Ombudsman Services - The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (8) Yet More Data Manipulation. (711)

 

711. Ombudsman Services - The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (8) Yet More Data Manipulation.

Martin Lewis says his methodology was to take information from ombudsmen's websites, conduct background discussions and "carry out fact checking with organisations mentioned in this report;"  (page 8)

Carrying out fact checking with Ombudsman Services:Property must have been interesting for MSE as there weren't any for the whole 2011-12 or 2012-13 and very few "facts" since. Something Martin Lewis doesn't comment on in his Report.

He hasn't commented on the size of the current Annual Property Report as compared with those pre 2011-12 or the absence of DJS Research-like Customer Satisfaction Reports which is surely points to a deliberate manipulation of data by the CEO and his team?

Nor has he commented on the Independent Assessor's discovery of significant instances of maladministration at Ombudsman Services.

We've tried pointing out to The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (now the Ombudsman Association) and The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (now The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) that this private company is steadfastly refusing to gather data on its woeful (for consumers) performance in "investigating" consumers' complaints. But to no avail.

These two organisation have done nothing to protect consumers from an ombudsman who, habitually "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner."

Martin Lewis says he looked at information from the ombudsmen's websites so he will have read;

"Many (around two thirds) felt the report was completely or on balance against them, in line with previous years. This did not change even after further representations were made." (DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report 2010-11)

It would surely have helped had he said which websites he looked at and at what information on those websites.

Martin Lewis doesn't seem to follow the evidence.

Why are so many of those consumers presenting their cases, getting gobsmackingly ludicrous decisions, then desperately making yet further representations and still not getting anywhere?

Isn't this data manipulation on an industrial scale?

Doesn't the answer lie with the Ombudsman's apparent habitual inability to carry out anything closely resembling a fair and independent, "investigation" of a complaint? Why wasn't this investigated by Martin Lewis?

In short, hundreds of consumers have submitted evidence only for it to be traduced by the Property Ombudsman. Otherwise things would have been different.

We will send you a line by line account of what happened in our case.

We even asked for a face-to-face meeting with the company's ombudsman - as was our human right as set out in the company's Terms of Reference - only to be told that had she considered it necessary at the time she would have ordered one. She didn't. So she didn't.

We asked the company how many face-to-face meetings were granted in any one given year and are still awaiting a reply.

On discovering that 80%+ of property complainants in 2017 are now saying that the farce is "unfair" why didn't Martin Lewis check the fact and explain it?

Why didn't he ask:

a) what were the government monitors, "monitoring" in 2011-12 and 2012-13?

b) why didn't they withdraw approval of this scheme?

c) why have they sat back and permitted consumers to take costly property complaints to an ombudsman who they know arrived at decisions in an illogical manner?

b) why have these monitors permitted consumers to take costly property complaint to an ombudsman who not only arrived at decisions in an illogical manner but significantly reduced so-called, "financial-awards" from £1.511.75p in 2010 to £50 today?

Why didn't he ask RICS the regulator,

a) how is any of the above, "an effective resolution of a dispute" for consumers?

and,

b) when the OFT have said the RICS have allowed its Members to develop practices that do not work in the customer's interests due to an apparent failure on their part to adequately regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place - why didn't he ask why this has been allowed to happen?

Martin Lewis' Report has simply not explained the root causes of the farce - criminally inadequate regulation in the first place, followed by justice-defying "investigations" of consumers' complaints and the system's carefully constructed lack of accountability and transparency.

By failing to adequately analyse the problem Martin Lewis' recommendations will merely contribute to an even greater problem for consumers.

If the organisations MSE suggest should set the, "gold standard" - The Ombudsman Association and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy - had been doing their job in the first place we wouldn't looking at, Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform

His recommendations would be like putting the Kray Twins in charge of policing in the East End of London.

What consumers urgently need is for someone with sharper eyes, a sharper brain and a sharper analysis - consumers urgently need a judge-led public inquiry into those who manipulate data with apparent impunity.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent

Ombudsman Services: Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (7) More Data Manipulation (710)

710. Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (7) More Data Manipulation.

Without Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform,  the consumer would never have known that over 80% of property complainants who had taken their complaint to Ombudsman Services:Property expecting a, "fair" and "independent" investigation of their case when responding to Martin Lewis' survey, felt they had been treated, "unfairly."

Potential property complainants uncertain as to whether to take their complaint to this private redress scheme would only have had BMG's research to go by.

