Legal Advice relating to Ofcom & ADR Regs 2015

[AndyAndroid]

I had a problem with the Ombudsman Services Communications (OSC) and I took my complaint to Ofcom as they are the Competent Authority for the OSC and have responsibility for ensuring that the OSC conform with their Guiding Principles which were agreed with Ofcom.

Ofcom rejected my complaint stating:
“Ofcom does not resolve individual customer complaints relating to a communications provider or to an ADR scheme”

The OSC are not a communications provider, so I maintain the 2003 Communications Act has no bearing on my complaint.

The ADR Regulations 2015 doesn’t state that the Competent Authority is allowed to reject individual complaints and the sub-heading at the top of the Regulations say CONSUMER PROTECTION.


Could someone who has a legal background comment on my statements about Ofcom’s duties to accept my complaint about the OSC.

[des8]

Re: Legal Advice relating to Ofcom & ADR Regs 2015

I'm not surprised that Ofcom, as the competent authority, have declined to accept your complaint.
The ADR Regs at Part 2 sets out the functions of competent authorities, and nowhere does it include resolution of individual consumer complaints.
A series of individual complaints may lead to a dossier which will lead to an investigation and eventual removal of approval.

[holdon]

Re: Legal Advice relating to Ofcom & ADR Regs 2015

I have tried to keep up to date with what is going on with the Ombudsman Service Communications (OSC) and Ofcom, I had a review by the OSC that was full of 'false assertions' and I duly complained to the Independent Assessor (IA) who found in my favour on a number of issues. The OSC claim to have reviewed, my complaint for a second time, having attempted to avoid doing so by the use of 'false assertion' on their previous attempt.

The 'review' continued to use the same 'false assertions' as the previous review and I asked that the OSC comply with their Terms of Reference and supply me with an explanation and evidence in support of their 'false assertions' I also requested the OSC to refer the complaint to their Board as required as they disagreed with the IA, the OSC stated that they disagreed with the IA so refused to refer my complaint as required. This refusal totally invalidated the IA report and the purpose of having any report from the IA. During the entire process of dealing with the OSC I had advised Ofcom, as Competent Authority (CA) and requested assistance to prevent maladministration from being allowed to overtake the true course of justice.

At this time and throughout Ofcom stated "we don't get involved in individual complaints under the Communications Act", I informed Ofcom that this complaint was under the ADR Legislation and therefore fell within their jurisdiction, this also met with apathy from Ofcom.

I am now concerned that the review by Ofcom that recently took place was also being conducted under the wrong legislation as Ofcom referred only to their obligations under the Communications Act when these obligations, in my opinion, have been superseded by the obligations under the ADR Legislation (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 542) therefore any obligations that Ofcom felt that they had were wrongly stated. During a recent conversation with Ofcom I advised them of 'my opinion' only to find that Ofcom have changed the reasons given for their review and have extended this to include the ADR obligations now imposed upon Ofcom, the review by Ofcom by this time had been concluded. It is now worthy of mention that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman have also had a full and detailed complaint about the entire process and have also expressed apathy failing to advise Ofcom and allowed the wrong Legislation to be used in the review of the ADR conducted by Ofcom.

This is now far from concluded with Ofcom and I would be grateful, like the original post, for assistance on obtaining appropriate opinions, hopefully from people who have been through the OSC review procedure and any other opinions relative to the Ofcom review. In my opinion, there can never be a true and just 'review' when those conducting such review are guilty of maladministration and free from any control from the 'Regulator'. Considering that the ADR is intended for 'Consumer Protection' and without any control there can/never will be any such protection afforded regardless of the intent of any Legislation which has cost the public purse a considerable sum to get through Parliament the entire process is worthless, other than the £30m turnover of the OSC who are quite simply 'passing off' in my opinion.