Sharper Teeth: The Cnsumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (9) And The Consumer Need For A Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And Department For Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy At All Costs. (713)

 

713. Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (9)  And The Consumer Need For A New Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And Department For Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy At All Costs.

Ombudsmen do not like their illogical decisions to be challenged. They don not answer consumers' questions about those illogical decisions. Neither do their professional body - The Ombudsman Association. And nor does The Department For Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the former OFT. They are not transparent and appear to be becoming increasingly unaccountable. 

Trevor Buck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson tell us,

"Not only can ombudsmen fail due to error or incompetency but an ombudsman can also fail through timidity"

And,

"These are accountability institutions that are not accountable."

(The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice)

We would add, "and through the manipulation of data and rigging of redress."

Scheming Ombudsmen are fast becoming a private state within the state.

We asked the Secretary of The Ombudsman Association,

Q101 Hasn't the market in so-called dispute resolution at OS:Property become totally rigged in favour of RICS surveyors whose professional organisation - The RICS - set it up in the first place?

Q102 The RICS appointed Ombudsman Services:Property to resolve disputes that arose from its failure to enforce its Rules and Regulations. What role did it have in determining the Terms of Reference?

Q103 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association agree that whoever determined the company's Terms of Reference, the stipulation that financial awards must not be, "punitive" appears to be extremely beneficial to RICS Members and Regulated Firms?

Q104 At what point does compensation become punitive and thus a penalty?

Q105 Is it not extremely beneficial for RICS Members and Regulated Firms that there appear to be no criteria whatsoever - apart from not being punitive - as to how these financial awards are arrived at?

In the 2011 Annual Review under, 'Outcomes' the Property Ombudsman reports,

'In reviewing the last year, even though the average financial award is significantly less, the range of awards has not changed.'

Q106 Are the financial awards significantly less because the Chief Executive  intervened and let it be known that here had been, 'some concern over the recent rise in levels of awards?'

Q107 Of what possible comfort can it be to complainants to be told the range of awards had not changed after they'd been reduced, significantly?

Q108 Why is there no transparency regarding the way in which financial awards are determined?

The OFT Criterion 10 says: 'There must be a range of awards which take into account the level and type of detriment - the level and applicability of awards must be publicised.'

Q109 Ombudsman Services:Property appear to have maintained a range of awards but reduced the amount within them. Does The Ombudsman Association not agree that the company has failed to act on DJS Research's recommendation that awards be raised to be more in line with the loss incurred or complainants' expectations be managed more tightly at the beginning of the process? Why doesn't the table of awards for 2011 show that no-one received anything like £25.000?

(this requirement for a range of awards to be annually published ended with DJS Research losing the contract to produce Customer Satisfaction Reports)

Q110 Is it not a matter of significant concern for the consumer that it is the Property Ombudsman - who we are told often arrives at decisions in an illogical manner - who is tasked with determining the level of financial awards handed to complainants especially after hearing the Chief Executive express "some concern" over the recent rise in levels? 

We sought an explanation from the company's executives for the following statements made by the Property Ombudsman,

'You reiterate your question of the 16th July: Did you consider (The RICS Member's) unannounced visit to our home to gather photographic evidence (that was in the event deliberately misleading) to be professional and worthy of inclusion in helping you arrive at your Final Decision? In considering a complaint I will not reach a judgement on professional conduct which is a matter for the relevant body.' (letter dated 11th August 210)

And,

' I would reiterate that the question of whether (The RICS regulated Firm) has acted in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct required is a matter for the professional body concerned, which in this case would be The RICS.' (letter dated 24th August 2010)

Surely, this incorrect and misleading.

The company's Terms of Reference state quite clearly in 10: Powers and Duties of the Ombudsman that it her duty,

'To report to The RICS Regulatory Board any cases which involve serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by RICS Member Firms.'

How will The RICS know their Member Firms have breached the Rules of Conduct if their Ombudsman doesn't tell them?

We asked the company's executives,

'Either the Ombudsman does not know her duties as an Ombudsman and therefore shouldn't be an Ombudsman or knows her duties as an Ombudsman and is deliberately misleading a member of the public. In which case she shouldn't be an Ombudsman.'

Neither the Chair of Ombudsman Services nor the CEO and Chief Ombudsman  have to date answered our complaint about the Property Ombudsman's interpretation of the company's Terms of Reference. No doubt you will be asking the CEO to account for this as it raises very serious issues of governance at Ombudsman Services.

The OFT Criterion 6 states,

'Complainants must also be kept informed of what their alternative or additional actions could be at each stage of the procedure.'

Q111 DJS Research shows widespread complainant dissatisfaction with the efficiency and speed of the process so why aren't complainants expectations being properly met?

Q112 There is only one stage and when the Provisional Conclusion Report is issued the consumer's choices seem somewhat limited and would appear to be: take it or leave it. Why aren't complainants being kept informed about these additional actions? Actions such as: resurveys, site visits, face-to-face meetings and/or oral hearings?

According to 2010 Annual Report:Property,

There were 465 contacts and of the 260 cases, "resolved" by the Property Ombudsman, 106 received nothing, 73 received less than £200 one lucky soul got almost £13.000 but the jackpot of £25K was carried over to the next year.

The Property Ombudsman - in one year - reduced these awards from £1.511.75p to £900. A staggering drop.

This is indeed adding real value to their Members business practices. And the contrast with the way in which The Property Ombudsman report on awards could not be starker.

This was not deemed worth mentioning in the Martin Lewis Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform.

Q113 Why don't the statistics also clearly tell us that the majority of, "successful" claimants received less than £200?

Q114 Isn't £200 far less than the cost of the average survey?

Q115 What happens when The RICS Member and Regulated Firm view the financial award as a, "penalty?"

Q116 What is the mechanism which permits unnamed individuals to express some concern over the levels of awards to the Chairman?

Q117 Is The RICS Members and Regulated Firms' concern over the levels of award expressed by their representatives who sit on the Board or does it come from those RICS officers who operate the Memorandum of Understanding and who monitor their appointed company for the effective resolution of disputes?

The RICS efficiency in monitoring the effective resolution of property disputes is in sharp contrast to their inability to adequately regulate their Members and Regulated Firms.

The suggestion that the Property Ombudsman is, we believe, "entirely independent" is "entirely farcical."

Q118 Wouldn't a truly, "fair" and "independent" dispute resolution service have Terms of Reference which stated that financial awards would be made on the merits of each and every individual case?

A truly independent dispute resolution service would have no arbitrary upper limit designed primarily to protect inadequately regulated RICS Members and inadequately Regulated Firms from "punitive" and "disproportionate" financial awards along with their substandard surveys and practices that do not work in their customer's interests.

The Annual Report continues,

"We must ensure that the Members know that we are spending their money wisely and have a well-run service which adds real quality to their own business practices."

Q119 Does making the average level of financial awards significantly less help in adding that real quality to RICS fee-paying Members' business practices?

Business practices that The OFT state, "do not work in the customer's interests." The OFT  being overseen at that time by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (now rebranded as the BEIS)

Q120 Why is there no mention of the consumer in all of this? Why the constant pro-business bias to the quite obvious detriment of consumers?

After all, Chief Executives' salaries go up as average financial awards go down - significantly.

Q121 Surely, as stakeholders, the, "workstock"  have a have a right to a well-run efficient service - one that adds, "real quality" to the lives they would wish to lead if only they hadn't been blighted by inadequately regulated RICS surveyors and a Property Ombudsman with a compulsion to, "arrive at decisions in an illogical manner?"

