Ombudsman ServicesPt 4: The Full English Cover-Up - (91) Off To Hell In An Anglo Saxon Cartesian Handcart.

Ombudsman Services Pt 4: The Full English Cover-Up - (91) Off To Hell In An Anglo Saxon Cartesian Handcart.

Ambrose, seems to have been so utterly bamboozled by Boris's banana bending Brexit baloney that he's completely failed to spot the top-down Anglo Saxon good for business philosophically bewildering so-called private justice that was dispensed - no fault of Europe - by Ombudsman Services:Property.

A scheme that was so Anglo Saxon and so philosophically superb that it ….. closed down.

A true-blue print for a de-regulated arms-length self-regulating post-Brexit Britain about to be unleashed on Anglo Saxons (and others) still drunk on the euphoria of having taken back control.

Ombudsman Services:Property Pt (4) The Full English Cover-Up. 90 How Labour Party Politiciams Unquestioningly Embtaced the "Free-Market Model" of ADR - Alternative Dispute Resolution.

How Labour Party Politicians Unquestioningly Embraced the "Free-Market Model" of ADR - Alternative Dispute Resolution.

favourite

Toby Helm

Sat 11 Jan 2020 20.22 GMT

Shares

0

Keir Starmer: ‘The free-market model doesn’t work.’ Photograph: Richard Saker/The Observer 

D

Dear Reader,
We're told,
Keir Starmer appealed to the Labour left to back his bid for the leadership on Saturday as he denounced the “free-market model” as a failure and backed higher taxes on the wealthiest to pay for better public services.

   The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign denounced the "free-market model" of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and the Ombudsman Services:Property version of it 10 years ago. Unfortunately, not a single Labour Party MP was prepared to do anything whatsoever about it.

   The list of Labour Party politicians we've tried contacting over the years is impressive. Their almost total lack of a response wasn't.

Keir Starmer’s team are confident – but expect a rival’s surge

Read more

Starmer’s bid for the support of Labour members who previously backed Jeremy Corbyn came amid signs of splits in the grassroots organisation Momentum, after it said it would recommend Rebecca Long Bailey as leader and Angela Rayner as deputy in an internal ballot.

   We tried raising the issue of what we believe was rigged market redress and consumers being hung out to dry by an OS:Property ombudsman with a habit of "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" (DJS Research 2008-11) with Rebecca Long Bailey but never got a reply.

   There was no momentum there.

Speaking in Manchester, Starmer said the party should unite, and “trash” neither the last Labour government nor “the last four years” under Corbyn. But – although describing the 2019 manifesto as “overloaded” – he made clear he would also back a distinctly leftwing economic agenda with the aim of reducing inequality and increasing social justice.

   I said as much at meeting called by Luke Pollard MP in Plymouth Guildhall in 2019. I suggested that a Labour Party that wasn't prepared to place economic, social and "justice" justice at the heart of all it did was wasting its time. 

  That a modern, democratic Labour Party should surely be united in campaigning for justice for the victims of an ombudsman left free to dole out decisions that were to all intents and purposes - bonkers. The man wasn't interested.

“We have to be bold enough to say the free-market model doesn’t produce, doesn’t work ... the trickle-down effect didn’t happen,” Starmer told a meeting at the Mechanics’ Institute where the TUC was formed in 1868.

   We were bold enough to say to Yvonne Fovargue, the then Labour chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection, that the Ombudsman Services:Property's idea of private justice was failing to trickle down to bewildered consumers and that Martin Lewis' "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform" was a whitewash.

  What was needed were sharper eyes, brains and analysis, She wasn't interested.

“We have to rebuild an economic model that reduces inequality and protects working people.”

We need an economic model that reduces inequality and protects everyone. And when that economic model invariably goes wrong what we don't need are arrogant, unaccountable and remarkably dim individuals with stupendous job titles handing out eye-wateringly ludicrous decisions to unprotected vulnerable individuals in search of justice.

Speaking to the Observer, Starmer said that while he accepted that the UK would be leaving the EU at the end of January it was essential that it kept as close a relationship as possible with the European single market and customs union.

