UtilitiesADR Adjudicator George Harrington's - "Investigation" of Gaslighting by British Gas. Please Judge it For Yourself. Feel Free to Comment.

The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator, George Harrington came to the following flawed and disappointing decision in my complaint against British Gas: "IN THE MATTER OF A DETERMINATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE UTILITIESADR SCHEME BETWEEN: STEVE GILBERT Claimant -and- BRITISH GAS Respondent FINAL DETERMINATION Purchase 1. On 9th December 2021, the Respondent’s engineer failed to attend the Claimant’s property to complete an Annual Service his boiler (“the Service”). Reference to Adjudication 2. Disputes and differences have arisen between the parties which, being unable to resolve amicably, they have agreed to refer to adjudication under the UtilitiesADR Scheme Rules 2021 (“the Scheme Rules”). The Scheme Rules provide for determination by documents only. 3. It was determined that the complaint fell within the UtilitiesADR Jurisdiction (as defined with the Scheme Rules). Information and Evidence 4. I have relied upon the information and documentation supplied by both the Claimant and the Respondent, as contained on the UtilitiesADR portal, as at the date of this determination, which I have fully reviewed. Reasons for Decision 5. The Reasons upon which this Decision are based are set out and annexed to this Decision and form part of the Decision. 2 Decision 6. I NOW, having carefully considered the evidence and written submissions of the parties, HEREBY DECIDE AND DIRECT as follows: i. The Claimant’s claim fails. " MADE AND PUBLISHED on 21st July 2022. By George Harrington at UtilitiesADR, 12/14 Walker Avenue, Stratford Office Village, Wolverton Mill, Milton Keynes MK12 5TW. "3 REASONS These Reasons are given with and form part of this Determination Generally 1. The Claimant has set out his claim fully within the information and documentation provided. I have of course read all the documents submitted by both parties, but I do not need to deal with each and every dispute of fact in this Decision." George Harrington may well have read all the documents submitted to him but the question raised by the decision he arrived at is: how carefully? I strongly disagree with his claim not to have needed to deal with each and every dispute of fact because it has led to his questionable decision in my case. A case of Gaslighting by British Gas. The point I wish to make is that as an UtlitiesADR Adjudicator, he really does need to deal with the deliberate and repeated gaslighting by British Gas employees and the extremely worrying safeguarding issue of British Gas having no idea where their contractors are or what they claim to be doing otherwise these unacceptable practices will continue. These issues have been brought to his attention. The UtilitiesADR organisation cannot simply ignore them. His decision in my case will simply reinforce what British Gas are already doing and getting away with. Action needs to be taken to protect consumers. 1) The extremely serious issue of Gaslighting by British Gas has not been adequately addressed by this Adjudicator. That in itself could be considered to be Gaslighting and it surely impacted on the derisory amount of money offered by British Gas as "compensation." An amount George Harrington regarded as being, "reasonable in all the circumstances." 2) The equally serious issue of safeguarding - and the total lack of it in this case - has also been glossed over. My friends and family were outraged by the knowledge that British Gas did not now were their so-called "trusted" contractors were 100% of the time (or what they fraudulently claimed to be doing). Somewhat worryingly, this Adjudicator wasn't. If he had been then his decision would have been different. But it wasn't. "UtilitiesADR adjudications are intended to be a simple, cost effective way of resolving disputes. " 3) Surely, UtilitiesADR adjudications must be fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances. Not a rubber stamp for appalling working practices. This has indeed been "cost effective" for the Gaslighters at British Gas. How much would a solicitor charge for this letter? The point I've been trying to make is until such adjudications are "cost effective" for complainants, British Gas have absolutely no incentive to improve the way they operate. "2. The parties must understand how an Adjudicator approaches this type of dispute, which is no different in its essential elements from the approach which a judge would adopt in a Court of Law. UtilitiesADR adjudications are not however intended to be dealt with as strictly as if they were High Court or County Court litigation." 4) This is contradictory. If the approach adopted by an UtilitiesADR Adjudicator is not as strict as that of a judge in a Court of Law, then it is inadequate. Sadly for the victims of injustice, proof of its inadequacy can be found in the way the decision in my case was arrived at. "3. It is commonplace in such adjudications that conflicts of evidence arise, and the mere fact that the Adjudicator finds in favour of one party on a particular issue, does not mean that the other is deliberately telling an untruth." ​5) This is an example of accepting second best as being good enough. It isn't. It leads to poor decision making, injustice and the maintenance of a pro-business, pro-low standards status quo. It is now 226 days since I was told there was someone in my home servicing a boiler and carrying out a repair when all the time there wasn't. 226 days since I demanded to know where this "trusted" contractor was. 226 days since the "trusted contractor" had had no time to forget where he was or what he was doing because I had asked his managers where he'd gotten to within minutes of his not getting to me. All of this has been ignored by the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator because according to him this, "does not mean the other is deliberately telling an untruth." This adjudication is so slack as to be unjust. After being repeatedly gaslighted by British Gas and then given a ludicrous explanation for the "trusted contractor's'" dodgy memory and even dodgier equipment - the Adjudicator determines that an "apology" is sufficient. He might have convinced himself, "that it won't happen again" but I haven't and neither have my friends or family. "Reasons for Decision The Law 1. I note that the date of purchase was after October 2015. This means that the applicable law to consider is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“the Act”). 2. This complaint relates to the service provided by the Respondent. In this respect, the Act provides: a. that services must be carried out with ‘reasonable care and skill’ (Section 49);" 6) British Gas​ and it's "trusted contractor" repeatedly tried to convince me that the non-existent service had been caried out, "with reasonable care and skill." Because of the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator's less than strict approach to the facts he was able to determine that a later apology - after they'd been caught out at British Gas - was appropriate. This ruling puts at risk thousands of British Gas customers. It exposes them to fraud and the mental suffering caused by being Gaslighted by British Gas employees. No, and apology is not sufficient. Things need to change. And quickly. A lackadaisical UtilitiesADR Adjudicator is not going to be the person to bring that urgent change about. He was apparently content to be merely following slack orders. "b. that anything said or written to the consumer by the Trader, that the consumer takes account of when agreeing to enter into the contract, will be taken to form part of the contract (subject to being able to prove that such words were said or written) (Section 50); c. that, where no price is fixed for the service, the consumer shall only be obliged to pay a ‘reasonable price’ (Section 51); and d. that, where a time for completion of the service is not agreed, the service will be provided within a ‘reasonable amount of time’ (Section 52). 