Their findings for 2016 were,

"comments showed largely positive findings, with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Services. Results were consistent by sector."

Property is a sector of Ombudsman Services so could potential complainants infer from the above that that they could trust the Property Ombudsman to investigate their complaint, "fairly" and "independently."

It isn't clear.

The EU Directive is.

At (39) The Directive states,

"ADR entities should be accessible and transparent. In order to ensure the transparency of ADR entities and of ADR procedures it is necessary that the parties receive clear and accessible information they need to take an informed decision before engaging in an ADR procedure."

(www.eur-lex.europa.en/legal-content)

We would like someone to ask The Rev Shand Smith:

      Q. Why isn't the information provided to the consumer by Ombudsman Services clear        and  accessible and why doesn't it meet the EU criterion?
      Q. Why don't Ombudsman Services say just exactly strong are "the strong levels of         satisfaction" and how high are "the high levels of advocacy?"

DJS Research once did exactly that. We believe they lost their contract for being good at their job.

Q. Why doesn't BMG Research put a figure on the levels of satisfaction and advocacy and what is it the company is seeking - so successfully - to hide?

Q. In 2010-11 DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report was highly critical of the Property Ombudsman's performance in resolving disputes. Why aren't today's complainants told that there was an 80% dissatisfaction with the Property Ombudsman's perceived fairness?

Although this information was available to Martin Lewis his Report didn't mention it. 

What wouldn't have been available to him were the full DJS Customer Satisfaction Reports which have deliberately been removed from the company's website - and thus from accountability and history.

If the consumer wanted to check out this organisation's performance in resolving costly property disputes they have to dig deeper each year. Their hard work would be poorly rewarded. The consumer will discover that Energy data has its own section as does Communications but Property is tucked away under Annual Reports. The 2008-09 Annual Report has now disappeared and we suspect the 2009-10 one will go the same way.

DJS Research's highly critical Customer Satisfaction Reports will have been erased from history. Because Ombudsman Services Ltd is a private company it is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. In the highly manicured landscape of private ADR, accountability and transparency are a thing of the past.

A private company that is so calculating and deliberate in its sanitising of data clearly has much to hide that it does so with the full knowledge of Government Ministers and senior civil servants, is scandalous.

Such decisions are made by individuals who appear to enjoy power but not accountability.

Take Professor Dame Janet Finch the previous Chair of Ombudsman Services as an example. The person who oversaw the replacement of DJS Research by BMG and thus the end of those highly revealing Customer Satisfaction Reports.

On the one hand, Professor Dame Janet Finch said in one Annual Report,

"We aim to provide a first class service of dispute resolution for our members and their customers. In achieving our aims we shall be: accessible, consistent, honest and effective." 

On the other, Paul Jump writing in the Times Higher Education said,

"Rejected candidate says appointment process was shambles from start to finish.

Professor Wheeler:

This is hardly a 21st century standard of accountability or a great start for a process that depends upon trust or confidence. Did Janet Finch run Keele like this? If she did, I have no doubt that it was an interesting experience."

(The TES 3 Feb 2011)

Like Martin Lewis we fact-checked DJS Research's shocking revelations with its Managing Director. We asked him if we could use his company's name because what his research had revealed was truly shocking. Fortunately, we could.

a) The Property Ombudsman did arrive at decisions in an illogical manner.

b) The majority (by then 64%) of complainants were, "very dissatisfied" with the outcome of their expensive property complaint.

"Very dissatisfied" is being polite. It seemed Janet Finch also ran Ombudsman Services, "like this."

What we have discovered is that Ombudsmen do not expect to have their illogical decisions challenged and do not take it kindly when their illogical decisions are challenged. This refusal on the part of ombudsmen to be held accountable is what motivates us to continue campaigning for a public inquiry into what passes for, "civil-justice."

In 2009-10 the DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report at (8.24) stated:

"to be effective the Surveyors Ombudsman Services (now known as Ombudsman Services:Property and yes it really is a service for surveyors) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seen to be the general consensus of opinion."

(that has since been removed from the company's website and so  has been air-brushed from history)

Martin Lewis would have had access to this;

"Many were complaining about poor information/advice which could possibly have led to a costly purchasing mistake far in excess of a few hundred pounds..

