Ombudsman Services Communications - What a Nightmare!!

[AndyAndroid]

Having failed to get BT to resolve my complaint, I was forced to take my case to the Ombudsman Services Communications (OSC). The OSC accepted my complaint as valid but that was the only thing I consider they did correctly.


Amongst the many things they failed to do, the following list is some of the key areas where they failed to provide a proper service:

• They totally ignored a key submission from me and the Ombudsman reviewed my case, issued his findings then promptly closed the case.
• The first offer I received was exactly the same as what BT had offered me and which had been refused.
• My ground for rejection of their offer were never passed back to the Ombudsman for him to reconsider.
• An administrative office then continued to block any attempts for me to have my case reviewed including rejecting requests from my MP.
• I then submitted a complaint about the way my case had been handled and they rejected that and decided that it wasn’t appropriated for it to be taken forward and just closed any further correspondence.

I would be please to hear from anybody else who has had similar experiences in dealing with the OSC and who have only ever been offered compensation of £50 or less.

[R0b]

Re: Ombudsman Services Communications - What a Nightmare!!

Having failed to get BT to resolve my complaint, I was forced to take my case to the Ombudsman Services Communications (OSC). The OSC accepted my complaint as valid but that was the only thing I consider they did correctly.


Amongst the many things they failed to do, the following list is some of the key areas where they failed to provide a proper service:

• They totally ignored a key submission from me and the Ombudsman reviewed my case, issued his findings then promptly closed the case.
• The first offer I received was exactly the same as what BT had offered me and which had been refused.
• My ground for rejection of their offer were never passed back to the Ombudsman for him to reconsider.
• An administrative office then continued to block any attempts for me to have my case reviewed including rejecting requests from my MP.
• I then submitted a complaint about the way my case had been handled and they rejected that and decided that it wasn’t appropriated for it to be taken forward and just closed any further correspondence.

I would be please to hear from anybody else who has had similar experiences in dealing with the OSC and who have only ever been offered compensation of £50 or less.

Well, your alternative recourse is to go through the courts if you are still not satisfied. You haven't really given a background as to why the complaint was made and why you feel that compensation of £50 was an adequate amount, did you give BT an amount you thought reflected your complaint?

[holdon]

Re: Ombudsman Services Communications - What a Nightmare!!

At last somebody else with a problem with the Ombudsman Service Communications(OSC), I thought it was just me.

I have an entry under this heading concerning my dealings with the OSC, it is most clear that when you read the Terms of Reference published by the OSC they have clear obligations as do BT as required by the 'competent authority', this is confirmed when you refer to rules governing ADR schemes on the legislation pages of the Government website.

There is an obligation that the OSC consider legislation designed to protect the consumer when requested to review a complaint from an 'end user', in my case the OSC do not appear to have done this as my case file contained evidence that BT have failed to comply with the obligations imposed on BT by the Sale of Goods and Services Act, BT also later altered the information contained in the body of the 'call log', in other words changed data used during the complaint review process.

At the end of the review by the OSC they merely confirmed that BT offer, in their opinion was reasonable, the offer was in respect of 9 years work that had been deleted by BT which was held on emails stored in my webmail. I was concerned and complained to the OSC regarding their non compliance with their own obligations and had ignored the obligations of BT to use their 'duty of care' and the OSC could not give any explanation of their assessment of financial award, the complaint was therefore referred to the Independent Assessor(copy report registered with this website) who found in my favour regarding maladministration but could not comment on the decision of the OSC.

The decision of the 'Ombudsman' has been found to be legally flawed and the reasons given in the original report have either changed or been dropped without further reference.


In my opinion, there is collusion between the OSC and BT which suggests that the OSC are 'passing off' a service that in reality does not exist as nothing suggested by the OSC, in my opinion, can be considered as reasonable or fair and suggested that the OSC are merely guilty of 'joint enterprise' with BT. the complaint is currently with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for review as Ofcom have decided to abdicate responsibility as regulator responsible for both BT and the OSC as 'competent authority' as without the backing of BT the OSC would/could not offer any ADR service.

There must surely be more than just two end users who have encountered 'failures' by the OSC and apathy of Ofcom.

[AndyAndroid]

Re: Ombudsman Services Communications - What a Nightmare!!

Well, your alternative recourse is to go through the courts if you are still not satisfied. You haven't really given a background as to why the complaint was made and why you feel that compensation of £50 was an adequate amount, did you give BT an amount you thought reflected your complaint?

If you read the last part of my post you will see that all I was trying to ascertain was, how many people have been forced to go to the OSC and not had their complaint resolved to their satisfaction - the £50 figure is one that is quoted by the OSC as being their average 'compensation' payout.

[R0b]

Re: Ombudsman Services Communications - What a Nightmare!!

If you read the last part of my post you will see that all I was trying to ascertain was, how many people have been forced to go to the OSC and not had their complaint resolved to their satisfaction - the £50 figure is one that is quoted by the OSC as being their average 'compensation' payout.

I understand you are trying to find out how many people have used the OSC however to say you were 'forced' to go to the OSC is probably a bit much though, as you do have alternative means of redress if you are not satisfied with the outcome.

[holdon]

Re: Ombudsman Services Communications - What a Nightmare!!

Any civil action will enquire whether a complainant has followed all available avenues prior to resorting to the Court. There is a clearly laid out plan of action for a complainant to take, OSC comes before any civil litigation.

[R0b]

Re: Ombudsman Services Communications - What a Nightmare!!

Yes, litigation is always the last resort but certain routes prior to court may not be appropriate. Take the Financial Ombudsman for example, where their compensation amount is limited to £150,000 so any amounts claimed over this would need to be directed to court. Similarly, if the OP is saying that the average compensation paid out is around £50 (which is on their website but a maximum up to £10,000), there could be a legitimate reason for the someone to bypass the OSC if they feel their powers/compensation are not appropriate in relation to the complaint.

[holdon]

Re: Ombudsman Services Communications - What a Nightmare!!

The Terms of Reference published by the OSC and the attitude and actions of Ofcom need to be clarified, not only for this OP but for myself and anybody with a complaint that gets referred to the OSC as a result of a dispute with the ISP's complaint handling. It is not purely the 'compensation' that is under discussion here but also the manner and computation of the 'award' of such compensation. Any complainant has the right to have their own view on what happens to their individual complaint once registered with the ADR administrators, one must of course assume that a complainant who goes this far is entitled to expect that what is said to the ADR administrator has been listened to and acted upon, only when it has been treated in this way can a complainant be satisfied with any outcome, regardless of the sum of money involved, ignoring application to the ADR is bound to cause dissatisfaction of one sort or another.
These open discussions are very interesting and no doubt will continue to be for some time to come.