Q122 And shouldn't the resources needed to carry out, "fair" and "independent" investigations of a complainant's case always be made available?

According to DJS Research this is NOT what happens at Ombudsman Services:Property.

Their 2010-11 and final Customer Satisfaction Report has this to say about the issues,

"In keeping with the trend throughout this complainant sector, sector satisfaction levels dropped across all the attributes we measured."

And,

"There remains a key issue with regards to complainants' perceptions of what recompense to expect. This should be looked at"

Q123 Why were DJS Research's independent recommendations not listened to?

Q124 Why did the Board chose instead to listen to expressions of concern about the rise in awards and cut them significantly?

Q125 How does that satisfy the Terms of Reference Integrity requirement for ensuring; straightforward dealing and completeness, based on honesty and objectivity and ensuring high standards of propriety in the conduct of the scheme's affairs and complaint decision making?

Q126 Hasn't DJS Research, over a period of three years, provided the Ombudsman Services Board with important information - data - concerning significant levels customer dissatisfaction and isn't it the case that this information hasn't been acted upon to improve the quality of investigations of consumers' complaints?

Otherwise things would be different.

To recap:

An unnamed individual (or individuals) express, "some concern" over the levels of award to the Chief Executive and the "independent" Ombudsman suddenly decides to lower them, "significantly."

Complainants, through DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports, express a great deal of concern about the abysmally low levels of financial award and the Ombudsman still reduces them significantly.

Power does not lie with the complainant.

The 2011 Ombudsman Services Annual Report at one point states,

"The board dropped the phrase member companies - used to describe businesses that have signed to our four schemes - as it  could be interpreted that these companies, which fund the organisation, had some influence over our decisions. As this is not the case they are now referred to as participating companies."

Q127 If it is not the case that Member companies, "had some influence over our decisions" why is the CEO recorded as saying that, "there had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards?" If that is not direct interference in the supposed independence of the Property Ombudsman, what is?

The evidence for this total lack of independence is there in black and white in the company's very own minutes - only they've now be removed from public scrutiny.

Q128 Why is the Chief Executive only voicing the concerns of one group of stakeholders?

Q129 Isn't The Ombudsman Association concerned about this bias?

Q130 How does this satisfy The Ombudsman  Association's governance requirements?

Q131 Why are the Ombudsman Services' Minutes no longer available for public scrutiny?

Q132. How does this satisfy The OFT Criterion 8 that - "The scheme's operation and its procedures must be transparent?

The Chair did not answer any of our questions but passed them to the CEO and Chief Ombudsman. He also chose not to answer our questions about the Property Ombudsman but chose instead to pass them back to the Property Ombudsman. She chose not to answer our questions or our complaint about her either.

This is how Ombudsman Services handle complaints about the way in which their Property Ombudsman handles complaints - complaints which often end  an illogical manner.

There is a certain logic to it.

An example how those at Ombudsman Services avoid answering complaints is provided by the CEO and Chief Ombudsman letter dated 19th May 2011. It states,

"Your email was received. However, the vast majority of its content was the same as other emails to this service to which there have been many responses.

Your email of 26 March extends to ten pages with 100 questions and, again, a lot of the matter is not new. I have therefore confined myself to key matters. The Property Ombudsman explained to you our governance arrangements. You question again the independence of the service.

You quote from various sources references to "workstock" and "processes" suggesting that this shows a lack of care for the individual. You also contend that pressure of complaints had a similar effect. The service has to balance speed and quality alongside consideration of each case.

It is therefore appropriate for the Board to consider such matters of business and to monitor trends.

As you rightly point out, the Ombudsman has to decide each case on its merits.... the other main issues are ones for the Lead Ombudsman and I have therefore passed your email for her consideration.

I am concerned that you have been writing to this service consistently since the Final Decision ... I must ask you not to continue contacting the service to bring our attention, yet again, to your complaint." 

You will notice that none of the 100 questions has actually been answered by the CEO and Chief Ombudsman but instead has become a huge inconvenience for the service, and for him, to have them brought to their and his, attention, yet again.

None of the questions concerning the Property Ombudsman's relationship with the company's Terms of Reference have been answered, yet again.

If they had been answered when we first asked them, then the CEO and Chief Ombudsman wouldn't have had to go through the inconvenience of not answering them, yet again.

It is extraordinarily similar to the way in which our RICS surveyor handled our complaint too. They could have attended the same conference. Been coached by the same coach.

This would have been an excellent opportunity for the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of the company we're complaining about - and member of your Board at The Ombudsman Association - to put his hand on his heart, or Bible, and explain to us, and the 61%, what exactly is the relationship between the Property Ombudsman and her company's Terms of Reference.

To suggest that  is "Accountability" is to borrow a term from MoneysavingExpert,farcical. 

When I asked to speak with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman he was unavailable to come to the phone. This was a similar story with our RICS surveyor. He never put anything in writing either.

Q133 What does that say about the integrity of the office holder?

Q134 What does that say about, "fairness?"

Q135 What does that say about the this company's requirement to be publically accountable?

The OFT Criterion 16 says: "There must be procedures in place to consider and resolve complaints by consumers or member businesses about the service provided."

It would appear that the procedures for handling consumers' questions of complaint about this service is for the CEO and Chief Ombudsman to simply avoid answering them.

Nowhere in the company's literature that we received does it inform the complainant that they have a right to complain about the Ombudsman or the service.

Q136 At the time of our complaint to the Property Ombudsman the company's literature did not mention the existence of the Independent Assessor, Why not?

Q137 How does that meet The OFT Criterion 8 requirement that the scheme must also, "ensure that complainants are provided with clear, comprehensive and accurate information on the procedures, possible outcomes, avenues for appeal or review of the decision, and whether the outcome is binding."

Q138 How does it meet The Ombudsman Association requirement for Openness and Transparency?

Q139 How does the deliberate avoidance by any of the senior executives  of Ombudsman Services to answer questions satisfy the requirement to be fair in all the circumstances?

Q140 Why do The Ombudsman Association think so many complainants make, "further representations" after receiving an illogical Final Decision from the Property Ombudsman?

DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report - 6.23 Further Representation:

- 64% of cases went to the further representation process

- 61% felt the investigator had not understood the nature of their complaint

- 47% felt there were errors in the report

- 91% felt this did not change the conclusion.

After the complainant has been unsuccessful with the further representation process their case will be handed to the Independent Assessor.

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the then Independent Assessor's contribution to an analysis of the company's performance was this'

"I also explain that, while easy to assert bias where a decision has gone against someone it is necessary to demonstrate factually how bias might be present. No one has done so." (Annual Report 2010)

Q144 Do you not find it remarkable that although in one year, 61% of 428 complainants felt the investigator had not understood the nature of their complaint and a majority had complained that the Property Ombudsman's decisions were not arrived at in a logical manner, the Independent Assessor was unable to find one example of bias?

We believe this to be biased. It ignores the data.

The company's literature assures the potential complainant,

"For example, we want to hear from you if you think, in handling the case, we have;

- treated you rudely or unfairly

- failed to keep you updated on progress

- caused unnecessary delays

We take complaints like this about our service very seriously"

Q145 Why doesn't the list include: not understood the nature of the complaint or handed you an illogical Final Decision?