4 3. In circumstances where it is determined that any of the provisions of the Act have been breached, the trader has an obligation to provide the appropriate remedy, such as providing the service again, remedying the part of the service that fell below the standard or providing the consumer with a full or partial refund. " 7) What is, "a reasonable price?" What is, "a reasonable amount of time?" And is it reasonable for British Gas and the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator to determine this between themselves without any input from consumers? No, it isn't. The applicable remedy will depend on the circumstances. Claimant’s position 4. The Claimant’s position is set out within the UtilitiesADR portal. In summary, the Claimant’s issues are: a) The Claimant states that the Respondent failed to keep an appointment to service his new boiler on 9 th December 2021. He complained to the Respondent about this on the same. 8) That should say, "day." "b) The Claimant states that 55 days into his complaint he was cold-called by Chicka Robert and told that someone has indeed serviced his boiler on 09th December 2021." 9) Why did Chicka Robert wait 55 days before phoning me to tell me someone had indeed serviced my boiler on the 9th December 2021 when a) they hadn't and b) the information on her computer said otherwise? Information which had been provided to George Harrington. 10) Why hasn't the Utilities Adjudicator commented on this? This was deliberate Gaslighting by a British Gas employee. "c) The Claimant states that he phoned the Respondent the next day and was told by two complaints handlers that someone from the Respondent had serviced his boiler on 09th December 2021. He disagreed and averred that no-one from the Respondent had been in his home on that day. The Respondent maintained that his boiler was serviced on that date and that a small repair had been carried out. The Claimant states that he disagreed and told the Respondent that this was ‘gaslighting’. " 11) This is deliberate Gasghting by two more of British Gas' employees. Why hasn't the Utilities Adjudicator passed a judgement on this when quite clearly there was a deliberate strategy by British Gas to Gaslight me? Gaslighting is not fair or reasonable in any circumstance. "d) The Claimant states that he spoke with the Respondent’s Julie Olsen Gas who told him that from the records on her screen that a) he was phoning the Respondent at the same time as the contractor claimed to be servicing his boiler" 12) The Adjudicator completely ignores the importance of this - that Julie Olsen could see that I was telling the truth but that her colleagues had insisted someone was in my home servicing/fixing a boiler when this was obviously not the case. Why? Is it because for him to accept that I was being "Gaslite" he would have had to have accepted the amount of compensation I was being offered was derisory? Someone needs to ask him.​ "b) through "CHAT" had been forced to book another appointment which was also not honoured and had complained c) emailed a complaint to the Respondent at 18.48 on 9 th December 2021. The Claimant states that he added ‘gaslighting’ to his complaint. " 13) I have been repeatedly Gaslighted by British Gas employees and have attempted to raise this a part of my complaint to the UtilitiesADR. It has been completely ignored. Why? "e) The Claimant states that he also added the serious problem of safeguarding to the complaint: a) the Respondent does not know where their engineers/contractors are 100% of the time. b) Do not know with 100% certainty what work their contractors have carried out c) Need to explain fraudulent claims made by contractors for appointments/work claimed for but not carried out." 14) These facts have been completely ignored by the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator. Why? By refusing to comment on these serious matters the Adjudicator would appear to be condoning them. This isn't justice. "f) The Claimant states that given his previous experience of gaslighting by the Respondent's debt collectors on 07th December 2020 when he received a letter from Ashleigh Harlin claiming that he had "no reasonable reason" for not paying an invoice of £3.122.50 for his new boiler installation, he was able to show the Respondent he paid the bill within five days of its receipt." 15) I included this important detail because I believe it is illustrative of the culture of Gaslighting that is allowed to flourish at British Gas. The Adjudicator's stony silence on the matter is deeply concerning. "g) The Claimant is seeking compensation for two missed appointments and £30.00 per appointment for not being paid on time £120.00 and £20800 for ‘Gaslighting’. " 16) This is not quite true. I have tried to bring to the attention of the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator the following: Gaslighting is to be found at both British Gas and its debt collection law firm. That customer complaints numbers are shockingly high. That if there is to be significant and meaningful change at British Gas, its approach to compensation needs to be seriously overhauled. If a solicitor is able to Gaslightlight me and get away with an "apology" then that needs to end. One way of ending it is to pay British Gas customers solicitor's-fees compensation. This has been totally ignored by the Adjudicator. "5 Respondent’s position 5. The Respondent’s position is set out within the UtilitiesADR portal. In brief: a) The Respondent submits that its position has been set out in the Final Response Letter issued to the Claimant on 22 nd February 2022. b) The Respondent notes that the Claimant is unhappy that the Respondent’s engineer failed to arrive as planned on 9 December 2021 to service the boiler. In addition, when the Claimant contacted them to discuss his concerns, their advisors informed him that their systems confirmed the visit had taken place and the service had been completed. The Claimant informed the advisors that no engineer had arrived and asked for clarification on the whereabouts of the engineer on 9 December 2021. As the Claimant did not receive a response to the concerns raised, as the case was still under investigation, he escalated matters to his local MP, Luke Pollard, who asked that the Respondent review matters." 17) The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator has omitted the issues of; fraud, safeguarding and Gaslighting. Is this a serious investigation of a complaint or an exercise in whitewashing? "c) The Respondent notes that during their conversations with the Claimant that they have apologised for the worry and concern this matter has caused. They accepted that the level of service had fallen below the level that they aim to achieve and confirmed that they had spoken with the engineer concerned, to gain a better understanding of what had happened on 9 December 2021. " 18) There is no mention of Gaslighting and the Adjudicator hasn't commented on British Gas' statement that they didn't consider the Gaslighting to actually be: Gaslighting. Which is illustrative of the depth of the problem both at British Gas and at the UtilitiesADR offices. "d) The Respondent explained that the engineer who reported he had visited the Claimant was a trusted contractor, and that whilst he was not able to recall the specific appointment, due to the time that had elapsed, the only conclusion he could reach was that he made an error when updating his appointment reports, or a technical fault affected his submitting the report." 