Thank you for taking the time this Valentine's Day to read about our
campaign for a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company
Ombudsman Services:Property.
To the Leader of the House of Commons and
To the Business Secretary.
Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. (5)
6. Ombudsman Services - "Disappointed."
Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,
It's interesting to read Roger Scruton, of all people, talking about narcissism and attention-seeking, combining it with a good measure of The National Interest and then fortunately fading from view in today's Telegraph.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how can it be in the national interest to have a once independent civil service infiltrated by countless RICS "politically influenced" and "engaged" civil servants?
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, as a government do you know just how many RICS people are working at Westminster and have they formed secretive lodges?
Perhaps they're that secretive they're yet to come to your attention.
The Tories will win over the electorate by showing they are prepared to put the national interest first
The Tories under Theresa May urgently need a philosophyCredit: Victoria Jones/ PA
The Brexit negotiations have made the national interest into the central topic of politics. At a time of narcissism and attention-seeking such as the world has never known, a brief spell of objective debate has been granted. And the public have been gripped by it. There are those foreigners trying to swindle us again! And there are those nationalist Brits trying to swindle the foreigners! Whatever else will emerge from the debates, one thing is certain. We will have learnt that the deep questions of politics, the questions on which all else depends, are not about the future, but about the past. They concern our national inheritance, the hopes and attachments that unite us and the place of our...
We're disappointed to report that at that point, he disappeared into the ether.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, surely one of the deepest questions of politics must be how Theresa May's government sees itself as merely a "customer" of organisations such as Carillion and the RICS?
In an earlier blog we did ask if you were simply office temps for the RICS - and other companies and corporations - with an eye on future lucrative employment with such groups should you successfully complete your internships, but we didn't get an answer. The Head of the Enquiries and Reporting Centre at the OFT in: Ref EPIC/ENQ/E138617 wrote, "I am sorry to send you what I know will be a disappointing response but I hope this clarifies our position in respect of the complaint you have made. However, if you are unhappy with the way we have dealt with this matter you can make a further complaint to General Counsel's Office (GCO) of the OFT at the above address or by email to generalcounsel@oft.gov.uk"
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark if the person sending this knew it would be "disappointing" then why did they send it - why not send a response that would have made us happy - one that actually answered our questions?
We were told that it would not be an appropriate use of time and resources to answer our questions about the OFT's monitoring of the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is this not a cover-up and if it isn't a cover-up then what exactly it? Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, if deep questions had been asked of Ombudsman Services:Property by its government monitors, do you not think that the complainant dissatisfaction rate would have dropped dramatically and be nowhere near its currant 80%+ rate? Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, when an OFT monitored Property Ombudsman arrives at decisions, "in an illogical manner" time after time after time, aren't they to use Roger Scruton's term, swindling the public and why aren't deep questions being asked for it and deep answers being given of it?
Mrs May's government does seem to have a philosophy. It appears to be - admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations.
If that's what Roger Scruton means by The National Interest then we clearly need a new National Interest one that's in the interests of all the nation.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.
Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public inquiry
into the RICS and its, "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property.
To the Leader of the House of Commons.
To the Business Secretary.
Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. Attempt 4.
5. Ombudsman Services' Close And Continuing Relationship With The BEIS.
Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,
From our Freedom of Information Act request we learnt that your department has a, "close and continuing relationship" with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services.
We asked your predecessors at the BEIS; Sir Vince Cable, Jo Swinson and Sajid Javid, that when its Property Ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner" and 61% and then 64% of property complainants thought the Ombudsman's decision went partly or totally against them, why they continued to sanction the scheme.
We didn't get a reply.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, was this because our correspondence had been intercepted by a, "politically influenced and engaged" civil servant or that the Ministers were totally indifferent to the plight of property complainants
Thanks to MoneySavingExperts' Report for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform at its discovery of an 80%+ property complainant dissatisfaction rate, we see that trend has gone from 61% in 2009/10 to 80%+ in 2017.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, when DJS Research Ltd were replaced in 2011, data on complainant dissatisfaction rates ceased being reported on. Was this to cover-up the fact that the Property Ombudsman's investigations of consumer complaints was farcical?
An 80%+ complainant rate is truly staggering. Its CEO and Chief Ombudsman, The Rev Shand Smith describes it as a, "broken solution."
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, as the government approved and apparently, "monitors" this scheme why hasn't it withdrawn that approval and why are you still letting complainants take their complex and costly complaints to it?
The only solution to this broken solution is surely a public inquiry into how RICS, the regulator, failed to police its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place and how it - and those government monitors - permitted an 80%+ property complainant dissatisfaction rate to develop unchecked.
Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public
inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman
Services:Property.
We sent the following email to those who have or had a responsibility
for running the OS:Property ADR scheme. There are no RICS contact
details.
To the Leader of the House of Commons. To the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. To the Business Secretary. To the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats and to the Chair of Ombudsman Services.
Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. (4)
Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid, Mr Clark, Sir Vince Cable, Jo Swinson and Lord Tim Clement Jones, Isn't is about time there was a public inquiry to investigate our claims that Ministers, "brushed off" ADR abuse allegations?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid, Mr Clark, Sir Vince Cable, Jo Swinson and Lord Tim Clement Jones, the Ombudsman Services website states under ADR entity reporting that: "As part of our ADR approval, under Schedule 5 of the regulations, we are required to produce annual activity reports which are available here:" Why is there NO entity report for Property and why is there no Annual Report?
Surely, what's good enough for Priti Patel is good enough for the 80%+ property complainants who thought Ombudsman Services:Property's "investigation" of their complaint was - unfair?
To the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government
and
To The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
Ombudsman Services - Pt. 4: The Full English Cover-Up. (3)
3) "If wrongdoing, abuse. fraud or criminal activity occur we need to know about it, immediately, in full." (spokesperson for DFID)
Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid and Mr Clark,
Most fair-minded individuals would fully concur with the above statement regarding the shocking activities of certain Oxfam aid workers - people did need to know about it, immediately, and in full.
We sincerely hope that this correspondence reaches you and is not, once again, intercepted by a, "politically influenced" and "engaged" RICS civil servant as would appear to be the case with our previous hundreds of attempts to contact you.
There is an alternative explanation which is that you have absolutely no wish to know about the RICS with its broken market in surveying or its company - OS:Property - with its broken ADR solution to that broken market, then, now or at anytime in the near future for that matter and definitely not in full.
That being so, it is clear that the same standards required of Oxfam by the FDID were not and are not being applied to Ombudsman Services:Property by the Department of BEIS or the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Otherwise, action to protect the consumer from this private redress scheme's, "broken solution" would have happened the moment DJS Research Ltd were producing their highly critical Customer Satisfaction Reports of this Property Ombudsman's "solutions.". Instead, the government monitors took no action - not even when CSRs for the Property Scheme mysteriously and inexplicably came to an abrupt end.
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, why don't exactly the same exacting standards that apply to Oxfam, apply to Ombudsman Services:Property and what its Chief Ombudsman and CEO, The Rev Shand Smith calls its, "broken solution to a broken market?"
The evidence shows that the company were responsible for the, "broken solution" that most certainly helped to further break the already broken market.
According to DJS Research the market was already shattered by 2013. As were a majority of complainants.
The Head Of ERC @ the OFT.gsi.gov.uk wrote to us: Our ref EPIC/ENQ/E/138617 8 February 2013:
"I should also stress that the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, which is the legal basis for the OFT overseeing estate agents redress schemes, states that - 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."
(----- ------ Head of the Enquiries and Reporting Centre)
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, when Gillian Fleming, the Property Ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner," when there was a consensus of opinion that the Ombudsman was not an impartial investigator of complaints and when so-called financial-awards were reduced from £1.511.75p to £50, why didn't the OFT withdraw its approval?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Javid and Mr Clark, when this company ceased to produce Property Customer Satisfaction Reports why did the OFT consider this to be, "appropriate" and therefore take no action to protect the consumer?
MoneySavingsExperts reveal a present-day consumer dissatisfaction rate of over 80%+ which the government clearly believes to be, "appropriate" otherwise it would have intervened to protect the consumer.
It seems there is no; wrongdoing, abuse, fraud or criminal activity at this private redress scheme - just a broken solution.
To the Leader of the House of Commons and to the Secretary of State For Housing, Communities and Local Government: Ombudsman Services Case 510458: Part 4 - The Full English Cover-Up (1)
2) Why Are Ombudsman Services' Solutions "Broken?" And Why Is The Market, "Broken?"
Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid,
Once again we're being told that the housing market is, "broken."
This tells us virtually nothing about who is breaking the market, why they're breaking the market and why they're able to get away with breaking the market.
The term, "broken" has no explanatory value. It is itself, "broken." It's time to look at the evidence and where the evidence is missing know why it's missing..
"Ombudsman quits property sector saying housing market is, "broken."
(Property Industry Eye. Feb 6, 2018 Rosalind Renshaw)
Ombudsman Services is to quit the property sector, saying it no longer wants to officiate arbitration services as “a broken solution to a broken market”.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, is it not now long overdue for The Rev Shand Smith to explain to the 80%+ property complainants why he offers them a broken solution to their problems?