Q146 Why is information about the Independent Assessor and the Independent Assessor' role withheld from the complainants in the literature they send to complainants?

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman spoke of, "monitoring trends."

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman's Ombudsman Services Annual Report 2011 seems to have totally ignored the data supplied by DJS Research. Instead the latter's highly damning statistical data is presented in the following way,

"We do not take sides, but level the playing field between consumers and companies. Our investigations are fair, our decisions are based on the evidence and our requirements for redress are binding on the participating companies."

Q147 How can investigations be seen as, "fair" by Ombudsman Services when 61% of complainants thought the investigator had not understood the nature of the complaint?

Q148 How can this company in all honesty claim that their decisions are, "based on the evidence" when 47% of complainants, "felt there were errors in the report" and the investigator, "Had not understood the nature of the complaint?"

Q149 Which version on the same evidence does The Ombudsman Association believe to be more credible - the company's or the complainants?

The Chair, in the Foreword to the 2010-11 Annual Report told consumers,

"But are we delivering the excellent service to which we aspire? Asserting our commitment to excellence is not the same as delivering this is practice. This year the board has supported the CO in taking a close and honest look at what we are actually achieving. We were doing pretty well in many respects but we were not completely satisfied."

Q150 Isn't the answer to the question, "are we delivering the excellent service to which we aspire?" not provided conclusively by DJS Research? Which in 2009, 2010 and 2011 was emphatically - NO?

Q151 Doesn't the statement, "asserting our commitment to excellence is not the same as delivering this in practice," suggest that when all the hype and spin is removed what you're left with is a company who arrive at decisions, "in an illogical manner?" Isn't the Chair's questioning of performance not also implying that the look they had been taking previously had been neither, "close" nor "honest?"

Q152 In the 2010 Annual Report, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman described Ombudsman Services as being, "a superb business model" but by 2011 the Chair was of the opinion that, "we were doing pretty well in many respects but we were not completely satisfied." The CEO had to be supported by the Board to take an honest look at the shambles. Isn't the truth of the matter that DJS Research provide a far closer and more honest account of what complainants were experiencing?

The reward for DJS Research being so good at their job was for them to lose the contract. Like in Stalin's Russia, their Customer Satisfaction Reports have been airbrushed from history.

We're unclear as to how the CEO and Chief Executive of Ombudsman Services expects to, "monitor trends" when the evidence for those trends has been ditched.

Q153 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association not agree with the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign that, "doing pretty well" simply isn't good enough for the consumers who turn to this dispute resolutions service (ADR) after having often made, "expensive purchasing decisions?"

Q154 If the company isn't delivering the excellent service to which it aspires, what is it delivering?

Q155 Does it not concern The Ombudsman Association and The OFT that the Chair of Ombudsman Services' analysis of the company's performance should differ so markedly from that of the CEO and Chief Ombudsman?

Q156 If the company, according to the Chair, is only doing, "pretty well" in 2011 what was it doing in 2009 when The OFT state in Criterion 2: The SOS (now OS:Property) "satisfactory information about its staff and funding plans tsoi has indicated that this should allow it to effectively and expeditiously resolve complaints?"

The company has admitted above that not only did they not have sufficient staff but the staff they did have weren't able to understand the complexity of property complaints. They did not effectively and expeditiously resolve property complaints.

(They appear to have deliberately and very successfully hidden the evidence/manipulated the data - otherwise surely things would be very different.)

Q157 How does that satisfy The Ombudsman Association's governance requirements for continued membership?

Q158 How does it satisfy The OFT's Criteria?

Q159 Do you not think the reason why RICS surveyors were so eager to send their clients to what is in effect their own company, was because they knew beforehand that the investigation process would be conducted by staff who didn't have sufficient skills to handle complex property case and should a case not go in their favour they merely had to express some concern that the level of award was too high and get it reduced, significantly? Do you not think the word might have got around the surveying fraternity - quickly - that their Property Ombudsman's decisions were often illogical and that the level of financial awards was dropping rapidly?

Finally,

Q160 Why hasn't Ombudsman Services:Property not got a Whistleblowing Policy when membership to you organisation requires one?

We asked the MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Oliver Colvile to ask questions on our behalf about the Property Ombudsman and the company's Terms of Reference.

We were told by the company that we were the ones who had misunderstood them.

We believe that this company's handling of our complaint along with so many others - the 61% - should now be the subject of an independent inquiry. We look forward to your response to the questions we are seeking to raise about the Ombudsman Services membership of The Ombudsman Association.

                                     Yours sincerely,

                Steve G.  The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

The Secretary of The Ombudsman Association's (formerly The British and Irish Ombudsman Association) reply was that he was in the process of reconfirming the membership of all the schemes and that he couldn't help us further.

We thanked the Secretary of The Ombudsman Association for his response saying it was as we had expected.

POST 2011:

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman:

Oliver Colvile referred our complaint to The Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman who asked for more information which we duly submitted. Our complaint was dismissed on the grounds that our complaint was about a RICS surveyor and not an estate agent and so could not be progressed. Should we disclose any details of the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman's ruling we will be prosecuted.

I asked the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman what would that entail and was told to ask my solicitor. I tried to explain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman that we couldn't afford one thanks to the Property Ombudsman's decision in our case.

Conclusion.

1. An Ombudsmen investigating another Ombudsmen is rather like policemen investigating policemen and regulators regulating redress schemes - a modern-day version of the closed shop.

2.Ombudsman Services:Property Post DJS Research.

The CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services spoke of the Board's need to, "monitor trends."  (please see between Q132 and Q133 above). We wonder how this is now done at this private redress scheme.

3. BMG replaced DJS Research. We have said earlier how this appeared to miraculously transform the consumer landscape within just one dramatic year.

It went from DJS Research reporting, "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 Property Annual Report 2010-11)

To:

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

When something's too good to be true it usually isn't it usually too good to be true?

DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports have been removed from the company's website. The questions that were once asked and which prompted such shocking answers have gone. The methodology now used to gather data in order to monitor trends is to phone complainants at home. This has apparently unearthed an incredible new trend - one of, "strong levels of satisfaction." Whilst also having the good fortune of doing away with a paper trail.

We believe that what evidence there is has been manipulated.

Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform says on page 8 that they; "took information from ombudsmen's websites." However, he doesn't say from which ombudsmen's websites they took their information. The MSE Report does not comment on Ombudsman Services post-DJS Research or offer an explanation for the remarkable turnaround reported by this company in 2012.

In Chapter 4 - The Ombudsman Association - the MSE Report tells us:

"Three areas in which ombudsman schemes are recognised as providing 'more' include around: advice and signposting; recommendations for improvement; and provision of data for use by enforcement and regulatory agencies."

Martin Lewis has read the reports.

What evidence post-DJS Research were Ombudsman Services:Property providing the enforcement and regulatory agencies and how did this satisfy The Ombudsman Association's idea of, "more?"

The main reason consumers take RICS surveyors to Ombudsman Services:Property is - "homebuyer surveys and valuations." It has, year on year remained the main reason why consumers complain about RICS surveyors.

The Property Ombudsman, whose salary is paid by RICS members fees, has clearly had very little success recommending they improve the quality of their homebuyers surveys and valuations.

 

Martin Lewis' Report doesn't mention this or how it might explain why 80%+ of property complainants found the Property Ombudsman's decision, "unfair."