19) The Adjudicator states that he read the evidence submitted to him. Evidence that quite clearly states - and is corroborated by Julie Olsen - that at the same time as the "trusted contractor" claimed to be in my home servicing my boiler I was on the phone asking British Gas where their trusted contractor had gotten to. Certainly not my home. With such a low evidential bar in the court of UtilitiesADR, the Adjudicatorappears to have swallowed this baloney hook, line and sinker. "e) The Claimant has explained that this matter has been both time consuming and stressful, and the Respondent does understand how this situation has made him feel. " 20) This is nonsense and the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator has not only fallen for it but seems to be complicit in its maintenance. If British Gas understood how this situation had made me feel they wouldn't have denied that what they were doing was Gaslighting and George Harrington wouldn't have omitted, it from the evidence he claims to have read. "However, the Respondent feels it is important to confirm that the contractor in question, has been with the company for several years, and they have no reason to believe that the appointment record was deliberately falsified. They are confident that following conversations with their contractor that this situation will not occur again." 21) George Harrington, what happened on 9th December 2021? You claim to have investigated these events. Where was the contractor in question? What was he doing? If he can't remember what he was doing 5 minutes ago why are you so confident that, "this situation will not occur again?" "f) The Respondent has confirmed that they are in agreement that no engineer visit took place on 9 December 2021 and have offered their apologies for the inconvenience caused and acknowledged that they did not arrive on two separate occasions to complete the service and repair. In view of this, the Respondent has provided a gesture of £150.00, which they feel adequately reflects the situation the Claimant encountered. " 22) The "gesture" of £150.00p does not adequately reflect the situation I encountered. Please see 16 above. "g) Whilst the Respondent understands the Claimant’s disappointment with them, they do not agree that the term gas lighting reflect the events. They state that they have made honest mistakes, which they have openly accepted and are attempting to correct them. Their staff have apologised multiple times, which they feel is the very opposite of dishonesty." 23) George Harrington, the Respondent does not understand my disappointment with them because if they did they would not have denied that telling me, their customer, that there was a contractor in my home servicing a boiler when there wasn't, amounted to: Gaslighting. 24) If British Gas are being honest then where was their contractor on the 9th of December 2021 and what was he doing? Honestly, he wasn't there servicing my boiler. 25) They have also not apologised for still not telling me where their trusted contractor was. Which would appear to be the very opposite of honesty. I'm surprised you didn't spot it when investigating my complaint. "6 h) The Respondent confirms that the service and remedial work have now been completed. Claimant’s Comments 6. The Claimant has submitted additional comments, which I have fully considered as part of my review of his complaint." 26) Having fully considered my additional comments on; safeguarding, Gaslighting and fraud how did they influence your review of my complaint? You didn't bother to tell me. "Burden of proof 7. In all legal disputes, whether they are dealt with by the courts or via alternative dispute resolution, one party has the obligation of proving the case. This is known as the ‘Burden of Proof’. 8. The party that has the Burden of Proof must prove, on the balance of probabilities (meaning that it is more likely than not) that its position is correct. 9. In respect of the supply of services contracts, the burden of proving that the service did not meet the statutory rights set out under the Act rests with the Claimant. Issue(s) to be determined 10. The issue for me to determine is: i) What Remedy the Claimant is entitled to (“Issue 1”) Issue 1 11. In circumstances where it is determined that any of the provisions of the Act have been breached, the trader has an obligation to provide the appropriate remedy, such as providing the service again, remedying the part of the service that fell below the standard or providing the consumer with a full or partial refund. The applicable remedy will depend on the circumstances." 27) As UtilitiesADR Adjudicator are you saying that it is acceptable for British Gas to repeatedly Gaslight a customer when not supplying them with a service? Or have I failed your, "Burden of proof" test? You don't say how you arrived at your conclusion. It seems to have come out of thin evidential air. This is not acceptable. "12. The Respondent has confirmed that the service and remedial work have now been completed. The Claimant has not refuted this so I will treat this as a correct statement of fact." 28) What you appear not to have taken into consideration is that if I had not refused to be repeatedly Gaslite by British Gas employees I would have been the victim of fraud. I would have been conned into paying for a service I hadn't received. "13. The Claimant was clearly upset by the Respondent’s repeated failure to acknowledge that the service had not taken place on 9th December 2021. This, in itself, would have caused further understandable frustration. However, the Respondent has since apologised for the experience and service received and accepted that the visit to service the Claimant’s boiler did not take place on 9th December 2021." 29) This is not correct. The Respondent refused to accept that their shocking practice of repeatedly telling a customer that their contractor was in the customer's home carrying out work when the truth of the matter was, he wasn't - amounted to Gaslighting and fraud. They got caught out. They then eventually "apologised". It's an apology issued under duress. I means nothing. "They have further accepted that they did not arrive on two separate occasions to complete the service and confirmed that the engineer who was due to attend on 9th December 2021 7 had been spoken to. Following this, the Respondent has offered assurances to the Claimant that the engineer did not deliberately falsify the records." 30) This is an organisation that denies it Gaslights its customers. It's assurances are hardly reassuring. Why? because I still have no idea where their contractor was or what he was doing on 9th December 2021. You appear to believe this is acceptable. "14. In relation to the Claimant’s claim of compensation, the Claimant has not proven any losses as a result of financial detriment. However, I note the Respondent has provided a goodwill payment of £150.00 to the Claimant in recognition of the two missed appointments and the customer service received. I consider this is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances." 31) The standards you work to are abysmal. £150,00p for being subjected to repeated Gaslighting, missed appointments and the hours and hours it took to complain is not fair and is not reasonable in any circumstance. "15. As the Claimant has failed to secure a remedy above that which was offered by the Respondent, I determine that the Claimant’s claim fails." 32) This is totally absurd. The logic behind this is that British Gas will continue to gaslight their customers, subject them to missed appointments and unacceptable delay safe in the knowledge that any Claimant will never secure more than £150,00. And that if they had by some miracle secured a remedy above that which was offered by the Respondent, they wouldn't have needed to complain to you. "Important Notes: 1. This determination is not binding on the complainant who therefore still has the option to pursue the complaint via the courts. 2. There is no right of appeal in relation to this determination." 33) The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator saves the final injustice in this whole charade for the end. I'm told, "there is no right of appeal to this determination." I will still appeal it because it's the right thing to do. Best wishes, Steve Gilbert.

