The DGCOS publicity machine has recently picked up on a thread on this website and created a press release which has been published on various websites, including the Fenestration News – follow the link.
The press release states:
Dear Ian
Commenting recently (28th June) on the Renegade Conservatory Guy blog about the recent Which? report, a director of the GGF and FENSA alleged that “GGF members have their own ‘Ombudsman’”.
This distortion is more than just a bit of spin, and it illustrates why the industry so badly needs the Ombudsman Scheme. I am sure the GGF is well enough advised to know the difference, but his attempt to confuse an in-depth, compulsory, free of charge, legally binding Ombudsman (with judicial powers) with an opt-in/opt-out arbitrator with no powers of enforcement is an example of the sort of half truth that has beggared double glazing for so long.
That sort of industry self-deception has been regularly exposed by Which? for decades, along with other tricks of the trade. It’s why the industry is used by The Daily Mail, and others, as a benchmark for bad practice and dishonesty.
The GGF does not have an Ombudsman, with or without quotation marks. Let us be clear in future, please – and honest.
Yours sincerely
Tony Pickup
Founder of the Double Glazing & Conservatory Ombudsman Scheme (DGCOS)
I must admit, when I read this I did feel that Tony had blown out of all proportion the context of Alan’s comment and used it for his own benefit. These are strong words indeed.
Anyway, Alan Burgess has responded as follows:
FAO Tony Pickup
Firstly I note your comments on other sites suggesting a director of the GGF and Fensa has made comments, and has spun the term “ombudsman”.
This is untrue.
Yes I am a director of those (and other) bodies, however please note they were either “personal observations” or were written “for and on behalf of Masterframe Windows Ltd”.
They were not those of any other body. No other context should be considered.
You seem very concerned that I have spun a term, so I thought it best to obtain some definitions of the term, because that’s what members of the public will use.
Heres what I found…..
Wikipedia defines an ombudsman as:
“a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal or external constituency while representing the broad scope of constituent interests. ‘Ombudsman’, which is an indigenous Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish term, is etymologically rooted in the Old Norse word umbuðsmann, which essentially means ‘representative’.
Usually appointed by the organization, but sometimes elected by the constituency, the ombudsman may, for example, investigate constituent complaints relating to the organization and attempt to resolve them, usually through recommendations (binding or not) or mediation.
Ombudsmen sometimes identify organizational roadblocks running counter to constituent interests.”
Another dictionary site says,
An official appointed by a government or other organization to investigate complaints against people in authority. This position is designed to give those with less power — the “little people” — a voice in the operation of large organizations.
om•buds•man
1.a government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies.
2a a person who investigates and attempts to resolve complaints and problems, as between employees and an employer or between students and a university.
Word History :
In Swedish an ombudsman was a deputy who looked after the interests and legal affairs of a group such as a trade union or business.
In 1809 the office of riksdagens justice ombudsman was created to act as an agent of justice, that is, to see after the interests of justice in affairs between the government and its citizens.
This office of ombudsman and the word ombudsman have been adopted elsewhere, as in individual states in the United States.
The term has also been expanded in sense to include people who perform the same function for business corporations or newspapers.
I then looked for arbitrator, that’s a person who…….
1.A person chosen to settle the issue between parties engaged in a dispute.
2.One having the ability or power to make authoritative decisions; an arbiter.
Sound similar, no?
Tony, please ask yourself these questions;
Is the GGF “a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal or external constituency?”
Does the GGF, “investigate constituent complaints relating to the organization and attempt to resolve them?”
Does the GGF, “ act as an agent of justice?”
Does the GGF, attempt to resolve issues, “usually through recommendations (binding or not) or mediation?
Then it’s reasonable for people to use the term “ombudsman” or “arbitrator” in similar ways.
Tony, I did not try to spin anything, just pointing out the similarities of theses terms. No doubt you will have a far more precise, defined term, but laypeople aren’t interested, what they want is someone who resolves their problems when things go wrong.
Your scheme works for your members, it is not for the common good of every double glazing consumer in the UK, only those using your membership. Likewise the GGF is only interested in dealing with complaints involving its members.
Both offer different methods, both perform a similar role, lets get on with getting EVERY company to sign up organisations that promote good practice, instead of arguing that one is technically different to the other.
Alan Burgess
For and on behalf of Masterframe Windows Ltd
In two weeks time I have a representative of the DGCOS coming to talk to West Yorkshire Windows and Conservatory Outlet about the benefits of joining the scheme.
Their latest press release has not done their cause any favours in my eyes. Personally, I feel this industry has many genuine and good people which has cleaned up its act over recent years. Am I guilty of self deception?
Is our industry really a benchmark for bad practice and dishonesty?
Let me be ‘clear’ and ‘honest’. As far as I’m concerned, the DGCOS is a completely unnecessary organisation created to take advantage of outdated misconceptions of a previous era. There’s still room for improvement clearly, but a profit making ‘ombudsman’ scheme is not the answer.
Matthew Glover
For and on behalf of Conservatory Outlet Ltd