The service is different from Otelo or Energy in that the financial implications relate to expensive purchasing decisions. Whilst we have seen some improvements in areas this year there does appear to be a key issue with regards to complainants perceptions of what recompense (ie scale of financial goodwill) they can expect from the complaint and what can actually be delivered. This should be looked at."

At that time property complainants were complaining that "recompense" stood at - £1,511.75p

Gillian Fleming, the Property Ombudsman did look at the scale of financial goodwill and the next year she reduced it to £900 after an un-named individual(s) had complained about the recent rise in the levels of financial award. (Minutes 15th December 2009).

Martin Lewis didn't mention this in his Report.

He did reveal that in 2017, 80% of property complainants believe the Ombudsman's decisions are not, "fair." They can now expect £50 from the Property Ombudsman.

We believe Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform is the tip of a very large iceberg and that when consumers embark on their customer journey with Ombudsman Services:Property they will have done so having been miss-sold the promise of Alternative Dispute Resolution and private, Civil-Justice.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - %10458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (6) Manipulating Data. (709)

To the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection / Leader of the House of Commons / Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief ombudsman of Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 709.

709. Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (6) Manipulating Data (709)

Dear Yvonne Fovargue, Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

In their 2009 Annual Report the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services states,

"Our Terms of Reference preclude any ombudsman from being a surveyor, decisions are taken by a lay person whose expertise is in dispute resolution, not in the profession or service about which complaints are. It is for the ombudsman to decide when third party expertise would be helpful in reaching fair and appropriate resolution."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, if your Terms of Reference preclude any ombudsman from being a surveyor, why is a chartered surveyor the present Property Ombudsman?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, is this not a manipulation of the Rules?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest and how does it satisfy the EU Directive's requirement for impartiality? (2013/11/EU on ADR)

The Annual Report goes on to say,

"SOS (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) is a member of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) - (now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association) - In order to enjoy full membership we have shown that we meet the published criteria for recognition attached to the BIOA's rules, which are essentially independence of the ombudsman from those whom the Ombudsman has the power to investigate, effectiveness, fairness and public accountability."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why is your organisation a member of the BIOA / OA when you have a chartered surveyor working as Property Ombudsman and who is clearly not independent from those whom he is investigating?

Q. Mr Clark, why haven't the government monitors of this government approved scheme withdrawn their approval for this scheme?

Q. Mrs Leadsom,  as Lord President of the Council, why has The RICS allowed its, "appointed" company, Ombudsman Services:Property to appoint an Ombudsman who breaches the company's Terms of Reference, the requirements for membership of the BIOA / OA and the EU Directive on ADR requirement for there to be no conflict of interest?

On the subject of independence the 2009 Annual Report concludes,

"RICS provides funding for the operational work of SOS (OS:P) but the Ombudsman is completely independent from RICS."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, if the Property Ombudsman is completely independent of The RICS why is he also a chartered surveyor?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why do you have such scant disregard for the Rules?

On page 60 of Martin Lewis' Report for The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection:

Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform - How Would You Describe The Ombudsman's Decision

he tells us that for Ombudsman Services:Property 80% of consumers thought it was, "unfair."

The corresponding figure for The Property Ombudsman was an unfairness rating of 60% which was shocking but nowhere near as shocking as the Ombudsman Serivces:Property Ombudsman.

Part of Martin Lewis' methodology when producing his report for the All-Party Parliamentary Group was, "to conduct background discussions and on the record fact checking with the organisations mentioned in (this) report."

Both the Ombudsman Association and Ombudsman Services:Property are mentioned in his report along with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Two of them - The BEIS and The Ombudsman Association - are put forward by Martin Lewis as being competent to determine a new Gold Standard for Ombudsmen. Surely, this recommendation must be of concern for consumers who really do need protecting - 80% of Ombudsman Services:Property complainants cannot all be wrong.

The BEIS (formerly the BIS) had oversight of the OFT who monitored the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme and yet saw nothing wrong with; a) its ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner or b) being a chartered surveyor. Or the BIOA /OA ignoring its own rules and giving membership to an organisation whose ombudsman was not independent from those he was investigating.

This is blatant manipulation of the rules.

Despite evidence to the contrary, Martin Lewis appears to believe that these two organisations are fit for purpose and competent to decide Gold Standards of Ombudsmanship. We strongly disagree.

When taking their complaints to The RICS appointed redress scheme - Ombudsman Services:Property - 80% of property complainants will have amassed an awful lot of evidence/data to support their cases against the RICS regulated surveyors they'd employed and who had not only failed them but also failed to resolve the dispute before escalating it to their ombudsman. 