And yet in the whole of his Report there is one stand-out statistic which is to be found on page 60. Here it is reported that when asked: How Would You Describe The Ombudsman's Decision - over 80% answered, "unfair" for Ombudsman Services:Property. The corresponding figure for The Property Ombudsman was 60%.

This is a staggering difference.

And yet there is no comment from Martin Lewis and no attempt at an explanation. It was simply left to stand there ignored and alone. Like the victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical final decisions.

The MSE Report lists ADR schemes' requirements to have expertise, independence and impartiality including employing managers with enough experience to be competent. They need to produce an annual report and share best practice. (p15)

Once again the 80%+ statistic was ignored. MSE didn't offer an explanation of what best practice the Property Ombudsman might be sharing with fellow ombudsmen.  

There is no attempt at a comparative analysis either - why is The Property Ombudsman a much better option for the consumer? Or why is the average financial award at TPO in 2016 is £531 whereas at Ombudsman Services:Property it is only £50?

That is a staggering difference and yet again not commented on by Moneysaving Expert.

The MSE Report does not include an explanation for why the TPO's Annual Report is 24 pages long and goes back to 2001 whilst Ombudsman Services:Property's is down to 2 pages and why the 2008-9 Report has been removed from the company's website.

Martin Lewis says he conducted, "background discussions and on the record fact-checking with organisations mentioned in this report." (page 8) One wonders what direction the discussion took over the 80%+ Ombudsman Services:Property statistic or how the background discussion with the TPO Chair of Disciplinary Standards who was also the Property Ombudsman at the time of DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports, went.

There is no list of who MSE checked facts with or their explanations for those facts. Nor is there a list of those ombudsmen with whom MSE had background discussions with.

MSE appear to have lifted the carpet but not looked under it. We believe the MoneySavingExpert Report is a whitewash.

The Ombudsman Association once required all participating ombudsman schemes to have a Whistleblowing Policy. That requirement has since been abandoned. Not one worker in any of the mushrooming ombudsman schemes has the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act. This is thanks entirely to a handful of unelected individuals sitting on the Board of The Ombudsman Association.

This is also not mentioned in the MSE Report.

The 1998 Act is very clear. It states,

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority or regardless of frontiers."

(www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/1/chapter/9)

But not workers at ombudsman schemes in Britain and Ireland. This right was removed pre-Brexit.

In "The Ombudsman Enterprise And Administrative Justice" the authors state,

"Others have argued powerfully that whatever the exact make-up of the ombudsman, their most important objective should be the promotion of Human Rights" (Ayeni 2000 and Houssain 2000)

And yet at The Ombudsman Association we have witnessed ombudsmen doing the exact opposite. Is there a link between Ombudsman Services never having a Whistleblowing Policy and 80%+ of its property complainants saying they'd been treated, "unfairly?"

All of the above has been permitted to take place pre-Brexit.

On our previous blog - BlogForever - we received the following:

 ***** *****(visitor) 201306-22@15:39

"Hi

I used to work for 'OS.' The truth is worse than you imagine. For starters 90% of the, 'ombudsman's final decisions' are never actually seen by the ombudsman whose name is on the letter. They're not seen by the ombudsman at all. They are written by the VERY SAME 'investigating officer' who wrote the original report.

The investigating officer just cuts and pastes the ombudsman's signature to the letter and sends it out Only 105 of the final decisions are, 'checked' by the ombudsman for, 'quality purposes.2

This is new process Ombudsman Services has introduced.

Up until maybe 2011 the ombudsman reviewed all final decisions. This was very time consuming hence massive delays. The regulators - RICS for surveyors, Ofcom for communications, Ofgen for energy basically told OS it had to buck its ideas up.

It had a new director of communications. Her idea was basically get the investigators writing final decisions and sending them out unchecked.

The executive team at O Services are all slapping each others' backs as a result of the scheme! The have cut the backlog entirely (unsurprisingly!) plus the investigating officer's salary is about a 3rd of an ombudsman so they are making a tidy saving as well!

Before I left they even had a celebrating meeting to brag about how ell they'd done in cutting down the backlog and how the executives had all done an amazing job and RICS/Ofcom/Ofgem were really happy ...doubt they know the truth."

Isn't that manipulating data and isn't it Good For Business?

Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform has made recommendations to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection. One such recommendation is:

Recommendation 2: Oversight of ombudsmen must be boosted

- Relevant government departments, The Ombudsman Association and Companies House should work to make sure that the performance of ombudsmen is consistently higher.

- There should be a form of. "fit and proper" approved-persons tests for people in senior roles in ombudsmen. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could approve such persons.

Why didn't The Ombudsman Association work to make sure that the performance of its one-time Chair's scheme - Ombudsman Services:Property - became consistently higher instead of lower?

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (previously the BIS) had oversight of The OFT who not only approved the SOS (now Ombudsman Services:Property) redress scheme but monitored it. From our Freedom of Information Act request we discovered the BEIS has, "a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services."

We took our complaint to The OFT and were told,

"I have investigated this matter and understand that Ombudsman Services:Property have confirmed that the new company will aske the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new questions about the OSP website.

Should we have any concerns about the surveys conducted by the new company, however, we will raise these directly with OSP."

This is simply not the case.

You can verify this for yourself by simply going to the Ombudsman Services website. We would ask you to hurry as the information is vanishing quickly.

And

"The OFT may withdraw approval of a redress scheme. This gives the OFT a power, rather than a duty, to withdraw the scheme leaving us the option to take other action to remedy problems should we feel this to be appropriate."

Although no reports were produced for two years after DJS Research were replaced and the ones that are now produced are virtually meaningless - they don't even produce a list of the range of financial awards they make - an OFT requirement for approval - and consumer dissatisfaction now stands at 80%+,  Government did not remove its approval of this scheme.

Clearly, Ombudsman Services have taken no actions to remedy problems otherwise 80%+ of consumers wouldn't now be complaining that they found the Property Ombudsman's decisions, "unfair."

To suggest as Martin Lewis does, that these two organisations should be put in charge of determining the performance of ombudsmen and who is and isn't a fit and proper approved-person would, we believe, be a disaster for consumers.

Why haven't those organisations been doing just exactly that from the day the Executive Director of The OFT approved the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme, when he said it would ensure consumers fairness, speed and independence?

The OFT did not answer our questions either. They said it would not be an appropriate use of resources - apparently we asked too many questions.

Martin Lewis seems to have accepted that, "competent authorities" are actually competent. But surely its their lack of competency - or worse - that is reason we're where we are today. To suggest, as MSE does, that those who have been asleep on the job - or worse - should be left with the responsibility of determining a gold standard for ombudsman almost beggars belief.

Manipulation of data has resulted in the arrest of two employees working at Randox Testing Services Manchester Laboratory and a review of 10.000 cases.

Hasn't what happened - and continues of happen on a daily basis - at Ombudsman Services:Property not also been the manipulation of data? And manipulation that is also on an industrial scale? What data have The OFT been monitoring all these years? Where are the same questions that are supposedly being asked by BMG? Why are property complainants no longer being asked if they thought the Property Ombudsman arrived at decisions in a logical manner? How can the two Property Ombudsman employed by Ombudsman Services (since its approval in 2008) have so consistently looked at the evidence and found in favour of their fee-paying members? Why were so many property complainants forced into the further representation process? Why did RICS the regulator regard an illogical Final Decision and/or a £50 financial award as, "effective" when property complainants were saying otherwise?

