data Protection Act would suggest that that can't come quickly enough for Plymouth City Council, Livewell Southwest Ltd., the "inadequate" NEW Devon and, most importantly, the people of Devon, where it would seem that,
"of course this is only about the money."
Otherwise things would be different. Circumstances need to move on. Rapidly.
The market in social care needs to be embedded in society. It needs to be totally transparent. The healthcare professionals working in it need to be totally accountable when demonstrating their, "duty of care" to the sick, the elderly and dying. At present they hide behind a cloak of anonymity.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Tuesday, 7 March 2017
Means, Motive and Opportunity. (575)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary and,
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 575.
575) Means, Motive and Opportunity.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
On the 27th February Blog 572 - OS:Property / Livewell Southwest Ltd: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Don't make me laugh? Queried why it was that,
"Although the time was clearly ripe for more transparency (and accountability) we got less, thereby creating the perfect conditions for those with the means, the motive and the opportunity to rig markets and the democracy that supposedly polices them."
Just days later the means, method and opportunity were back again this time in an Andrew Rawnsley article for the Observer - "The vicar's daughter is more a gambler than she realises" (Observer 05/07/2017) - in which he uses them to structure a piece about whether Theresa May should have called an early general election or not. He believes,
"That's motive and opportunity covered. Means are trickier."
Means, most certainly are trickier.
The 2011 Fixed-terms Parliaments Act is indeed a formidable obstacle to the Prime Minister calling for a ballot on Brexit. Section 1 of the Act provides for such polling days to occur on the first Thursday in May of the 5th year after the previous general election starting with 7th May 2015. Section 2 provides two was in which a general election can be held before the end of the 5 year period. The first is a successful vote of no confidence in the government and the second arises should two-thirds of the House of Commons resolve, "That there should be an early parliamentary general election." Thus giving the people through their elected representatives the prerogative to call an election and not the Prime Minister. (Wikipedia)
In, "Early general election: Can Theresa may actually call one?" Jon Stone details the shenanigans that that would entail. He says that, "On paper it is no longer the Prime Minister's decision." Quoting Professor Robert Hazell of University College London's Constitution Unit he explains, "This (section 2 option 1) does have the potential to go embarrassingly wrong. It would only take a handful of Conservative rebels to derail an attempt to call an election." But the government doesn't need to get into such a fix. Instead they could pass legislation - a one clause bill saying, "Notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 the next election shall be on x date....this might look underhand, but it would be completely within the rules."
(www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/early-general-election-can-Theresa-May-call...)
In today's Telegraph, Lord Hague - the man who on his last day in office as Leader of the House of Commons, and aided and abetted by Michael Gove the then Chief Whip, plotted to unseat the Speaker but embarrassingly lost - has suggested the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 be scrapped as, "British law needs to amended countless times to take account of leaving the EU treaties," so that piece of legislation should be ditched as well.
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/theresa-may-should -call..)
That looks underhanded too, but apparently its all grist to the mill, and completely within the rules.
Two means, motives and opportunities within a week is also quite a coincidence. According to NCIS's Leroy Jethro Gibbs coincidences break Rule 39: There is no such thing as coincidence.
News or fake-news? Truth or post-truth? Rules? Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise would still seem to be the order of the day for those who consider themselves to be, "wise men."
Q. Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, if Lord Hague can suggest the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, due to the amending of half a century of legislation, why doesn't the government immediately repeal the 2012 Health and Social Care Act and the appallingly inhumane and degrading National Framework for Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?
That wouldn't be underhanded - it would be above board.
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 575.
575) Means, Motive and Opportunity.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
On the 27th February Blog 572 - OS:Property / Livewell Southwest Ltd: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Don't make me laugh? Queried why it was that,
"Although the time was clearly ripe for more transparency (and accountability) we got less, thereby creating the perfect conditions for those with the means, the motive and the opportunity to rig markets and the democracy that supposedly polices them."
Just days later the means, method and opportunity were back again this time in an Andrew Rawnsley article for the Observer - "The vicar's daughter is more a gambler than she realises" (Observer 05/07/2017) - in which he uses them to structure a piece about whether Theresa May should have called an early general election or not. He believes,
"That's motive and opportunity covered. Means are trickier."
Means, most certainly are trickier.
The 2011 Fixed-terms Parliaments Act is indeed a formidable obstacle to the Prime Minister calling for a ballot on Brexit. Section 1 of the Act provides for such polling days to occur on the first Thursday in May of the 5th year after the previous general election starting with 7th May 2015. Section 2 provides two was in which a general election can be held before the end of the 5 year period. The first is a successful vote of no confidence in the government and the second arises should two-thirds of the House of Commons resolve, "That there should be an early parliamentary general election." Thus giving the people through their elected representatives the prerogative to call an election and not the Prime Minister. (Wikipedia)
In, "Early general election: Can Theresa may actually call one?" Jon Stone details the shenanigans that that would entail. He says that, "On paper it is no longer the Prime Minister's decision." Quoting Professor Robert Hazell of University College London's Constitution Unit he explains, "This (section 2 option 1) does have the potential to go embarrassingly wrong. It would only take a handful of Conservative rebels to derail an attempt to call an election." But the government doesn't need to get into such a fix. Instead they could pass legislation - a one clause bill saying, "Notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 the next election shall be on x date....this might look underhand, but it would be completely within the rules."
(www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/early-general-election-can-Theresa-May-call...)
In today's Telegraph, Lord Hague - the man who on his last day in office as Leader of the House of Commons, and aided and abetted by Michael Gove the then Chief Whip, plotted to unseat the Speaker but embarrassingly lost - has suggested the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 be scrapped as, "British law needs to amended countless times to take account of leaving the EU treaties," so that piece of legislation should be ditched as well.
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/theresa-may-should -call..)
That looks underhanded too, but apparently its all grist to the mill, and completely within the rules.
Two means, motives and opportunities within a week is also quite a coincidence. According to NCIS's Leroy Jethro Gibbs coincidences break Rule 39: There is no such thing as coincidence.
News or fake-news? Truth or post-truth? Rules? Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise would still seem to be the order of the day for those who consider themselves to be, "wise men."
Q. Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, if Lord Hague can suggest the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, due to the amending of half a century of legislation, why doesn't the government immediately repeal the 2012 Health and Social Care Act and the appallingly inhumane and degrading National Framework for Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care?
That wouldn't be underhanded - it would be above board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)