These aren't just any surveyors they are RICS surveyors with the, "cachet" of being at the pinnacle of integrity and professionalism. Or so they say

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when according to Martin Lewis, 80% of property complainants believe your Ombudsman's decisions are not, "fair" does this not suggest that data/evidence has been manipulated on an industrial scale - otherwise, surely, things would be different?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, when according to Martin Lewis, 80% of property complainants believe your Property Ombudsman's decisions are not, "fair" does this not suggest that what you describe as, "your best efforts" simply aren't good enough?

Martin Lewis raises these exact issues on page 15 of his Report where he talks about, "independence" and, "impartiality."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when your Ombudsman, who also happens to be a chartered surveyor is unfair 80% of the time is this demonstrating a gold standard in both, "independence" and "impartiality?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, isn't the evidence used in investigations of property complaints being manipulated on a colossal scale?

On the same page, Martin Lewis goes on to talk about, "being transparent" and, crucially, "providing an annual report." His conclusions from his examination of Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Reports didn't appear in his Report to Parliament. This is somewhat disappointing and an unfortunate omission. .

DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report for Ombudsman Services in 2010-2011 stated,

"Many (around two thirds) felt the report was completely or on balance, against them, in line with previous years. This did not change even after further representations were made." (DJS Research: Customer satisfaction Report 2010-11)

That is a 66% dissatisfaction rate.

In 2011-12 DJS Research were replaced and BMG produced their first report. It was very different and marked a seismic change with the past. They were able to report,

"Both the quantitative and verbatim comments showed largely positive findings, with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Service. Results were consistent by sector."  

That is nothing short of miraculous.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, within the space of a year property complainants had gone from a dissatisfaction rate of 66% with the Property Ombudsman's decisions to, "strong levels of satisfaction" - results being consistent by sector - how do you account for this miraculous turnaround?"

Martin Lewis makes no comment on this but by 2017, he is able to tell us that 80% of property complainants are saying the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's decisions are, "unfair." That's a remarkable increase on what was reported in 2010-11.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, what's going on?

At the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign we believe the consumer has a right to know why none of this was in Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform and just what exactly is going on at The RICS, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. 

Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Regform. (5) Data Manipulation. (708)

Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection Leader of the House of Commons / Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy / Chair of Ombudsman Servoces / CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 708.

708. Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (5) Data Manipulation.

Dear Yvonne Fovargue, Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith.

MoneySavingsExpert's call for Government to reform the ombudsman complaints system is based on; data it collected and interpreted (comparative analysis), a review of various reports, information from ombudsmen's websites, background discussions, on the record fact-checking with organisations mentioned and an online survey. It believes the present arrangements are, "farcical."

The failure of the regulators to get it right in the first place was not addressed by MSE.

A RICS-like self-regulatory arms-length approach to regulation by those companies formed after the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service has led to an almost inevitable scandal - the apparent manipulation of data on an industrial scale. 

The Guardian report Louise Haigh Lab as saying,

"As the time scale of this scandal becomes apparent, the Tories' decision to to abolish the Forensic Science Service is beginning to look like a catastrophic error of judgement. The lack of statutory powers to enforce standards in forensics has given providers the green light to cut corners."

("Police review 10.000 cases in forensics data 'manipulation' inquiry. Hannah Devlin and Vikram Dodd. The Guardian, 21st November 2017)

One of the problems with gathering information from ombudsmen's websites, conducting background discussions with ombudsmen and on the record fact-checking with ombudsmen is: bias - ombudsmen aren't going to tell you what they don't want you to know.

On page 58 of the MoneySavingsExpert Report - Ombudsmen Seem Biased (Towards The Other Party) the Report reveals that 60% of the consumers they surveyed believed just that - Ombudsmen have a bias towards the people making the complaint ie consumers.

Martin Lewis does not appear to ask the most obvious question: if, "farcical" ombudsmen are indeed biased towards their member firms and companies aren't they thus guilty of manipulating data in order to favour those firms and companies? Firms and companies whose fees often pay for the so-called service.

This isn't, "farcical" so much as a criminal conspiracy.

Q. Mr Clark, that's a lot of ombudsmen being biased towards a lot consumers - why are ombudsmen so biased towards those bringing the complaint and not those responsible for the complaint in the first place - why haven't the regulators intervened to correct this staggering injustice being meted out to consumers on a daily basis?