These are just some of the issues that didn't make it into Martin Lewis' Report.

The present Chair of Ombudsman Services a person endowed with unimpeachable integrity chose to criticise consumers in his first foreword for Ombudsman Services. He complained that,

"For some consumers our best efforts will never be enough - their expectations of our service and the power we have to resolve an issue are too great. It is not our role to punish companies."

(Ombudsman Services 2016 Annual Report)

With property complainants now expressing an 80%+ dissatisfaction rate and the Property Ombudsman handing out an occasional £50 financial award there's clearly no danger of the Chair punishing his chums is there?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has nothing but admiration for those who stood up for their rights and told the Chair of this private ombudsman scheme that his best efforts were simply not good enough.

Our three recommendations would be:

- That there's a public inquiry into The RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS until undergoing rebranding) and The RICS role in running it and determining the effective resolution of disputes

- Compensation for the victims of the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and the executives' maladministration

- The setting up of a truly fair and independent redress scheme free from RICS influence..

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

712. Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (9) The Consumer Need For A New Gold Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And The Department For Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy At All Costs.

712. Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (9) The Consumer Need For A New Gold Standard That Avoids The Ombudsman Association And The Department For Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy At All Costs .

Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign.
We believe that MoneySavingExpert's report for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform fails to address the key issues that serve to undermine consumer protection and as a result its recommendations will only worsen an already dire situation.

The Ombudsman Association's website said all correspondence should be addressed to The Secretary.

So we sent the following complaint to The Ombudsman Association:

Dear Secretary,

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign wishes to bring to your attention our concerns about Ombudsman Services:Property. Ombudsman Services:Property is a member of your Ombudsman Association.

We would appreciate the Ombudsman Association's views on this company as we believe it fails to meet the requirements your organisation stipulates for membership as set out in Governance - Principles of Good Governance: Independence, Openness and transparency, Accountability, Integrity and Clarity of Purpose.

Because these categories seem to overlap we've put our questions to the Ombudsman Association with that in mind.

Your are no doubt aware that Ombudsman Services:Property (or the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (SOS) as it was formerly known), was set up by The RICS to, "investigate" complaints brought by consumers against its Members or Regulated Firms.

The RICS have at least two of their Members that we are aware of, sitting on the Board and yet the literature this company sends to consumers and potential complainants maintains that it is, "entirely independent."

Since the 1st October 2008 The OFT gave its approval to Ombudsman Services Ltd to run a redress scheme for estate agents but not surveyors. It set out 16 criteria for the operation of the scheme run by an, "independent" ombudsman. The same ombudsman adjudicates in complaints brought by consumers against surveyors. In the interests of natural justice one would expect the ombudsman to apply the same criteria to both estate agents and surveyors.

Q1. Why do you think the OFT approved a scheme for estate agents but not surveyors, is it because the company running it was set by The RICS, the surveyors professional body?

Q2 Does that mean that the ombudsman could possibly view complaints brought by consumers against estate agents differently than those brought by consumers against estate agents?

Q3. If the ombudsman did apply different criteria to the two categories of complaint wouldn't that go against the principles of natural justice?

Q4 How can it be correct for the company to claim it is entirely independent when at least two representatives of the organisation that set up this company - The RICS - sit on its board?

Q5 Wouldn't it have been more accurate to have told the consumer that apart from The RICS representatives, they were entirely independent?

Q6 Is this not misleading?

Q7 Aren't potential complainants being led into believing this company is entirely independent when the truth of the matter is it isn't?

Q8 As far as the consumer is concerned, how can this arrangement be, "good governance?

Q9 Is this not a form of mis-selling?

Q10 Isn't Ombudsman Services:Property being less than completely honest fro the start as far as the consumer is concerned  and how does the Ombudsman Association view this somewhat misleading statement made by its member company?

In the booklet we received from the SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services:Property) - "Resolving complaints fairly" - it tells the enquirer: 'If you'd like to know who is on the Council please visit our website or ring us.'

And,

'If you'd like to know who is on the Member Board, please visit our website or ring us.'

Q11 When we checked on the 25/11/2012 that information was not there. Why is the company booklet saying one thing but their website something else?

Q12 How does that satisfy the Ombudsman Association's Governance requirements of a member's scheme to show: Accountability, Integrity, Openness and Transparency, Effectiveness and Clarity of purpose?

Q13 Why are RICS representatives on the Board of this less than independent company?

Q14 What is their role?

Q15 Doesn't the Ombudsman Association believe along with us, that the consumer has a right to know?

Q16 What does the Ombudsman Association understand, "independence" to mean?

If the Property Ombudsman is indeed wearing the same hat when, "investigating" both categories of complaint - those brought against estate agents and those brought against RICS surveyors - the OFT's Criterion 1 must apply equally to both groups too. The OFT Criterion 1: The Ombudsman must be independent.

Ombudsman Services:Property's booklet - "Resolving complaints fairly" under, "Member Board" tells the consumer: 'The Member Board has an independent chairman, an equal number of RICS members and an independent people and an independent representative from the council. If you would like to know who is on the Member Board, please visit our website or contact us.'

When we checked the company's website this information was not there.

Q17 Why is what is in the company's booklet not on its website?

Q18  Why has the OFT stipulation that at least one member of the reporting body should be from an organisation representing consumers, not been complied with and if the company have complied with it how will the consumer because the information isn't on the website?

Q19 Why is the person from an organisation representing consumers not named in the company's literature and on its website along with the name of the organisation they represent?

Since the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign first complained to Ombudsman Services the names of Board members are no longer available on the company's website.

Q20 Why does the Ombudsman Association think they were removed?

Q21 Isn't this misleading consumers by saying one thing and doing something different?

Q22 Why aren't an equal number of former complainants as there RICS members sitting n the Board?

Q23 Wouldn't that help to ensure; independence, accountability, integrity, openness and transparency, efficiency and clarity of purpose?

Q24 Or are the present arrangements yet another form of what David Cameron describes as, "cosy capitalism?"

Q25. Haven't RICS surveyors - through The RICS - organised what is in effect their company, one that will not look too forensically into their questionable practices and poor standards of service?

Consumer Focus would seem to agree with the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign when it comes to The RICS. They say, 'Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that do not work in the customer interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origin in The RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms.'

Q26 What does the Ombudsman Association believe this says about the company's professed independence when its parent organisation The RICS is apparently unable to regulate the very Members or Regulated Firms whose fees pay for the Property Ombudsman's salary?

Q27 Does the Ombudsman Association believe, as we do, that RICS Members and regulated Firms are aware of their organisations, "apparent inability to adequately regulate" them and treat their unsuspecting clients accordingly (clients who complain to Ombudsman Services:Property in unprecedented numbers) safe in the knowledge that they won't be held to account by The RICS?

Q28. Is Ombudsman Services:Property not also a part of that, "entire market" and therefore a company also, "not working in the customer's interest?"

On their website under, "Matters RICS cannot investigate" The RICS state, '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 or Regulations.'

So, apparently unable or unwilling to investigate their Members or Regulated Firms, The RICS set up a company and appointed an Ombudsman who also struggles to properly investigate the very people who pay for the, "service." How convenient for RICS Members and Regulated Firms and how inconvenient for the consumer.

Q29 Doesn't the consumer have aright to know about these important facts before they turn to The RICS' not "entirely independent" alternative dispute resolution service?