For the sake of the growing numbers of innocent victims of economic malpractice a close relationship with EU Directive 2013/11/EU on ADR is essential.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Rebecca Long Bailey. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament

“We are leaving the EU but I do not, however, accept that the fight for a close economic relationship with the EU is over. On the contrary, I think it is more important than ever. And therefore the argument for a customs union and single market alignment is as powerful now as it was before the election.”

We sought to raise the issue of Ombudsman Services' strange interpretation of the EU Directive with Dame Helena Kennedy the then Labour Chair of the EU Justice Sub-Committee. She wasn't interested either.

On Monday Starmer, Long Bailey, Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips will all go through to the next stage of the contest having gained the necessary backing of at least 22 MPs or MEPs. With 63, Starmer has more than double the tally of any of the other candidates. Emily Thornberry and Clive Lewis were still battling to secure the necessary nominations last night.

We tried raising the issue of the injustice of a property ombudsman handing out illogical Final Decisions with all of the above. None of them were interested.

After a meeting of Momentum’s elected steering group, the organisation decided on Saturday to recommend support for Long Bailey in its own ballot of members, arguing that she was “the only viable left candidate who can build on Labour’s socialist agenda, deepen democracy in the party and unite all of Labour’s heartlands at the next election”. The ballot will consist of two questions and will be sent to members on Monday or on Tuesday and will last 48 hours. The move drew immediate criticism from Laura Parker, a leading Momentum member who resigned as national coordinator after the recent election defeat.

   A socialist agenda that has no room for a fair, transparent, accountable and independent scheme of publicly owned and controlled ADR is pointless. In a democracy surely such a scheme just bloody work - for the victims and not the accused.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you

Read more

Advertisement

Parker tweeted: “Although I am pleased Momentum’s governing body accepted the principle of balloting its members on the leadership I’m sorry they seem to have decided in advance what the answer is. Members should be able to choose from all Leader & Deputy candidates.”

   Which is remarkably like how the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman seemed to operate. We did suggest that the CEO and Chief Ombudsman's self-styled, "superb model of ADR" was a blueprint for the future. sadly that prediction is also coming true.

A Momentum spokesperson said: “We need a new generation of leftwing MPs to lead our party and build on Labour’s popular policy agenda. Our coordinating group believe Rebecca Long Bailey is the only viable candidate who will build on Labour’s vision for the future, deepen democracy in the party and unite all of our heartlands at the next election.”

   Not if she continues to ignore the corrosive and deeply undemocratic effects of private rigged justice she isn't.

Lisa Nandy won backing last night from over 60 Labour figures, including MPs, peers and council leaders. In a statement they said: “Too many people feel that Labour is unwilling or unable to understand their lives. They no longer believed in our ability to deliver radical change or to protect the things that mattered to them. In order to win back the trust of these communities Labour must listen to them.”

   Perhaps Lisa Nandy should begin her political journey to the summit by asking her erstwhile colleagues; Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue and Dame Helena Kennedy why each of them saw nothing remotely wrong with a Property Ombudsman handing out illogical decisions if she's really committed to winning back that trust - or is it all just saying the right words at the right time in order to further yet one more political career that's doomed to end in failure? 

Starmer added: “We are in the very early days of what will be a long campaign. I am conscious that there are excellent candidates up against me.”

  Our campaign's taken 10 years so far  - perhaps Keir Starmer is the excellent candidate after all. We're sure Keir Hardie would have seen the injustice of rigged "redress" and seized the moment.

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Ombudsman Services:Property Pt (4) The Full English Cover-Up. R.M. Kirkham and "The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section: A 2020 Vision for the Ombudsma Sector."

89) The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign's Response to: R. M. Kirkham, "The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section: A 2020 Vision for the Ombudsman Sector." (Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 2016)- (3)

KEY WORDS: scrutiny, professional regulation, efficient, effective, honest, transparency and accountability.