Gaslighting By British Gas

"It is better to content oneself with other more modest and less exiting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion, and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." ― Primo Levi, If This Is a Man • The Truce Dear Mr Jamieson, Thank you for your most recent reply to my complaint with British Gas. You wrote: "23 February 2022 Complaint Reference: 8013254135 Dear Mr Stephen Gilbert HomeCare Reference: 910003910069 Thank you for your email on 04 February 2022 and for the communication received via your Local MP Luke Pollard with regards to the service you received from British Gas Services Limited. As a member of our Executive Office within Customer Relations, I was asked to respond. Please accept my apologies that the level of service you have experienced was not to the standard you were expecting. Your Complaint and Outcome You raised concerns that you waited for an engineer to attend on 09 December 2021 and were disappointed that no visit took place. You were further frustrated that a report on our system shows that an engineer did attend and carried out work. British Gas advisors had maintained that an engineer attended which caused frustration. In addition, you experienced further broken appointments. Having investigated this matter, I would like to apologise for the time spent and stress caused by this situation. 1) You appear to have omitted the most serious and worrying parts of my complaint. They are a) being gaslighted by British Gas employees and complaints handlers and b) British Gas Safeguarding issues. Given the 1000s of missed appointments by British Gas contractors these matters must be treated seriously. YOUR MOST RECENT RESPONSE: My Investigation "From our records, I can see that an appointment was raised on 01 October 2021 for 29 October 2021. This was moved in advance of the appointment on 22 October 2021 to 15 December 2021. I noted that the visit was brought forward on 01 November 2021 for 22 November 2021. I am sorry that the visit was rescheduled a second time on 19 November 2021 for 09 December 2021. Your dissatisfaction was recorded on our systems: reference 8012858302 on 29 October 2021, 8012862120 on 01 November 2021 and under 8012937819 on 19 November 2021. A £50 goodwill payment was issued as an apology on 23 November 2021. I am sorry that you were repeatedly let down." 2) Thank you for your apology for my repeatedly being let down by British Gas. However, Ofgem say that an automatic payment of £30 should be made with an additional £30 being paid if the money isn't paid within 10 days. Can I ask why this didn't happen and why I had to make a complaint? 3) Why wasn't this automatically paid into my account? 4) Are they really "goodwill" gestures? 5) I can't find anywhere on your website or in my account mention of this compensation scheme insisted upon by Ofgem. Have I been looking in the wrong place? "The work history on our system has logged an engineer report on 09 December 2021. The report outlines that an engineer attended 57 Somerset Place where boiler safety checks were completed and a fan replaced. On 09 December 2021 a complaint reference 801019081 was raised to log your dissatisfaction than no engineer had attended. A second complaint reference 8013020197 was raised on 09 December 2021 also. I am sorry that despite our records showing that an appointment took place, no engineer visited the property." 6) I asked British Gas on Thursday 9thDecember what had happened to it contractor but didn't receive a reply. Hence my complaint. Unfortunately, British Gas are still unable to say what caused this to be logged as a visit when on the same day I'd contacted British Gas to say this had not happened. This must surely raise serious concerns about British Gas's failure to safeguard their customers. I regret the delay in our contacting you to discuss your concerns. When a complaint is raised, we aim to respond as quickly as possible. However, our response time can depend on the volume of communications we receive where it can take time to work through these. 7) I still cannot understand why this was ever allowed to happen given I'd taken the time and trouble to alert you about these matters on the very same day and as you say, it was logged by British Gas - on the same day. "Online chat teams updated the complaint notes on 10 & 17 December 2021 as well as 26 January 2022. We have also received your resolver communications. The complaint record was issued to a Customer Manager who spoke with you on 31 January 2022. I have listened to the telephone call where our Customer Manager discussed concerns with the boiler being recently installed but not having its service completed in time. A previous visit on 03 November 2021 was discussed. You were also concerned about sludge being found in the system when you recently bled the system. The appointment had been moved a second time on 26 January 2022 where you waited in for an engineer, received appointment updates but no visit took place. However, the fact that no engineer attended the property on 09 December was the focus of the conversation." 8) 53 days after I had told British Gas that their contractor hadn't arrived for an appointment I was phoned out-of-the-blue and told by Chika Robert that an engineer had actually been in my home servicing a boiler and even carrying out a small repair to it. As you had logged the information I'd given to you on the very day your engineer didn't arrive why did Chika Robert phone me to tell me he had? This is gaslighting surely. 9) Why do British Gas phone their customers out-of-the-blue? 10) Why isn't an initial response put in writing and a time allocated with your customers/complainants to discuss the issues over the phone if necessary? 11) GASLIGHTING: Why have you not addressed this part of my complaint in full? 12) Do you not agree that when a complaints handler contacts a complainant in such a way and then attempts to close the complaint by telling the complainant there was someone in their home when there wasn't, that this is gaslighting especially when the complaint handler made information at her disposal? 13) If this isn't gaslighting by British Gas what is it? 14) How was Julie Olsen able to come to a totally different - and accurate - explanation for what had happened when the exact same information must have been available to her as it was to all your complaints handlers? The manager accepted that it was unclear if an engineer had attended on 09 December 2021. They apologised, confirmed the rescheduled service visit on 29 March 2022 and promised to add a repair for the engineer to look at sludge in the system. 15) Mr Jamieson, you haven't explained how Julie Olsen understood the complexity of the situation but her three other colleagues didn't. When a British Gas customer is repeatedly being told that there are contractors in their home when there aren't - multiple gaslighting - doesn't this indicate that an inquiry needs to be set-up to determine what really is going on at British Gas and the way it handles customers' complaints? 16) In her letter to me dated 31 January 2022 Chika Robert apologises for your poor service levels but not for telling me that a British Gas contractor was in my home carrying out a service and repairs when he wasn't. The key issue of my complaint - gaslighting by British Gas - was ignored by her in her response to my complaint. Was she under instructions to place greater trust in the contractor's version of events over mine? 17) After my conversation with Chicka Robert I checked diaries/emails/etc and contacted British Gas only to be told by two other complaints handlers that a British Gas contractor was in my home on the 9th December servicing my boiler and carrying out repairs. The exact same thing happened again. Were these complaints handlers under instructions to place greater trust in their contractor's version of events over mine? Is this not gaslighting by British Gas's complaint handlers? And if not why not? The Manager agreed that we had let you down on 09 December 2021 and promised to send an email/letter of apology and another confirming the information we hold for 09 December 2021. With these sent, the complaint record was closed with customer agreement. 