Q30 Isn't it the case that consumers are being prevented from knowing the answers to these questions by the company's actions - actions such as removing the names of The RICS representatives from its website?

Q31 What other possible reasons could there be for removing the names of the Board members?

Q32 Is it not the case that if consumers were given this information many would more than likely not turn to this company but go elsewhere to seek justice - one that is entirely independent of The RICS and its surveyors and the Rules and Regulations they apparently can't enforce?

The Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's decisions are, according to DJS Research, often, "arrived at in an illogical manner." (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report 2010-11)

The Ombudsman's often illogical decisions go overwhelmingly in favour of RICS Members and Regulated Firms.

This is strange at it is complainants who brought the complaint - one could be forgiven for thinking it was the other way around - that RICS surveyors had complained about their clients.

Q33 Is it not deeply concerning to the Ombudsman Association that the, "investigation" of a complainant's case should end in a Final Decision that is not, "arrived at in a logical manner?"

Q34. How does the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services account for his Lead Ombudsman's often illogical decisions? Is this not unjust?

Q35 Where is the integrity in promising a complainant a fair and independent investigation of their case, then arriving at an illogical Final Decision and then tell that individual they are now, "free to follow other routes to try to sort out the problems in a way that suits you better?" (letter from the Lead Ombudsman dated 17th March 2010)

Q36 Isn't it down to the Ombudsman to tried to ne more logical and to have sorted the problems - better?

Q37. Along with us, wouldn't that have suited hundreds of other complainants better too?

The company makes no effort to understand the impact of its Ombudsman's often illogical decisions on the lives of complainants. No-one from this ombudsman service apparently takes the time or the trouble to check and see if its former complainants actually did find a solution and whether it suited them better.

The consumer is promised Harrods  but finds they've been sent by their RICS surveyor to a discount dispute resolution service - one that seems to be stacking them high and selling them cheap

Q 38 How does that satisfy the Ombudsman Association's governance requirements?

Q39 How does it satisfy the OFT's Criterion 5: That the Ombudsman must proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice?

Q40 How does it satisfy the OFT Criterion 5 requirement that the Ombudsman is expected to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair in all the circumstances?

The company's very own research states that the Property Ombudsman does not make reasoned decisions and therefore cannot meet The OFT's requirement to be fair in all the circumstances.

The Ombudsman Association say, 'As the number of such schemes increases questions of governance assume particular importance.'

Q41 Does The Ombudsman Association not agree with us that the Property Ombudsman's failure to arrive at decisions in a logical manner, raises serious questions about the governance at Ombudsman Services:Property?

Your Association's guide to good governance sets out the criterion that a scheme, 'must fulfil if it is to become a full voting member of BIOA. Theses requirements underpin the key criteria of independence from those being investigated, effectiveness, fairness and public accountability.'

Clearly, the SOS (now rebranded as Ombudsman Services:Property) must have successfully met these criteria because the company's CEO and Chief Ombudsman sits on the executive board of your organisation.

On your website you say that, 'If a scheme is to be credible, all stakeholders must have confidence in it and the independence and effectiveness of the Office holder in the role of investigating and resolving consumer or public service complaints.'

Accordingly, when a majority of stakeholders - or complainants - express dissatisfaction with the way their case was, "investigated" and how their complaint was or wasn't, "resolved:"
Q42 Doesn't this render the scheme no longer credible in your terms and doesn't that make this company's claims to the contrary, incredible?
Q43 How is The Ombudsman Association able to permit the continued membership of this company when so many consumers express high levels of dissatisfaction with the Property Ombudsman's often illogical decisions?

Q44 Does it not set alarm bells ringing at The Ombudsman Association to hear that Ombudsman Services:Property not have an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in, "an illogical manner" but who manages a team who do not understand, "the complexities of property complaints?"

Q45 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association now think that, along with a host of other issues concerning this company, that this should be properly and independently investigated?

Q46 How can investigators not versed in the complexities of property complaints meaningfully investigate a complainants case?

Research carried out entirely independently for the company by DJS Research says they can't and don't

The OFT Criterion 2 states that, 'The scheme must be adequately staffed and funded in such a way that complaints can be effectively and expeditiously investigated and resolved to allow the Ombudsman to function impartially, efficiently and effectively.'

The Chief Ombudsman said in the minutes (June 2009) 'We have now developed a relationship with an outside contractor which helped us clear our stock of work.'

Q47 How is this company able to satisfy either The Ombudsman Association's or The OFT's requirements when they have to resort to an outside contractor to clear their, "stock of work."

Q48 Doesn't The Ombudsman Association agree with us that there is something fundamentally immoral about a dispute resolution service that views real people with real complaints as, ""workstock?"
Q49 Is it not offensive to think, let alone articulate, the idea that people and their problems should in some way be cleared out?

Q50 Does turning people into commodities - workstock with an accompanying number - ours is 510458 - make the process of clearing easier for those without the requisite skills to, "investigate" the complaints brought before them - in effect complainant cleansing?

The Ombudsman Association requirement for Effectiveness insists upon, 'Ensuring that the scheme delivers quality outcomes.'

Q51 Where are the quality outcomes for the majority of property complainants who receive illogical Final Decisions?

Q52 Does not imply that for every recipient of an illogical Final Decision there is a happy RICS Member or Regulated Firm?

Q53 Do you not think that it is wholly unacceptable for an ADR scheme to view the people who bring their real problems to it, as commodities to be cleansed as soon as possible?

Q54 What does The Ombudsman Association believe that says about ethos and integrity of the service ie the people running it?

Q55 What does The Ombudsman Association believe this says about the care and attention this company takes when, "investigating" complaints brought by its troublesome workstock?

The Minutes of the 82nd meeting of the Council of Ombudsman Services Ltd (5b) The backlog states, 'The Chairman opened the discussion by stressing the amount of outstanding work was now presenting a serious risk to the reputation of the organisation. It was acknowledged that the problems stemmed from flaws in the budget setting exercise reaction times and our internal processes which would need to be reviewed.'

In other words almost from the start, The SOS / OS:Property did not have sufficient numbers of skilled staff to investigate property complainants' cases fairly or independently or a management with the foresight to see hat RICS surveyors would be lining up their bewildered clients and sending them to their, "appointed" company and their, "appointed" Property Ombudsman.

In the Annual Review 2009-10 they admit t this short-sightedness. They say, "In March 2009, we could never have known that the very next month would mark a torrent of unresolved complaints which were heading our way."

Q56 Given this admission of short-sightedness how were The OFT able to justify the statement that, 'The SOS submitted satisfactory information about its staffing and funding plans....has indicated that this should allow it to effectively and expeditiously resolve complaints?' 

Q57 How does this meet The Ombudsman Association's requirement for Effectiveness?

Q58 How can a dispute resolution service (ADR  scheme) investigate complaints fairly when there are insufficient staff and that the staff they do employ don't fully understand the complexity of property complaints?

Q59 By their very own admission doesn't the management of Ombudsman Services:Property fail to meet both The Ombudsman Association's governance requirements and The OFT's criteria requirements as well?

Two years and hundreds of complaints later and the Property Ombudsman highlighted this as a continuing problem in the 2011 Annual Report, 'The complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge.'

This, we believe, is Ombudsmanspeak for being a company not coping with what was coming its way - the torrent of sub-standard RICS surveys and RICS surveyors apparently unable or unwilling to resolve their clients' complaints through their Complaints Handling Procedures but choosing instead to send them to their ombudsman. It's what they pay their fees for.