The service has over 8,000 member businesses – not branches – in total, with the overwhelming number being 6,500 RICS firms.
Its withdrawal leaves just two organisations offering redress to the public who have complaints against sales and lettings agents.
And, we would add, RICS "regulated" surveyors.
But there may be more to the Ombudsman Services departure than meets the eye, with a power play to come – and EYE has asked about exactly that.
For example, it could leave the coast clearer for The Property Ombudsman to become the single housing ombudsman; or be seen as a pre-emptive strike, with the organisation saying it is ceasing what it is “currently doing”.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, what it is currently doing is leaving 80%+ of its property complainants - "dissatisfied." Why wasn't there a pre-emptive strike by the government monitors of this government approved scheme when DJS Research discovered that the, "dissatisfaction" rate was 61%?
Or it could be seen as move by the RICS to become either the single industry regulator, or single ombudsman, with Propertymark known to be pursuing the role of single regulator.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, your government has spoken of evidence-based policy. The existing evidence shows that;
a) The RICS refuse to enforce their own Rules and Regulations,
b)Have encouraged the development of practices that do not work in the customer's interest,
c) Have politically influenced and engaged civil servants
and
d) Closely monitor OS:Property for the, "effective resolution of disputes."
Is an 80%+ consumer dissatisfaction rate an, "effective resolution of a dispute" and should such an organisation be given a monopoly role as single regulator?
The model of one regulator and one Ombudsman covering both social and private sectors is the one the Government now says it wants and there is to be a consultation.
Last night, a spokesperson for Ombudsman Services confirmed our suspicions that the heavily RICS-backed Ombudsman Services expects to relaunch.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, why doesn't the RICS regulate it Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place then there would be no need for its, "appointed" company, OS:Property?
The spokesperson said: “Ombudsman Services will come back into the housing and property market as quickly as we can – once we feel that action is being taken to make the system for redress less confusing and more transparent.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr javid, this is ludicrous. This appalling organisation is blaming everyone else for its 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate. Where is the "transparency" they speak of when they've even failed to release an Annual Report for 2017?
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, why are Ombudsman Services leaving the ADR market to then come back into it as sole provider when they have a scandalous 80%+ consumer dissatisfaction rate?
“It’s an urgent priority that this sector is sorted out as it touches every adult in Britain, from home owners to social housing tenants, private renters and buyers.”
Q Mrs Leadsom and Mr javid, surely it is an even more urgent priority that the RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Property are sorted out and explain why they can't regulate their own members and why they believe that an 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate is, "effective?"
Headed by chief ombudsman Lewis Shand Smith, Ombudsman Services says it will start work as soon as possible with consumers, charities, property professionals and others to help develop a new model for redress in housing “to rebalance power in the sector”
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr javid, why has the Rev Shand Smith completely forgotten the conference organised by Chris Gill and Naomi Creutzfeldt which criticised ombudsman schemes such as his for their poor decisions and lack of transparency and accountability?
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, why did the Rev Shand Smith refuse to sit in the same room as the ombudsman watchers and debate the issues?
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, The Rev Shand Smith has said that his current model is, "superb" and yet gives an 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate as a solution to the redress it offers. Wouldn't power in the sector be re-balanced if both he and the RICS were removed from it?
In a statement, it says it will put its report around the creation of a single housing ombudsman to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government this spring.
Meanwhile, Ombudsman Services says it will begin a managed withdrawal from the schemes it runs for agents, surveyors and managing agents. It plans to exit altogether by August 6.
The organisation made clear its support for the plans Secretary of State Sajid Javid has outlined for an effective regulator supported by a single ombudsman across the whole housing sector.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, we sent hundreds of emails to you, Sajid Javid when you were Business Secretary asking why the RICS couldn't regulate its own Members and (Un)Regulated Firms but didn't get a reply. Is that because a politically influenced and engaged civil servant had intercepted our correspondence or that evidence based policy was too radical for you when you were the Business Secretary?
Ombudsman Services said it wants to understand from the public about the service they want, and to understand key ‘pain points’ for renters and buyers.
Q Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, surely the public want a fair, independent, accountable and transparent system of redress - something that doesn't exist at the present time at RICS run Ombudsman Services:Property?
Shand Smith said: “Redress in the housing sector is a really confusing picture for all involved. The patchwork of ADR [alternative dispute resolution] and ombudsman schemes is a mystery to consumers and therefore is incredibly difficult for them to navigate.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, none of the above explains why a dissatisfaction rate of 80%+ of property complainants is acceptable. Isn't the real mystery the one where The Rev Shand Smith and his organisation have been able to get away with it for so long?