18) I checked my diaries/emails/mobile phone photographs and re-opened the case the next day. This was because I believed I was being gaslighted by British Gas. As I said in 15) above why was Julie Olsen the only complaints handler not to gaslight me? 19) Are you able to say what percentage of your disputes are settled in the 8th week? And are all complainants cold-called? Wouldn't it be far better to send complainants an email or letter thus giving them the opportunity to sit down and think about the information in front of them? One of the emails sent was a confirmation of the appointment report from 09 December 2021. This was sent in good faith by the advisor, rather than as an attempt to convince you that an engineer had attended contrary to your complaint. While I am sorry for the upset this email caused, the manager you spoke with did not dispute that no engineer attended. 20) Given that I had phoned/CHATTED/emailed British Gas on Thursday 9th December 2021 to ask why their contractor had failed to keep and appointment and it had been logged, can you please explain why such a misleading email was still sent? Due to the nature of your concerns, I have discussed the matter with our engineers Customer Delivery Manager. The engineer in question is a trusted contractor. Due to the time that has passed, the engineer cannot recall the specific appointment. With our records updated to show an appointment being kept with a repair made, the only conclusion the engineer could reach is that he made an error when updating his appointment reports or a technical fault affected his submitting the report. 21) This is from my earlier email to you: When I complained to British Gas at 18.48 on the 9th December 2021 my email asked: "The 12.00 text message stated: 'Your engineer is on schedule and will contact you when you are next' And 'Your engineer is trying to get to you before 1pm but might be late. We will let you know if it changes' It then said how to track progress. I tried to do this but couldn't as my appointment had not been entered into my account. This just never happened. Why didn't you let me know that this had changed? If my engineer was on schedule, where was he/she?" I was clear on the day that the visit hadn't gone ahead because I phoned / CHATTED and emailed British Gas to say it hadn't. Why hadn't my appointment been entered into my account so that I would have been able to monitor his progress? What human error caused this to happen before your contractor failed to turn up for the scheduled appointment? This could be seen as British Gas covering-up for the still non-explained non-attendance of their contractor - something the report and closed appointment record will have shown. This is why I am requesting it through my Data Protection Act request. I respect that our customers prefer to have British Gas direct engineers attend. However, our terms and conditions note that we do can use contractors to help us be there for our customers. Please be assured that we have the same service expectations from all our employees. Based upon or Customer Delivery Managers working knowledge of the engineer who has been with us for several years, he does not believe that the appointment record was deliberately falsified. The situation has been discussed following our internal procedure for feedback. This is to ensure mistakes are learned from. Please be assured that this will not be repeated. No outcome of this feedback can be provided as this is privileged information. 22) I see from various websites including yours and Ofgem's that 1000s of British Gas appointments are being missed. British Gas also don't know for sure where their contractors are or what they are doing. You've also said in your reply to my complaint that the technology at their disposal can sometimes let them down. On top of that when your customers contact you in an attempt to sort out the chaos and their contributions are logged into the system, things still go wrong. Given this set of circumstances, how can you continue to guarantee your customers' safeguarding when your present systems are prone to go wrong? "To be clear, Based upon the information at hand and rather than dispute the situation: I agree that we did not attend on 09 December 2021 and that our records were not accurately updated due to an error. This was a mistake due to human and system error on our part. I respect the frustration this has caused and sincerely apologise for it." 23) Could you please clarify what you say here. What information do you have at hand that could possibly lead you to "dispute the situation?" To dispute the situation would seem to suggest that you think it was possible that your contractor was in my home after all. "I am further sorry that this experience has shaken your confidence in British Gas and that you doubt our commitment to customer safety. Please be assured that we take the safety and well-being of our customers extremely seriously. I agree that mistakes have been made with the broken appointments on 09 December 2021, 26 January 2022 and with a completed work report being submitted in error on 09 December 2021. However, I want to emphases that this does not equate to compromising our customer safety." 24) I am sorry but I disagree you over the matter of customer safety. In this day and age and with a CEO on a £1.1M bonus this shocking record of broken appointments simply shouldn't be happening. British Gas have a situation in which it doesn't know where its contractors are or what they are doing, contractors who are very forgetful, equipment that appears to breakdown at the critical time, reports that are inaccurate and a complaints handling system that waits to the last minute and gaslights customers out-of-the-blue. British Gas's current systems would seem to put customers' safety at a very great risk indeed. "You were disappointed that we could not advise where the engineer had been on 09 December 2022. While the engineer understandably cannot recall each and every appointment from some months ago; the engineer was working through his appointment schedule. As the engineer was a trusted contractor we do not have van tracking data for him. While a large number of engineers have GPS van tracking, we cannot promise this for every occasion a colleague attends an appointment. Having no tracker data does not constitute a safety risk. While an error with your report was made, this does not undermine the engineers actions with other customers or the integrity of our UK-wide staff. " 25) Mr Jamieson, because you still cannot advise me where your engineer was on 09 December 2021 doesn't this serve to underline just how unsafe your present systems are when it comes to guaranteeing the safety of British Gas's customers? 26) I believe these matters need a much wider airing and then consumers can come to their own conclusions about such important issues as; trust, safety and integrity. As I said to Julie Olsen this could all be the result of a series of errors. I further regret that you feel lied to about the appointment taking place on 09 December 2021 by web chat or telephone advisors. 27) I should like to make it very clear that I don't feel "lied" to. It's not a word I would ever use and so you have no need to feel regret. I'm surprised that having listened to my conversations with your complaints handlers, especially with Julie Olsen, you would choose to use such a word. It's also why I've always had my quote from Primo Levi with me since the 1980s. There seems to be no shortcut to finding the truth and in my experience calling people liars is never helpful. "Based upon our communications with you, I do not believe that colleagues have attempted to deliberately mislead you regarding this. When reviewing work history, our frontline colleagues can view appointment records on a customer’s account. In advising that we have a report from 09 December 2021, our colleagues have been outlining the information on our records with the best of intentions of being honest. Unfortunately, detailed investigation was required to appreciate that the report on 09 December 2021 was incorrect. I am sorry that you had to wait for this to be carried out" 28) As I have said above you haven't explained how Julie Olsen was able to see what her colleagues couldn't. It was the same information after all. 29) If this information was automatically uploaded onto your customers' accounts and kept there surely such misunderstandings would become a thing of the past? "I am mindful that when our Customer Relations Team spoke with you on 31 January 2021, the manager did not dispute your concern that the engineer did not attend. Additionally, a further advisor, Julie, spoke with you on 04 to 10 February 2022 and also did not dispute your concerns; nor have I. While I understand your disappointment with British Gas, I do not agree that the term gas lighting reflect the events. We have made honest mistakes which we have openly accepted and are attempting to correct them. Our staff have apologised multiple times. This is the very opposite of dishonesty." 