Q60 Do you not agree that the shambles described above goes a long way in explaining DJS Research's findings in their 2009 Customer Satisfaction Report(6,21) that, 'most felt the outcome was against them' and 7.16 that, 'the nature of the SOS (Ombudsman Services:Property) that problems may have led to significant financial loss for complainants?'

Q61 What do you think was the reason behind the management decision to remove the company's minutes from its website?

Q62 Doesn't the Ombudsman Association agree that their removal fails to meet your requirement for; openness, transparency and accountability?

Q63 Is it not an effective way of removing a damaging insight into what is actually going on at this company? A way of preventing public scrutiny? A cover-up of what actually goes on in the day to day management of complaints?

Q64 How does this meet The Ombudsman Association's requirement for, "good internal planning and review processes?"

Q65 Or, "keeping to commitments?" Commitments to be, "fair," "independent," "open and transparent" "accountable" and to have, "integrity" "clarity of purpose" and to be, "effective?"  

There appears to be interference with the Property Ombudsman's ability to act independently. An example coming from the company minutes (6.2) The Member Board Chairman will require a rational explaining why the costs are higher in 201-11 than in 2009-10

Q66 Gas prices, electricity prices, food prices petrol prices and executive salaries all go up so why does the Member Board Chairman expect this company to buck the trend?

Q67 Didn't more clients get referred to Ombudsman Services:Property by their RICS surveyors 465 in 2010-11 compared with 280 in 2009-10?

Q68 Is it not the case that should the Property Ombudsman agree to independent resurveys, face-to-face meetings and oral hearing it would prove costly and necessitate a serious hike in The RICS Members and regulated Firms fees?

The main priority at Ombudsman Services (according to the Annual Reports) is to add real value to their members business practices and that won't happen should expensive resurveys etc be insisted upon by what we're told is supposed to be an independent ombudsman.

Q69 Why aren't the statistics for the number of resurveys, face-to-face meetings and oral hearings actually authorised by the Property Ombudsman published in the statutory Annual Report?

Q70 Isn't the biggest failing of this dispute resolution service (ADR scheme)  its continuing inability to understand the complexity of property complaints and to investigate them fairly and independently?

We were not given the Firm's submissions by the Property Ombudsman.

When we received the Property Ombudsman's Provisional Conclusion report its inaccuracies and illogical conclusions led us to request further information through the Data Protection Act. The company's booklet, Resolving complaints fairly tells the consumer, 'You will probably already have seen all the information we use to make a decision, but we will refer to all the documents o which the decision will be based in the Provisional Conclusion,' 

The reality for the complainant is likely to be very different. Decisions, according to the evidence provided by DJS Research, seem to be based on what their fee-paying members tell them and this would explain why a majority of complainants were dissatisfied with their illogical nature.  There would appear to be two categories of evidence; Complainant evidence and RICS Member  evidence. Independent evidence suggests that the latter carries far more weight when it comes to the Property Ombudsman's habit of arriving at decisions in an illogical manner.

We discovered that on every major point in our case the surveyor was in complete disagreement. And on every major point the Property Ombudsman accepted The RICS Member's evidence - even going to the point of, "not seeking out the photographs" we'd submitted.

Under, "What if I provide you some information to you in confidence?" the company goes on to say, 'If you believe some information should be kept confidential between you and us, you should mark the information clearly and tell us why you think we should not pass it on to the other party. We will consider your request - but we may not agree to it.'

In other words, for the complainant there is likely to be no information that ever remains confidential - because the Property Ombudsman will in all probability decide to pass them on to her fee-paying Member after deciding not to agree to it.

Q71 Is this not in contravention to of The OFT Criterion 9 which states, "There must be free exchange of information of information between all parties relating to a complaint?"

"Resolving complaints fairly" also states, "We will also usually send any significant documents on which the Provisional Conclusion refers to you, or the firm if you don't already have them. If there is any document you haven't seen, you can request a copy." 

But usually they don't.

Q72 What happens when a RICS Member requests their Property Ombudsman to information confidential and she agrees? Under this system how is a complainant ever going to be in a position to request information and documents they haven't seen?

Complainants haven't seen them and if The RICS Member requests they remain confidential, surely the complainant will never know they exist?

For example, the Property Ombudsman about The RICS Member's messages to her office.

Q73 Hasn't this company created the perfect Catch 22 situation regarding information? How can you request what you don't  know exists?

The OFT Criterion 9 continues, "The procedures must allow all parties concerned to present their viewpoint"

Q74 Under the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme how can a complainant ever fairly present their viewpoint  when they are kept by this company's practices from having access to all the available information?

Q75 Does this not explain why so many property complainants are forced to make, "further representations" after the Provisional Conclusion Report is issued?

Q76 Isn't the complainant's right to information set out in the company's Terms of Reference under (7) Provision of Information where it states 'Information passed to the Ombudsman will be will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure?'

The RICS Member sent the following information to his Property Ombudsman, 

"None of the works recommended in the survey have been carried out by the purchaser.

16-19 "to replace the leaking parapet gutter (which he finally did this year)

"with hindsight I should have responded in writing to him after each visit."

"Having started the complaints procedure at his request we have since refused to visit the property."

"Further to the above I drove by yesterday and noted the concrete tiles have been replaced."

"He has suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case."

Conspiracy - what conspiracy?

Q77 The company's Terms of Reference state, "Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party." Why  wasn't the above information disclosed to us by the Property Ombudsman?

Q78 As this information wasn't disclosed to us why didn't the Property Ombudsman set out the circumstances for, "justifying non-disclosure" as demanded by the company's by the company's Terms of Reference?

Q79 Why did we have to resort to a Data Protection Act request to access this information when it is the Ombudsman's duty to disclose information or provide reasons for not doing so?

Q80 Does this not happen to countless other complainants and does it help to explain why so many attempt to make further representations - 91% of which end in failure?

Q81 How does it satisfy the Ombudsman Association's governance requirements for this company's continued membership when its Property Ombudsman appears to ignore the company's Terms of Reference?

Along with the majority of other property complainants we thought the Property Ombudsman's Final Decision was not arrived at in a logical manner and asked for an oral hearing.

Nowhere in the company's booklet, Resolving complaints fairly does it tell the complainant that they have a right to request an oral hearing. This information along with a lot of other information including resurveys and face-to-face meetings is kept from the consumer. 

Q82 Why is the complainant not properly informed of their right to an oral hearing? Doesn't The OFT's Criterion 8 say that the scheme must also, "Ensure that complainants are provided with clear, comprehensible and accurate information on the procedures, possible outcomes, avenues for appeal or review of the decision, and whether the outcome is binding?"

The OFT Criterion 9 states, 'The SOS (now rebranded Ombudsman Services: Property) has produced FAQs and an information sheet (available on its website) to explain that an hearing may be requested, and what it will take into account when considering such a request.'

When we looked at this website (25/112012) we were unable to find this information. The information wasn't sent to us when we first complained either,

Our request met with the following response from the Property Ombudsman, 'The provision for an oral hearing is in relation to the determination of a complaint. If I had thought there were exceptional circumstances which made that or a site visit necessary, or had I required further information, I would have asked at the time. Broadly, your emails provide further detailed analysis which include my responsibilities, where you consider your complaint has not been properly handled or considered and your views on the service generally. There seems to be little I can usefully add to my earlier letters of which there are several. As I am not prepared to maintain an indefinite an continuous dialogue, as and when, you wish to raise or reiterate a point, I will only acknowledge future correspondence.' (Letter 7th September 2010)  

Q83 Wouldn't it have been useful if in the Property Ombudsman's several letters she had answered my our complaint about Terms of Reference 7 and her failure to disclose information or provide a reason for not doing so? She had several opportunities to answer our question but chose not to. Why?