The RICS have a Memorandum of Understanding with their, "appointed" company, are in regular contact with their Ombudsman (who just happens to be a member of RICS) in order to monitor what it (The RICS)  determines to be the, "effective resolution of disputes."

This is the most glaringly obvious intrusion into the supposed independence of ombudsmen - yet nothing has been done about it.

On page 60 of the MSE Report: "How Would You Describe The Ombudsman Decision" we see that;

a) Ombudsman Services:Property - over 80% said it was, "unfair."

b) The Property Ombudsman - 60% said it was, "unfair."

Marin Lewis simply leaves the figures on the page to speak for themselves. But they are scandalous and surely consumers have aright to expect an explanation for them?

 

Martin Lewis has reviewed the reports published by ombudsmen and so will have seen Ombudsman Services 2016 Annual Report - Customer Satisfaction (page 16). Here it is claimed, "overall satisfaction with our handling of cases is also positive among 62% of

    customers, broadly comparable with similar ombudsman services."

     

This is a staggering anomaly.

 

Martin Lewis says over 80% of Ombudsman Services: Property complainants believe its ombudsman is, "unfair." The company on the other hand claims 62% of its customers are satisfied. Both can't be right.

 

   This has been "fact-checked." We believe Martin Lewis' figures  are a more   

   accurate representation of what is actually going on.

    

    Q. Mr Clark, why is there such a discrepancy between Martin Lewis'

    figures and those of Ombudsman Services?

  

    Q. Mr |Clark, shouldn't this be the subject of an immediate inquiry?

    

 Q.  Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministers at Ombudsman Services - and the BIS had oversight of the scheme's monitoring - how has a situation whereby over 80% of property complainants say the ombudsman's decisions are unfair been allowed to go unchallenged by your Department and The RICS for so long?

Although Martin Lewis states that over 80% of Ombudsman Services:Property complainants believe the Property Ombudsman's decisions are unfair there is absolutely no mention of this on the company's website or in its Annual Report.

 

We believe that data on the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's performance has been systematically and very deliberately removed from public scrutiny. It is no longer gathered. Just look for yourselves.

   Q. Mr Clark, is this not blatant data manipulation? 

Ombudsman Service's Annual Property Report is now down to just 2 pages - this not only breaches the criteria for approval set by the OFT but EU ADR Legislation.

Nowhere in the Annual Property Report do the company executives ask consumers whether they thought the handling of their case by the Property Ombudsman was, "fair."

Martin Lewis says he reviewed various reports and looked at information from ombudsmen websites. If that is indeed the case why did he not comment upon the following:* 2009/10 Annual Property Report - 8 pages which included a breakdown of the financial awards made by the Property Ombudsman (as required by the OFT criteria) a summary of DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report and the fact that the average financial award was £1.511.75p.

* 2016 Annual Property Report - 2 pages which did not include a breakdown of the Property Ombudsman's financial awards  - in contravention of the OFT criteria for approval of this ADR scheme - no summary of the Customer Satisfaction Report but information that the financial award now stood at £50.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why have you removed DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports from you website?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why have you removed data on your Property Ombudsman's handling of complaints from the company's website?

Q. The Rev Smith, is this not data manipulation?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, how does this comply with the OFT criteria for approval of this ADR scheme to be a) transparent and b) accountable?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, how does this comply with the EU Directive 2013 on ADR to also be: a) transparent and b) accountable?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why have you removed the OFT criterion for there to be a published and explained range of financial awards for consumers to view?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why have financial awards fallen from an average of £1.511.75p in 2009/10 to just 50 quid in 2016?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why are property complainants no longer asked if they thought the Property Ombudsman arrived at decisions in a logical manner?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, you Independent Assessor reported instances of maladministration isn't this another example of the manipulation of data?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when an ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner are they not guilty of data manipulation?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why are property complainants no longer asked if they thought the Property Ombudsman handled their complaint fairly?

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why are property complainants no longer asked if they were satisfied / dissatisfied with their "customer journey?"

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, isn't all the above not an example of data manipulation and isn't your Ombudsman Services:Property scheme the Randox of the redress world?

According Martin Lewis' data we should be re-naming our campaign. It should now be known as - the Ombudsmans80percent Campaign.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does Martin Lewis' data not explain why complainants (you don't say how many) are so very dissatisfied with what you describe as being your, "best efforts?"