30) Mr Jamieson, I assume you've never been the victim of gaslighting. When out-of-the-blue you're cold-called and told someone actually was in your home servicing your boiler and carrying out minor repairs to it when on the same day that you'd contacted British Gas to ask where their contractor had gotten to - you go into a state of shock. Your brain freezes and you're only half listening to what's being said. The other half of the time you're thinking, "did I let him in and then go and phone British Gas to ask where he was?" That is really unsettling and upsetting. That's gaslighting. 31) The day after being cold-called by Chika Robert and told there was someone in my home when there wasn't I spoke with two other complaints handlers who both said the same thing. There had been a British Gas contractor in my home when I had said there wasn't. This is gaslighting. They didn't preface their comments with "there seems to be some confusion" or "your account is very different to our contractor's." Both told me: there was someone in your home carrying out a service and a minor repair, when I knew that wasn't true. Transcripts/copies of those phone conversations would be most helpful. 32) On this point you still haven't been able to explain to me how Julie Olsen was able to hold a totally different conversation with me when she must have had exactly the same information in font of her as her colleagues. Could you please do so. "Our staff have apologised multiple times. This is the very opposite of dishonesty." 33) I had a written apology from Chika Robert but there was no mention of my complaint about gaslighting. Julie Olsen had no need to apologise for anything. The two other complaints handlers didn't apologise - but I need the transcripts to be sure. And you have apologised for your poor service standards but don't believe I have been gaslighted - which in itself could be construed as gaslighting. To get to the truth of this others would need to investigate what happened, discuss the issues and make reasoned decisions based on what can be verified and demonstrated. I don't think I've been apologised to multiple times. 34) In this response to my complaint you have introduced the words "lied" and "dishonesty." Which is unfortunate. I have contented myself with slowly trying to get to the truth of what went on based on the one hard fact I have - that there never was a British Gas contractor in my home on Thursday 9th December 2021 although a number of British Gas's employees say there was. I understand this to be - gaslighting. But you don't. My conversation with Julie Olsen, which I assume you've listened to, consisted of me saying there must have a series of misunderstandings of confusions and failures to accurately record events. And that these coincidences are all we have to go on. I said all the engineers who'd visited my home had been good and the one who came on the 3rd of November was excellent. And why couldn't all complaints handlers be like her? 35) It does mean however, that unmonitored British Gas contractors are submitting claims for work that hasn't been carried out. Could you please respond to that and explain how that safeguards British Gas's customers? Please be assured that this complaint has been logged on your account with a detailed case file attached. It has been discussed at senior levels and with the employees concerned. With this in mind, every effort to record an accurate investigation and log of events has been taken. Thank you for your feedback about our website, appointment updates on customers online account, customer access to web chat logs and communications with us. At present we are updating our appointment, telephone and online systems. This will provide a transformative service both for our staff and customers. I am confident that you will see a marked improvement when these changes are fully implemented." 36) I'm glad you fell my feed back has been so positive and that marked improvements and changes to your service are on the way. My Conclusion "We communicated by email from 19 February 2022. While a financial sum can rarely reflect the frustration caused, an apology for the impact of the two missed appointments and customer service received, I promised to issue a £150 goodwill payment. I am sorry that we were unable to reach agreement on this matter. Following our internal process for complaint review, I issued your concerns to my Senior Customer Manager Cassie to consider. Cassie agrees that our response is justified." 37) There remains a degree of confusion over what Ofgem say should happen in these circumstances and what you have called "goodwill" payments. If Ofgem's guidelines are right shouldn't I have automatically received two £30 payments for missed appointments plus another two £30 payments for them not being paid on time. That would make £120.00. 38) I will have to content myself with getting to this stage of my complaint but with some important questions still unanswered. Because, regrettably, I feel you have failed to adequately address my complaint about being Gaslighted by British Gas and the safeguarding issues raised by having contractors you have little control over, it would be wrong to accept your goodwill gesture of £150. "I respect that you have received contact from the Financial Ombudsman Service through the online complaints tool Resolver. However, as your products with us are not insurance products, we do not give permission for the Financial Ombudsman Service to investigate the situation. Details on the Utilities ADR are included below." 39) Throughout this complaint I did wonder how Martin Lewis's Resolver worked and now I know. Not very well. I will now be contacting him and seeking his help in this matter. I’d like to thank you for your patience and for allowing me the time to respond to your complaint. I will issue a cheque for £150 to you within 14 working days. While I appreciate that this is not the outcome you had hoped for, please consider this our final position on the matter. 40) Thank you for acknowledging my patience in this matter. My Primo Levi quote has helped guide me through some difficult stages of my customer journey through life. If I'm automatically entitled to Ofgem's £120 (as I understand it) that would be fine. As my complaint is now about to head elsewhere it would wholly wrong to accept your goodwill gesture. The £20,400 compensation claim will have to go on hold for the meantime. You can refer your complaint to the Utilities ADR. Utilities ADR contact details are as follows if you require them: Web address: www.utilitiesadr.co.uk Email: enquiries@cdrl.org.uk Telephone: 020 3540 8063 Post: Utilities ADR 12-14 Walker Avenue Stratford Office Village Wolverton Mill Milton Keynes MK12 5TW If there is anything further that you would like to bring to my attention that has not already been considered, or if anything mentioned above is incorrect, you can speak to me or a member of my team on 0333 202 3307 between 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday. You can also email me at stuart.jamieson@britishgas.co.uk. Yours sincerely Stuart Jamieson Customer Manager Executive Office Stuart Jamieson|Executive Office Customer Manager|Executive Office Customer Relations| ( 0333 202 3307 |* stuart.jamieson@britishgas.co.uk|British Gas Services Best wishes. Steve Gilbert.

The Legal Ombudsman - Judge&Priestly

Dear Legal Ombudsman, I believe that your decision not to investigate Judge&Priestly is profoundly wrong. It is profoundly wrong for the following reasons: 1) It makes a mockery of the notion that under UK law all Her Majesty's subjects are innocent until they are proven guilty. 2) It gives a green light for firms such as Judge&Priestly to operate in the appalling way they do. 3) It allows firms such as Judge&Priestly to treat anyone who is not a client of theirs as little more than a common criminal. 4) In doing so it legitimises; bullying, intimidation, defamation and offence. 5) The decision not to investigate Judge&Priestly is profoundly undemocratic. 6) It encourages firms such as Judge&Priestly to use the law as a cudgel. 7) It also encourages Judge&Priestly's paymaster - British Gas - to behave in the way it does because ultimately, there are no sanctions. This isn't justice. But is does very effectively help rig the legal marketplace to favour the strong and powerful over the weak and powerless. Yours sincerely Steve Gilbert.