Q84 Could The Ombudsman Association ask the Ombudsman Services CEO and Chief Ombudsman, who is also a member of your executive committee: is it or is it not the duty of the Ombudsman to disclose information to the other party or set out reasons for non-disclosure as demanded by the Terms of Reference? A simple yes or no is all that is required.
Q85 How does this satisfy The OFT Criterion 9 stipulation that, "In deciding whether there should be an hearing and if so, whether it should be public or private, the Property Ombudsman will have regard to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights?"

We believe that this company's actions have violated our Human Rights along with the Human Rights of the 61%

(According to MoneySavingsExperts' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform this figure now stands at a staggering 80% plus) MoneySavingExpert offer no explanation for that appalling statistic.

We don't expect the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services will oblige us with an answer any time soon because to date he hasn't answered any of questions. Perhaps a Parliamentary Committee will succeed where we have failed. Or that you, as the organisation responsible for monitoring your member schemes' compliance with the requirements for membership, will take firm and decisive action to protect consumers.

In the 2011 Ombudsman Services Annual Review the Chair stated, ' We have set new standards for ourselves and have put in place processes to monitor them. In just a few months we have achieved enormous progress.'

Q87 Doesn't that imply that what was in place before - the old standards the pre gold standards - were wholly inadequate?

Q88 Weren't the previous standards inadequate because DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports provided the data to show, as far as the consumer was concerned, that they were?

Q89 How does what existed before the era of new golden standards satisfy The Ombudsman Association's Principles of good governance requirement for, "Effectiveness" and "Clarity of purpose?"

The Ombudsman Services' CEO and Chief Ombudsman stated in the same report, 'This year we successfully managed a significant increase in property complaints.' Yet in the same report DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report seriously question this, "success." They report, 'When asked about the Provisional Conclusion Report, satisfaction levels were low. The majority were dissatisfied with the logic of its recommendations, accuracy of content, use of evidence and extent to which they were fair and reasonable. Two thirds were dissatisfied with the reports recommendations, with more than a half very dissatisfied.'

And,

'There was active dissatisfaction with the efficiency and speed of the process with around a half or more dissatisfied. The majority expected their cases to last for 2 months but most cases lasted 3 or 4 months: around one in four lasted seven months or longer.'

And,

'OS:Property is different to OS:Energy or OS:Communications in that the financial implications are often much larger as they relate to expensive purchasing decisions. There remains a key issue with complainants' perceptions of what recompense to expect. (ie the scale of financial award to expect from the complaint and what can actually be delivered) This should be looked at.'

Q90 Does The Ombudsman Association agree with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman's belief that when a majority of property complainants are dissatisfied with the, "service" his company provides, that this is a, "success?"

Q91 Doesn't the Chairman's expression of, "concern over the levels of recent awards" not go a long way to explain why there is so much complainant dissatisfaction? 

The OFT Criterion 5 states, 'The Ombudsman must proceed fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.'

Requirements to meet this criterion:

- The Ombudsman is required to make reasoned decisions in accordance with what is fair in all the circumstances.'

Q92 How has this requirement been met when year after year a majority of property complainants express deep dissatisfaction with the logic of the Property Ombudsman's recommendations? Hasn't the evidence for this lack of credibility been carefully amassed, year on year, by DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports and the Chair's demand for new standards?

Not only has the executive not acted on DJS Research's findings and taken decisive action to ensure that future, "investigations" would have been, "fair" and "effective" (otherwise wouldn't DJS Research's statistics been entirely different)

But,

Q93 Hasn't the Ombudsman Association also ignored these findings when sanctioning the continued membership of Ombudsman Services:Property?

Q94 Why hasn't The Ombudsman Association a process for terminating the membership of a company that is quite clearly unable to satisfy the requirements of, "A Guide to principles of good governance?'

Q95 Is membership of The Ombudsman Association, membership for life?

Q96 How can the consumer have any faith in The Ombudsman Association when it appears to have no process to expel members and accepts the continued membership of private companies such as Ombudsman Services:Property, when DJS Research showed that complainants' dissatisfaction rose year on year? (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Reports 2008-2011)

Q97 Do you not agree with us that The RICS Members and Regulated Firms are dispatching consumers to what is all intents and purposes their company and their ombudsman. One that simply isn't up to the job of resolving consumers' complaints, "fairly" and "independently?"

Under the heading, "Independence" on your website it states, 'Ensuring and demonstrating the freedom of the office holder from interference in decision making.' 

We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services questions regarding the independence or otherwise of the, "office holder" when that, "office holder" was reported in the company's minutes in the following way, '5.8 The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the apparent increases in the levels of recent awards.'

We asked the Chair of Ombudsman Services questions regarding the independence or otherwise of the Property Ombudsman,

- Surely, aren't awards made on the merits of the case?

- If awards aren't based on the merits of the case how are awards determined at Ombudsman Services:Propety?

- As Chair, why do you think there is, "some concern" over the recent levels of awards?

- Wouldn't the complainant have a greater reason for trusting the services' ability to deliver on its promise to be, "fair" and "independent" had the Chairman expressed concerns over the pitifully low levels of awards being handed to property complainants?

Ombudsman Services:Property Annual Report - Report and Accounts 2010 says, 'Likewise some complainants consider the redress awarded by the Ombudsman is insufficient because it does not provide incentive for the firm to improve its performance. In other words a complainant wants to see a company penalised when a financial award is made. It is quite clear however from the Terms of Reference that any financial award made by the ombudsman is intended to compensate the complainant and is not intended to be, and may not be, a penalty.'

Q 98 Can The Ombudsman Association tell us just where, exactly, is the incentive for RICS Members and Regulated Firms to improve their performance?

When their own professional body - The RICS - is apparently powerless to enforce its own Rules and Regulations, we doubt very much whether surveyors are going to spend too much time agonising over what their ombudsmen tells them.

Q99 It is not perfectly clear from DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports' recommendations and the company's response to them, that the consumer's concerns always come second to  those of their fee-paying Members?
Q100. Is this not another example of what Consumer Focus has all but described as a rigged market in redress?

The Ombudsman Association Secretary told us he was unable to help us with our complaint.

We told The Ombudsman Association Secretary we hadn't expected he would.(TO BE CONTINUED)

Conclusions so far:

1. The Ombudsman Association ignore consumer's complaints.

2. Just like The RICS with its unenforced Rules and Regulations, The Ombudsman Association also refuse to enforce their requirements for membership.

3. The OFT does not enforce its Criteria for approval of The Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme

4. The OFT in failing to enforce its Criteria seriously undermine consumer protection.

5. The Ombudsman Association in failing to enforce its membership requirements also seriously undermine consumer protection.

6. The Ombudsman Association's Board members have a conflict of interest which seriously undermines consumer protection.

7. MoneySavingExperts' Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform recommendation that The Ombudsman Association should determine a gold standard for ombudsman would be a disaster for consumer protection.

8. Pre-Brexit standards of consumer protection are "farcical."

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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