Dear Reader,

We saw in the previous blog that in seeking to avoid any meaningful "scrutiny" of their woeful performance in resolving property disputes and the pitiful "financial awards" they grudgingly doled out to bewildered complainants the Chair, Dame Janet Finch and her team of executives led by Lewis Shand Smith; replaced DJS Research, changed the way Customer Satisfaction Reports were conducted, removed the company's minutes from its website, didn't report on the property sector for two years, introduced MAS (Mutually Accepted Settlements) and further dramatically reduced the level of so-called financial awards.

The government "monitors" of this government approved scheme found nothing wrong with any of the above.

This is not our reading of what  EU Directive 2013/11/EU had intended from ombudsman schemes. At:,

    "17....Such internal complaint handling procedures can constitute an 

      effective means for resolving consumer disputes at an early stage."

They can but in the case of Ombudsman Services:Property they don't. Why? Because one only has to look at the sharp rise in the number of cases being referred by RICS surveyors to their "appointed" ombudsman. An ombudsman whose salary was paid for by her fee-paying members. 

We suggested to the Chair, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman and Independent Assessor that this was an obvious conflict of interest especially as RICS had a MoU with their "appointed" firm, had their Director of Professional Regulation and Consumer Protection sitting on the Board and monitored it for what it determined to be the, "effective resolution of disputes." 

We didn't get a reply.

There is absolutely no incentive for RICS surveyors to resolve disputes with clients at "an early stage." Especially when they knew that their appointed ombudsman had developed the habit of, "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner." (DJS Research) 

This is clearly, "efficient" and "effective" for RICS's fee-paying members - but totally unjust for their clients.

The company's minutes for 15th  December 2009 state at 5.8:
    "The Chief Executive noted that there had been some concern over the

     apparent increases in the levels of recent awards."

The OS:Property ombudsman acted accordingly. The following year she reduced the level of award dramatically. Thereby suggesting that the purported "independence" of The RICS appointed and RICS monitored property ombudsman was a myth.

She could have followed the independent recommendations of DJS Research and raised the levels of award but chose not to. DJS Research were duly replaced.

Unfortunately, you can no longer examine the data on how, "efficiently" and "effectively" Ombudsman Services:Property handled (or more accurately - mishandled) property complaints because it is no longer there. So the consumer can no longer judge for themselves whether Lewis Shand Smith's, "Superb model of ADR" was all it was cracked up to be.

And of course it wasn't. We once knew that because the then Chair, Dame Janet Finch said as much in her Foreword to the Annual Report of 2011. She wondered:

    "But are we delivering the excellent service to which we aspire? Asserting

     our commitment to to excellence is not the same as delivering this in

     practice. This year the Board has supported the CO, Lewis Shand Smith

     in taking a close and honest look at what we are actually achieving. We 

     are doing pretty well but we were not completely satisfied." 

It seems the only people with 2020 vision were DJS Research and as a reward for their insightful research their services were dispensed with.

By 2016 the consumer no longer knew what the levels and range of financial awards were because they were no longer reported. And they no longer knew how many complainants were "dissatisfied" with the judgement they'd received at the hands of The RICS "appointed" ombudsman.

NEXT TIME: Reform and New Roles. 

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:

1. Answers from Lewis Shand Smith, former CEO and Chief Ombudsman/Chair of the Ombudsman Association, Dame Janet Finch former Chair of Ombudsman Services, Jonathan May former Director of the OFT, Steven Gould RICS Director of Professional Regulation/Consumer Protection and OS Board Member, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Grant Shapps, Dame Julie Mellor former Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, Yvonne Fovargue Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection, Dame Helena Kennedy former Chair of the EU Justice Sub-Committee, Luke pollard MP Plymouth Sutton and Devonport. 2. A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property and the role played by The RICS in determining the "effective resolution of complaints. 3. Compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration and the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions. 4. The setting up of a state-run, fair, independent, transparent and accountable system of ADR.     Yours sincerely, Stephen Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Ombudsman Services:Property Pt (4) The Full English Cover-Up (88)

88) " The O61% Campaign looks at R.M. Kirkham's, "The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section: A 2020 Vision for the Ombudsman Sector." (Part 2)

KEY WORDS: efficient effective justice unbiased fair independent monitor

Dear Reader,

In, "Continued Expansion in the Adoption of the Ombudsman Model" R. Kirkham tells us that ADR grew as, 

    "a solution to the challenge of delivering efficient and effective justice." 