The regulator RICS has closely monitored the above and clearly believes that arriving at decisions illogically and unfairly and then handing a gobsmacked  property complainant an occasional 50 quid "financial award" is, "an effective resolution of a dispute." Government monitors of this government approved scheme would appear to agree - otherwise why haven't they intervened to protect the consumer from such practices?

We disagree with Ombudsman Services when they say they are, fair" and "independent.".

We believe this isn't so much a redress scheme as a protection racket for inadequately regulated surveyors who've been given a green-light by RICS to do very much as they please - safe in the knowledge they'll either get away with it or be handed an occasional less-than-hefty 50 quid fine.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, isn't The RICS political influencing and engagement work in promoting "self-regulation" an utter disaster for the consumer and shouldn't the cachet of their Royal Charter now, rightly, be consigned to history?

 

Although The Property Ombudsman (TPO) is far less of a disaster at mishandling property complaints than Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P), Martin Lewis provides no comments to this effect from those complainants so rightly outraged at Ombudsman Services:Property's "farcical" - "criminal?" - obudsmanry.

He appears to give Ombudsman Services an easy ride. No difficult questions seem to have been asked. He too has a business to run.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, given that The RICS cannot award compensation, cannot enforce its Rules or Regulations when its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms regularly and with impunity breach them, surely it is not a competent authority to a) regulate its Members and (Un)Regualted Firms or b) approve the Ombudsman Services:Property ADR scheme?

 

The status quo would seem to be one where regulators and The Ombudsman Association and The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are happy see ombudsmen come down on the side of business to the detriment of consumers. The Ombudsman Association no longer has as a requirement for membership the need for schemes to have a Whistleblowing Policy. 

It would seem ombudsmen have a lot they wish to hide from "confused" consumers.

Secrecy is the order of the day in the brave new world of ombudsmanry. 

This is not an acceptable standard of transparency and accountability in a pre-Brexit soon to have our much vaunted sovereignty back, democracy.

The consumer landscape closely resembles a wasteland in which ombudsmen make and break the rules as and when they please with the knowledge and support of Government.

Otherwise things would be very different for the consumer. But they aren't. 

80% of Ombudsman Services: Property complainants can't all be wrong.

We believe Martin Lewis' "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform" raises far more questions than it answers.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www,facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is seeking:

- answers from The Rev Shand Smith, Gillian Fleming, Dame Janet Finch, Steven Gould, Mark Prisk, Jo Swinson, Grant Shapps, the government monitors of this OFT approved scheme, Jonathan May, Walter Merricks, The Independent Assessor, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Sajid Javid and Dame Julie Mellor.

- a public inquiry into The RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before undergoing rebranding)

- compensation for the victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and the executive's maladministration.of consumers' complaints.

- the setting up of a truly, "free" and "independent" redress scheme free of RICS' malign influence.

Ombudsman Services - (4) Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. "Cachet." (707)

To the Leader of the House of Commons.

For Clarity - Attempt 707.

707. Ombudsman Services - (4) Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. "Cachet."

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

Cachet: "a flat capsule enclosing a dose of unpleasant tasting medicine."

(www.oxforddictionairies.com)

On page 3 of Martin Lewis' Report for The All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer protection he states,

"These issues are not academic - they effect real consumers with real disputes. When ombudsmen fail, consumers lose: substantial reform is urgently needed."

(Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform page 3)

This conclusion was arrived at after qualitative and quantitative analysis of 1409 respondents to a survey conducted Money Savings Expert and speaking with various interested stakeholders.

We disagree with the idea that the issues are not, "academic."

Without a clear and informed understanding of the systemic failings of regulation, ombudsmen, civil justice and the Alternative Dispute Resolution they dispense, how can those urgent reforms be meaningfully structured and implemented so that consumers no longer lose out in such staggeringly high numbers?

Each statistic is a person attempting to cope with the bitter pill they've been administered by a farcical ombudsman system.

This is why we believe a public inquiry into The RICS, its regulatory failings and its, "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property's maladministration and colossal failings is a critically important place to begin such a re-evaluation of this state within a state.

The Questionable Cachet of The RICS Advocacy of, "Self-Regulation."

The RICS say,

"We are one of a number of professions operating under a self-regulation model, which means our members aren't regulated by government but are internally monitored and inspected. Our self established standards of regulation meet, and in some cases surpass, the Government's own principles of better regulation."(www.rics.org>Home>About>Who we are and what we do)

The RICS also say,

"These Rules provide a strong foundation for RICS and for the firms it regulates, helping to protect the public and uphold the reputation of the profession."