“We are ceasing what we’re currently doing in the housing sector in a professional and planned way, because we believe it is not adding value.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, When The Rev Shand Smith occasionally
hands a property complainant a£50 so-called, "financial award" doesn't
add real value to his fee-paying Members' business practices and isn't
that what is sector is all about - providing its Members with a platinum
get-out-of-jail free card?
“Rather than continue to offer a broken solution to a broken market, we are stepping away to listen to what consumers actually want
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, DJS Research attempted to alert The Rev Shand Smith to the fact that his superb solution was broken but clearly he didn't listen. Why, because if he had listened to their recommendations then his solutions would have ceased being broken and The Rev Shand Smith would have no need to professionally leave the sectoras he puts it?
Like the bosses at Carillion, this would appear to be a man also in total denial - someone who avoids looking at the evidence and who terminated DJS Research's contract when the data they produced became too unpalatable for him..
“There are models in other sectors that work far better – for instance the single ombudsman model in financial services and the scheme we operate in energy which handles around 40,000 complaints every year.
“We fully support Sajid Javid regarding the need for a single ombudsman for housing – only then will the housing sector be able to restore trust and ensure that consumers get a much better standard of service.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, this is drivel why is The Rev Shand Smith
blaming the rest of the housing sector for his company's 80%+ complainant
dissatisfaction rate?
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javed, what trust can consumers have in a service that results in an 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate?
“Housing is one of the biggest issues we face as a nation, and a fair, balanced, redress system will make sure that it serves the whole of society. We want to work to develop a model that works for everyone.”
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, The Rev Shand Smith's superb model worked really well for his fee-paying members as 80%+ would testify - why isn't it working for complainants?
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, doesn't the power in The Rev Shand Smith's sector lie with RICS the regulator who doesn't regulate and with their Members who refuse to be regulated and doesn't it need to be rebalanced in favour of the complainant?
More details will be announced next month.
Ombudsman Services: Property is one of three approved redress schemes for the private residential property sector. The oldest is the Property Ombudsman, which is the largest and can trace its roots back to the early nineties, and is the de facto organisation for almost all NAEA and ARLA members.
The third, and newest, is the Property Redress Scheme, launched when the Government said it wanted more choice in the market when it made redress compulsory for letting agents.
It has since done what can only be described as a U-turn and of course the PRS cannot be ruled out as a contender for housing’s single ombudsman.
Ombudsman Services: Property came into being after TPO, and not only provides redress services for the RICS but members of NALS, ARMA and UKALA, as well as some individual firms.
Isobel Thomson, CEO of NALS, said: “In light of the Government’s announcement to consult on a single housing ombudsman providing ease of access for property related consumer complaints, NALS understands the decision Ombudsman Services: Property has taken to withdraw from the current redress set-up and look to the future.
“Ombudsman Services have performed well for NALS firms, providing an excellent service at the most cost-effective rate of membership of any of the existing schemes. We look forward to engaging in discussions with them as they evolve their offering to suit a new consumer protection regime.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, an 80%+ property complainant dissatisfaction rate would suggest that redress is overwhelmingly stacked in favour of the firms that consumers are complaining about. It's a rigged market isn't it - otherwise wouldn't things would be very different but they aren't?
“Practical arrangements for NALS firms will follow from both Ombudsman Services and NALS.”
Katrine Sporle, ombudsman at TPO, said: “I am sorry to be losing our close working relationship with Ombudsman Services to raise standards in the property industry.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, Ombudsman Services have spectacularly failed to raise the standards of their fee-paying Members. They can't even get them to keep an up-to-date Case File. Isn't this totally inept?
“However, I look forward to continued collaborative thinking with Lewis on the wider issues of the role and purpose of the Ombudsman going forward.
Property is just one area for which Ombudsman Services provides redress. The others are communications and energy.
Commentators say that an entirely new body could become the single housing ombudsman. Established bodies that could be front-runners include the TPO.
In social housing, there is the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, both of which can consider complaints from local authority tenants, plus the Regulator for Social Housing.
Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Javid, why hasn't Ombudsman Services produced an Annual Report for 2017 where is the transparency and accountability that The Rev Shand Smith talks about and how do you think they will account for an 80%+ complainant dissatisfaction rate with their rigged solutions?
If you are genuinely concerned about consumer protection and wish to rebalance power in the housing sector why not critically examine the evidence, consult with DJS Research and give each and every one of the 80%+ dissatisfied customers of The Rev Shand Smith's less than superb model of redress the opportunity to explain why they are so very dissatisfied with his, "solutions?"