This was written in 2016 but in DJS Research's final Customer Satisfaction Report for Ombudsman Services (2010-11) DJS reported that the property ombudsman, 

    "To be effective .... must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between 

     parties - currently this does not seem to be the general consensus of                   opinion."

In other words the property ombudsman isn't impartial so can't be fair, independent or unbiased.

When we tried raising this with the government civil servants they never answered the question. But they did allow consumers to continue taking their complaints to an ombudsman they knew not to be impartial.

As we said previously Ombudsman Services response was to replace DJS Research with BMG, change the way surveys were conducted and NOT report on their performance in (mis)handling property complaints. This was efficient. It wasn't, as far as we're concerned - justice.

Take the, "Ombudsman Services Property sector report January-December 2016." Here under: "Education" it states - 

    "Ombudsman Services:Property is much than just a complaints handling             organisation."  

More seems to be missing than meets they eye.

The two page report states that: 

    "1166 complaints resolved." and that 64% received a financial award.

In total contravention of the OFT criteria for "approving" this scheme on behalf of the taxpayer they don't give a rationale or break-down of those "financial awards." They don't even mention that the maximum "financial award" was £25.000. Yet in the 2011/12 Annual Report you would have found on page 6 just such a break-down. As far as scrutiny of their performance in resolving disputes effectively and efficiently goes, all reports prior to 2016 have been removed.

So, as financial awards went down from an average £1100 to £10 so did the reporting.

In 2016 we're told: 

    "Of the complaints resolved" "1%" were a "Mutually accepted settlement" whilst "98%" were an "Ombudsman Decision."  This strongly supports DJS Research's finding that the property ombudsman was not an impartial arbitrator has carried on down the years. Otherwise, surely, 98% of those decisions would have been arrived at by the mutual route and only 1% dictated by the ombudsman?

The Eu Directive 2013 states:

(10)

In its conclusions of 24-25 March and 23 October 2011, the European Council invited the European Parliament and the Council to adopt, by the end of 2012, a first set of priority measures to bring a new impetus to the Single Market. Moreover, in its Conclusions of 30 May 2011 on the Priorities for relaunching the Single Market, the Council of the European Union highlighted the importance of e-commerce and agreed that consumer ADR schemes can offer low-cost, simple and quick redress for both consumers and traders. The successful implementation of those schemes requires sustained political commitment and support from all actors, without compromising the affordability, transparency, flexibility, speed and quality of decision-making by the ADR entities falling within the scope of this Directive.

In their final Customer Satisfaction Report complainant dissatisfaction levels with the transparency, flexibility, speed and quality of decision making of the Property Ombudsman stood at 64% - up from 61% when we first began campaigning for a public inquiry into what we consider is rigged redress.

Why end DJS Research's contract? They were fair and independent in their assessment of what they saw was going on. 

Why remove all the Customer Satisfaction Reports from their website?

Why remove the minutes?

If the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman had awarded the 1166 the full £25.000 financial award it would have cost the Property Ombudsman's fee-paying members: £29.1 Million which would have been remarkably Bad For Business. 

So in the 2016 Annual Report - Property Sector they didn't even bother to mention that the average "financial award" was a paltry ten quid.

NEXT TIME: more on the EU Directive 2013/11/EU.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:

1. Answers from Lewis Shand Smith, former CEO and Chief Ombudsman/CHair of the Ombudsman Association, Dame Janet Finch former Chair of Ombudsman Services, Jonathan May former Director of the OFT, Steven Gould RICS Director of Regulation and OS Board Member, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Grant Shapps, Dame Julie Mellor former Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, Yvonne Fovargue Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Consumer Protection, Dame Helena Kennedy former Chair of the EU Justice Sub-Committee, Luke pollard MP Plymouth Sutton and Devonport.

2. A public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property and the role played by The RICS in determining the "effective resolution of complaints.

3. Compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration and the Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.

4. The setting up of a state-run, fair, independent, transparent and accountable system of ADR.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.