RICS are saying that their Rules (rules with a capital "R") are the strong foundation that  protects the public and upholds the reputation of the profession. And yet;

"we cannot award compensation or force Members or Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules and Regulations."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how on earth do RICS Rules protect the public when RICS cannot enforce them and cannot force its Members and (Un)Regulated to do anything or refrain doing anything?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, if that is the Gold Standard of self-regulation and surpasses Government's attempts at better regulation does this not mean the public is virtually defenceless against non-transparent and unaccountable government departments and private businesses?

The RICS - now almost beyond logic or reason - claim,

"Consumer Protection and the development of the profession are very much our core."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how on earth are consumers protected by an organisation with a Royal Charter that as a matter of principle will not enforce its Rules and Regulations on the grounds that it is too costly?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, surely one area that is in need of urgent professional development at this organisation is for it to fulfil its duties as a regulator and begin enforcing its Rules and Regulations?

The RICS claim that its non-existent consumer protection and promotion of self-regulation,

"are the are the reasons we have retained our Royal Charter status for well over a century. We are very proud of this position and recognise the responsibility placed upon us. This is why we are consistently working to ensure we set standards for professional regulation, not just in the UK but around the world."

The RICS have retained their Royal Charter for over 100 years for not enforcing its Rules or Regulations.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, how is not enforcing its Rules and Regulation protecting the public and shouldn't the RICS now have its Royal Charter removed?

An analysis of this extraordinary approach to "regulation" is missing from the MSE Report.

In, "Applying Regulation" The RICS add insult to injury. They tell consumers.

"Introducing legislation to regulate a sector of industry which is already applying modern practices, regulating at arms length and operating in a business-like manner, would be costly, time-consuming and unnecessary.

Legislation should only be applied if a self-regulation system is not working - if it is not transparent, proportional. accountable, consistent and targeted. These are the fine principles of better regulation determined by the Better Regulation Commission, a division of the UK Cabinet Office on which we base our regulatory model. 

Effective and efficient regulation of the sector is vital to the profession's success. While the government regularly reviews the approval it bestows on professional self regulations, we aim to continuously demonstrate that we maintain a regulatory regime that is leading at the front and fit for purpose."

This regime has resulted in:

- RICS Members and (Un)Regulated Firms sending their dissatisfied clients to two ombudsman schemes in record numbers.

- A Get Out Of Jail Free Card for RICS surveyors who have absolutely no incentive to settle their disputes with clients. Their OS:Property ombudsman will do the job for them.

- "Proportionate" financial-awards falling from £1.511.75p in 2011/12 to 50 quid today.

- A RICS inadequately regulated market in which its Members and (Un)Regulated have unsurprisingly developed practices that do not work in their customers' interests.

- A Property Ombudsman who hands complainants decisions that are not arrived at in a logical manner.

- The maladministration of consumers' complaints at Ombudsman Services.

- The appointment of a RICS Member as Ombudsman even though the company's Terms of Reference preclude such an arrangement.

- The end of Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services:Property so consumers are no longer consulted on their "customer journey."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, do you believe that this example of, "leading from the front" and, "fitness for purpose" is a Gold Standard of self-regulatory professionalism and that it should be rolled out across the world?

We believe these issues are indeed - in part - academic.

In, The Ombudsman Enterprise And Administrative Justice the authors cite Philip Giddings et al saying they had developed a framework for;

"Comparing the role of ombudsman systems and the courts in the UK. They introduce six criteria for evaluating the effectiveness for complaint handling procedures aimed at both identifying defective administration and securing appropriate remedial action. These include; visibility, independence, accessibility, jurisdiction, powers of investigation, competence and authority. In applying these evaluation criteria they have drawn from the literature, reports from parliamentary debates and annual reports from the PCA and other ombudsmen."

Set against these criteria Ombudsman Services:Property is clearly failing the consumer.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, why was nothing done to protect the consumer from the failings of this government approved and monitored scheme?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, this private redress scheme has ceased gathering property data and so cannot be held accountable because there is no longer anything to be held accountable for. Why did the government monitors not intervene to protect the public?

The authors continue;

"There are at least 3 important reasons for conducting an ombudsman evaluation. First for reasons of democracy and accountability, ombudsman offices, as public agencies, must be accountable to the legislative bodies which appoint them, and to the public at large." 

