Dear Reader,
To hold an Event about the future of ombudsmen and their schemes and then exclude victims of ombudsinjustice is strange - to censor the views of those attempting to comment on the Event - a sign of what the victims have to cope with to get their voice heard.
Our 4th comment was:
Why did The Ombudsman Association remove the requirement for all its members to have a Whistleblowing Policy?
How did that meet the requirements of the EU/ADR/Directive?
If the main purpose of ombudsman schemes is to tackle maladministration why didn't The Ombudsman Association act when the Independent Assessor of ombudsman Services (in what was her First and Last Report for the company) stated just how shocked she was at the significant maladministration she'd encountered at the firm?
The CEO at the time was Lewis Shand Smith. He was on the Board of The Ombudsman Association. Why didn't he act to report his firm's maladministration?
Walter Merricks was on the Board of ombudsman Services. What were his views on:
a) the maladministration?
b) The startling revelation that the property ombudsman, "arrived at decisions in an illogical manner?" (DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Reports)
The RICS had a MoU with its, "appointed" scheme OS:Property.
It closely monitored it for, "the effective resolution of disputes."
Why did, The RICS, Lewis Shand Smith and Walter Merricks regard an ombudsman, "arriving at decisions in an illogical manner" to be, "an effective resolution of a dispute?"
It was certainly, "effective" for RICS fee-paying members but a disaster for their complaining clients.
CONCLUSION:
Wouldn't you agree it's time for a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property / the conflicts of interest / the maladministration / illogical Final Decisions and the sheer scale of ombudsinjustice that was permitted to go on unchecked at this government approved and monitored ombudsman scheme in a modern 21st century democracy.