The EHRC Report Into Antisemitism in the Labour Party - A Reply by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Dear Reader, "It is better to content oneself with other more modest and less exciting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." Primo Levi: The Truce. p 397. Those responsible for The EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party would have done well to have had Primo Levi's sentence printed on its first page and followed his sage advice word for word. Under it the EHRC needed to have stated clearly what they understood antisemitism to be and how it applied that understanding consistently when reaching what should have been carefully reasoned decisions in each and every one of the 70 cases it claims to have investigated. The British public got neither. Being a report into antisemitism there needed to be a clear statement as to what the EHRC take that to be. However, the first time The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is mentioned is on p 27. It is also described as being The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism something which it is not. It isn't discussed until Annex 3. And then in a limited way. In Annex 3 the EHRC say they, "explain: when the Labour Party is responsible for the conduct of its agents, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and its impact on our investigation." The key word, "Working" has again been dropped. To restore lost confidence the EHRC need to explain why they use the two interchangeably and to acknowledge Prof Stephen Sedley's observation that it fails the first test of any definition in being indefinite. (1) The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." "A certain perception." One can see what Prof Sedley means. The EHRC continue with, "The IHRA also provides illustrative and contemporary examples of antisemitism. Some concerns have been raised about aspects of the IHRA approach." "Some concerns?" This is hardly an honest appraisal of the huge controversy surrounding the resurrection of the IHRA working definition from the dustbin of history. Kenneth Stern's reasoned criticism of it is a good place to start. After all he wrote it (2). Others expressing far more than just, "some" concerns are; Independent Jewish Voices Canada (3) and Anthony Lerman (4) Why has the EHRC chosen to gloss over/downplay the issue of the fierce controversy surrounding the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism? Perhaps Kenneth Stern provided the answer when he said, "Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." This is the Jewish author of the Working Definition expressing far more than just, "some concerns" as the EHRC would have us believe. But why is the EHRC taking such a shortcut? And how does it affect the EHRC report? The report's biggest failing is that it does not do what it demands of the Labour Party. On p5 they state, "we have not seen all of the evidence on which the conclusions in the leaked report were based." Yet when it comes to the vast majority of the 70 cases the EHRC "investigated" we too - the public - have not seen all of the evidence on which the EHRC investigators base their judgements. The truth of the matter is that we hardly see any evidence at all. Only three cases are discussed in any sort of detail. They are those of: Ken Livingstone, Pam Bromley and Chris Williamson. But in the latter's case it is unclear as what exactly he is supposed to have done wrong. His name is mentioned. Holocaust Denial is mentioned as is supporting un-named suspended members. But what the exact link between Chris Williamson and antisemitism is - is never clearly stated. This simply isn't good enough. On p7 of the report it says, "We found that the complaints process was not properly resourced and those responsible for it were not trained to the necessary standard." (7) On p10 the EHRC criticises Labour for, "unclear decision-making by the NEC and NCC." But where is the clear decision making in 67 of the cases they spent 18 months investigating? It is conspicuous by its absence. We don't know who said what. However we do know where it was said - 59 of the cases were about allegations of antisemitism on social media. We know absolutely nothing about these cases. Were the un-named individuals who wrote the IHRA report, "trained to the necessary standard?" Or was it a conscious decision by the EHRC to deliberately withhold the information? Or both? The EHRC could have followed its own advice and anonymised the data as it demanded the Labour Party do. It didn't. Given that we have been provided with NO information on the bulk of the cases determined or how decisions were arrived at, it is safe to say the EHRC were themselves were not trained to the necessary standard. Because a necessary standard according to them requires clear, reasoned, transparent and consistent decisions. Decisions that be verified and demonstrated. On p9 we're told there was, "a lack of a clear and fair process for respondents." But where was the EHRC's clear and fair process when arriving at its decisions? The 68 remaining cases should have been presented like those of Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. Why weren't they? P10 and the complaint here is that there was, "poor record-keeping: this was evident in 62 of the 70 files in our sample." Yet in the vast majority of its cases there are no records at all. Just invisible people who have allegedly done invisible things. No small truths here that have been reasoned, demonstrated and verified. Only 2 out of the EHRC's 70 cases meet their own exacting standards. Or 2.8%. P13 and the EHRC say, "Rebuilding trust and confidence in antisemitism complaint handling The Labour Party must rebuild trust and confidence that antisemitism complaints are handled independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively." But has the EHRC itself handled all 70 cases, independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively? Apart from the 2.6% we don't know. Where's the evidence? They appear to have effectively buried it. They expect Labour to have in place, "what will be considered an appropriate sanction for different types of proven antisemitic conduct" and yet offer no examples of what that might entail. Each case could have been provided with just such an example. It is a failing of this report that they weren't. We discuss trust in the EHRC later in our reply to the report. The similarity with how Ombudsman Services:Property, "investigated" complaints is remarkable. What confidence can the public have in the EHRC when it has failed to clearly demonstrate, "proven antisemitic conduct" in the bulk of the cases it investigated? Legally, the Labour Party will be expected to, "Collect, analyse, and publish quarterly data." Once again we should like to ask, where is the analysis of the data the EHRC collected when compiling its report? How many cases of antisemitism have there been in total since 2015 and how did the EHRC's investigators categorise them? Of the 70 cases "investigated" by the EHRC how many were of Holocaust Denial? How many were ones of calling Zionists - "Zios?" We don't know because they don't say. The media are adamant - antisemitism is everywhere in the Labour Party. Yet in the EHRC report it was found it in 2.86% of cases. They also say, "We also highlighted the range and volume of antisemitic conduct across the complaint sample". (p32) Range and volume? Where? We've read the report twice and we can't find that information. It isn't collated in one place. There is no Annex dedicated to a statistical breakdown and analysis of the range and volume of antisemitic conduct the EHRC discovered. This is not efficiency. It's as if what little evidence they have found has been scattered around the report in order to confuse the reader. Perhaps that's what they mean by efficiency? P28 and the EHRC is at pains to stress that, "Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears. Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party." We have every confidence that Primo Levi would have wanted to verify that claim by resorting to a careful study of the evidence. The only problem is - The EHRC don't provide it. They have provided little or no data on who made the bulk of the complaints. For example - did these complaints of antisemitism come from lots of individuals or a small group? Given the enormity of what is at stake such an omission is beyond careless. P30. The EHRC claim, "Some of the unwanted conduct took place on social media." But according to the EHRC's own figures 59 of the 70 cases, "took place on social media." That's 82.49%. By our calculation that isn't, "some." That's "most." Why are the few statistics that were made available by the EHRC for scrutiny being distorted in this way? They, too, are shortcuts. But not to the truth. The report is constructed around sentences like this one, "An effective complaints process must be fair, impartial and transparent. Decisions on complaints should be made through specified formal processes, based on a fair and objective assessment of the facts." (p42) But we have no real idea as to how the EHRC arrived at its decisions. Instead we are expected to take what they say on trust. Shortcuts can also take the form of shadowy figures offering their unsubstantiated insights eg, "one former GLU staff member described Thomas Gardiner as ..." (p48) And, "although we have seem some evidence ... does not appear ... as extensive, systematic.." (54) This is a report paid for by the taxpayer. We need to know: who is the person - what is the evidence? We felt tempted at this point to claim that, "an EHRC panel member has told us - off the record - that the EHRC report was..." but as we hold the memory of Primo Levi in such high esteem, we didn't. We believe there are currently 166 Panel Members of the EHRC. They're named in alphabetical order. Yet the EHRC report doesn't say who was responsible for writing what is in it. Why the secrecy? As a regulator funded by taxpayers' money surely the public have a right to know who it was who carried out the first investigation of a British political party by a regulator with a Commissioner, Pavita Cooper, who donated money to the Conservative Party. A Regulator who decided not to investigate Boris Johnson's blatant Islamophobia or that of his party. (5) Then there's the remarkable revelation on p93 concerning The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism. The EHRC are highly critical of the Labour Party and its attempts to secure antisemitism training, "The Labour Party said it had been more complex and difficult for it to procure antisemitism training than sexual harassment training, and that discussions with the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (at Birkbeck) in spring 2018 ‘stalled later that year because of pressure applied on the Institute’. No further details were provided to us." What is extraordinary is that The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism should cave-in to, "pressure" and that the EHRC should make no attempt whatsoever to ascertain who applied that pressure and why. This was supposed to be a consistent, effective and fair investigation into antisemitism not a cover-up Birkbeck University of London's susceptibility to, "pressure." One of the charity's quoted in the EHRC report was the CST. Its Head of Policy is Dave Rich who is also an Associate at The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and an author of a book on Jeremy Corbyn and left antisemitism. The EHRC could have asked him who applied the pressure and why Birkbeck's courses aren't up to much. We did but got no response. The course Birkbeck (University of London) did provide was described as being unsatisfactory. Not a good day for the values of academic freedom or Birkbeck's ability to get the job done. We would recommend Durham University every time. The EHRC, having not troubled to ask any difficult questions, came to the conclusion that the Labour Party had committed unlawful discrimination in not providing adequate training from courses that didn't exist. In his testimony to Congress and on the subject of the IHRA Working Definition, Kenneth Stern asked it to, "Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist” be anti-Palestinianism? (6) With study, discussion and reasoning surely we should be able to arrive at a civilised conclusion? anti-Palestinianism - why not? anti-Leftism - why not? He also believed adoption of the IHRA Working Definition on Antisemitism would "chill" free speech. And he was right. Chillingly, the EHRC have now ruled that some speech is now unlawful harassment and therefore illegal. In truth, the EHRC report took too many shortcuts and did not demonstrate an ability to arrive at fair, reasoned decisions in the vast majority of the cases it investigated in its sub-standard report. A bit like the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman. Primo Levi would have been less-than impressed with both organisations. In Conclusion: At the start of the EHRC's investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party we contacted all but 5 of the then EHRC panel members starting with Adam Wagner (Doughty Street Chambers / Visiting Professor of Law Goldsmiths University / CAA charity and presenter of the file to the EHRC) to ask them: * Do you believe in universal Human Rights? * Do you believe the Palestinian People have the same Human Rights as their Jewish brothers and sisters? * Do you believe the Palestinian People should have the same right of return as their Jewish brothers and sisters? A sort of Hippocratic oath for barristers. Not a single EHRC panel member was prepared to climb the barristers' barricade, wave the banner and proclaim the need for universal Human Rights. We also asked the EHRC to investigate the CAA charity for its petition stating that Jeremy Corbyn was an antisemite and unfit to hold any public office: was this charitable work? What about his human rights? What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? (Now that Sir Starmer has said Jeremy Corbyn isn't antisemitic we would expect him to now be asking the same questions). And the CST charity for its hate-speech. One blog claimed all new members of the Labour Party "slither" and some cause a "stench" and asked: wasn't this discriminatory? Harassment? And how did it promote community harmony? We did not get a reply. Trust the EHRC? As for the impartiality of the EHRC we believe that was compromised by its refusal to investigate Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party's truly shocking Islamophobia and by its failure to consistently, effectively and fairly account for the antisemitism it claimed it investigated in the Labour Party. Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. 1) Prof Stephen Sedley Defining Anti-Semitism London Review of Books 3 May 2017. 2) Kenneth Stern: I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." Fri 13. 2019 The Guardian. "Armed with a [legal] determination that effectively says campus anti-Zionism is antisemitism, these professors will correctly see themselves at risk when they ask their students to read and digest materials deemed anti-Zionist, whether the writings of leading 20th century Jewish thinkers who were skeptical of Zionism, such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber, or of contemporary Palestinians. […] My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress — rather than answer — political speech they don’t like. The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer." Testimony of Kenneth Stern, original author of the text adopted for the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, given before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, November 7, 2017 3) Independent Jewish Voices Canada: How Not to Fight Antisemitism. A Critique of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. 4) Antony Lerman: Labour should ditch the IHRA Working Definition Altogether. Open Democracy. 5) Newsweek 15 June 2010. 6) See 2 above.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (73)

Sharper Teeth p8: The turnaround at OS:Property was mind-blowing. BMG reported, "strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling." Yet you report an 84% dissatisfaction rate. How do you explain this incredible difference? Your report doesn't say. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (72)

P8 Sharper Teeth: In return for govt. approval Ombudsman Services were required to produce an annual report for their Property scheme. This ceased for 2 yrs when DJS Research were replaced. When you, "fact-checked" this with the executives ruining the firm what did they say? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (71)

Page 8 Sharper Teeth: BMG reported "strong levels of satisfaction and high levels of advocacy of OS." Yet the year before DJS Research said OS:P performance had worsened on all categories measured. How do you explain this sudden transformation? Your report makes no mention of it. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.