Ombudsman Services is not a public agency and appears to be accountable to no-one apart from regulators. One - The RICS - does not enforce its Rules and Regulations and yet closely monitors Ombudsman Services:Property for the effectiveness of its dispute resolution. Today £50 "awards" are seen as being appropriate but £1.511.75 in 2011/12 was not.

A discussion surrounding the politics of self-regulation, arms length regulation, rule and regulatory avoidance, illogical investigations of consumer complaints, derisory so-called financial awards that defy basic economic principles, avoidance of meaningful customer satisfaction reports and the maladministration of consumer complaints was missing from the MSE Report.

If these issues are not even to be the subject of debate how will the ombudsman farce be meaningfully addressed and how will consumers be better protected in the future?

   The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign Recommendation 3:
   The RICS immediately lose its cachet of having a Royal Charter.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent. 

Ombudsman Services - (3) Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. Farcical Regulation Leads To Farcical ADR. (706)

To the Leader of the House of Commons / Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 706

706. Ombudsman Services - (3) Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need for Ombudsman Reform. Farcical Regulation Leads To Farcical ADR.

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

One thing ombudsmen cannot be accused of is shyness as they've enterprisingly colonised the consumer landscape in what they euphemistically like to call, "civil justice."

Ombudsmen tell us they have, "superb business models"  are "fully independent" and are somehow miraculously, "Good For Business" and, "Good For Consumers" both at the same time.

Martin Lewis' Report for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform - has burst that bubble for once and for all. It's now official - ombudsmen schemes are a, "farce" with a vast majority of consumers hugely dissatisfied with their respective, "customer journeys."

("MSE tells MPs of need for urgent reform to ombudsman, "farce." Callum Mason www.moneysaving expert.com)

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, when we attempted to point this out to you in our complaint why did you not respond to it?

Q. Mr Clark, we've attempted 706 times (+ 500 Attempts at Being More Specific) to point this out to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (now rebranded as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy). Why did no-one respond to our complaint that the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman arrived at decisions in an illogical manner?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform now explain why so many  consumers are so dissatisfied with what you call your, "best efforts?"

Q. Mrs Leadsom, just as Money Savings Expert says ombudsmen are a farce aren't The RICS' woefully inept attempts at regulation not also a farce?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that certain ombudsmen - like certain regulators eg The RICS with its cachet of having a Royal Charter - were never on the Gold Standard in the first place.

According to Martin Lewis, the majority of consumers have discovered, all too late, that the well-trumpeted, "cachet" of ombudsmen schemes is in reality, "a flat capsule enclosing a dose of unpleasant-tasting medicine."

(www.oxforddictionaries.com)

His first recommendation that all ombudsmen need a statutory basis as a foundation and that,

"Ombudsmen should have statutory powers to ensure that firms are co-operative with processes and compliant with decisions that have real legal teeth" (page 5) is one thing but;

a) what about the mediocre (or worse) performance of those ombudsmen who already have such power?

and

b) who will, "ombuds" the ombudsmen and regulate the regulators - surely not The Ombudsman Association and what have the Privy Council been doing regarding The RICS failure to enforce its own Rules and Regulations?

(please our first recommendation in the previous blog)

Only the Financial Ombudsman Services ombudsman emerges with any credit. The rest of the ombudsman landscape is described by Money Savings Expert as being a, "farce."

In, The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice, Trevor Buck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson say,

"There have always been some who have not accepted the notion that a body, largely without enforcement powers, can effectively promote justice"

and,

"The entire ombudsman enterprise is a distraction from where real reform should be introduced in the administrative justice system - the courts and law."

(page 5)

 

In these private alternative courts, Ombudsmen have become both judge and jury.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, how is turning a blind eye to an ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner, reducing average so-called, "financial awards" from £1.511.75p in 2011/12 to 50 quid today, ignoring your Terms of Reference, maladministrating consumers' complaints and replacing DJS Research with an organisation who no longer ask property complainants if they were satisfied or not with their customer journey - promoting justice?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, if this, "farce" is not promoting, "justice" what is it promoting?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, hasn't the Ombudsman Enterprise boldly colonised British justice and become a, "state within the state?"

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign Recommendation 2: There is an urgent need for a public inquiry into The RICS farcical approach to regulation and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property's farcical approach to ADR.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.