| |
Acknowledgement
I am most
grateful to everyone who has telephoned or written to me offering
support. |
| |
Contents
1. E-mail to Gary Austin of 25 February
2001 (Jump to article)
2. Fax letter to Gary Austin 11th October 2000(Jump to article)
3. Agenda -
Meeting 29 January 2001(Jump to
article)
4. E-mail/Fax to Gordon Court
of 7 February 2001 - Telephone Booking System(Jump to article)
5. DSA Complaints
Procedure as seen by another Driving Instructor(Jump to article)
6.
Letter to my Member of Parliament Minutes of Meeting between DSA & ADI
Consultative Bodies - July 2000 Final Edition (not a draft)(Jump to article)
7. E-mail to Miss Moira
Thompson Charter Mark 4 March 2001 Re: Charter Mark - Driving Standards
Agency(Jump to article)
8. (Jump to
article) |
| Return to
Home page |
1)
25th February 2000
Dear Mr Austin,
Re: Complaint and Comments on our Meeting 29 January
2001 |
| 1) Thank you for your letter of 19 February
in response my mine dated 10 February |
| 2) Thank you for acknowledging the cheque
that I returned to you. As I pointed out in previous correspondence and at my
meeting with you the principle that the winner of an action should not be worse
off as a result of making a complaint must be upheld. I shall take the action
referred to previously but only after the Ombudsman has addressed outstanding
issues, e.g. my letter of 11 October which was listed on the agenda and has not
prompted a written reply. As you appeared not to have this letter with you at
our meeting, this remains to be resolved. I have repeated the contents below my
signature block for your convenience. Serials 2,5,6 and 8 have also not been
resolved. The agenda of our meeting is shown below for your convenience. |
| 3) It was very unfortunate that you were
late (nearly half an hour), did not have all letters that were relevant to the
agenda and you had to leave early before the agenda had been completed. The
fact that you remained in our golf club car park for approximately 20 minutes
after our meeting leaves me a little perplexed. You had informed me that the
reason for bringing the meeting to an abrupt conclusion before the agenda had
been covered was that he had to visit someone who was terminally ill. |
| 4) You have commented that I have sent more
than one copy of some letters but you failed to attend the meeting with all
letters set out on the agenda and those that were relevant to those letters.
Clearly the evidence suggests that I should have sent more! |
| 5) I found our meeting useful but there was
little point in it if remedial action is not taken to resolve my grievances.
This is clearly illustrated by my e-mail to Sarah Box dated 6 February 2001 in
regard to Mr Colin Maddock. |
| 6) You said in your letter of 19 February
"We shall no longer acknowledge or respond to any such correspondence in the
future". "We shall take action only on correspondence from you that relates
directly to the booking, changing or cancelling of your pupils test
appointments" |
| 7) Will a full reply be provided to the undermentioned
correspondence/complaints on behalf of my pupils? These were all sent prior to
your letter of 19 February and before your guillotine on fair practice. |
| |
a. E-mail to Jason Falk 3 February
2001 Booking Control Manager Re: Complaint Acknowledgement of e-mail &
Statement of Credit Card Transactions this in turn refers to e-mail of 30
December 2000. Jason informed me this would be investigated in his e-mail of 5
February
b. E-mail to Sarah Box 6 February 2001 Re: Complaint - Mr C M
Maddock, Deputy Customer Service Manager
c. E-mail and fax to Mr Gordon
Court IT Director 7 February 2001 Re: Complaint - Telephone Booking
System.
d. E-mail to Sarah Box 9 February 2000 Re: Acknowledgement
E-mail 6 February - Complaint - Mr C M Maddock, Deputy Customer Service
Manager
e. E-mail to Sarah Box 9 February 2001 Re: Acknowledgement
E-mail 5 February - DSA Lectures in schools V ROADPEACE Campaign
f.
E-mail to Mr Gary Austin, 10 February Re: Test Appointment Card Application
Reference 2768716
g. E-mail to Sarah Box 12 February 2001 Re: Complaint
E-mail 19 January - Charter Mark Service Standards Waiting Time for Car Driving
Tests
h. E-mail to Mr Gary Austin 13 February 2001 Re: Complaint - DSA
Service Standards - E-mail correspondence
i. E-mail to Mr C M Maddock 15
February 2001 Re: Details of Complaints DSA 1999/2000 |
|
| 8) You may recall you have previously
refused to provide information but did so after I quoted the Code. I hope it
will not be necessary to take this action. The service standard has not been
met in many cases. |
| 9) Why have you taken the action referred
to in 6)? Is this because I went to the media over the telephone booking
system? If you refer to my e-mail to Gordon Court I clearly stated this action
would be taken if no reply were received within a specified period. The
problems of this system have been going on for nearly two years. I have
repeated my e-mail to Gordon Court below my signature block. |
| 10) The Ombudsman states in his letter of 9
November 2000 "It is, of course open to Mr Hill to come back to the Ombudsman
if he remains dissatisfied with the DSA's actions and can provide fresh
evidence in support of his complaint (or,indeed,has others). The Ombudsman will
then consider whether or not there is sufficient evidence to initiate a formal
investigation." |
| 11) Complaints against the DSA have risen
as the evidence clearly shows so to give the impression that I am your only
complainant is very misleading. I gave fair warning in my of letter of 8 March
1997 that I would take action because the methods used by the DSA were no
longer acceptable when one of my pupils was badly treated by the DSA. |
| 12) The DSA has not published any figures
for customer complaints in its 1999/2000 Annual Report. If the DSA had nothing
to hide these would be have been published. Surely the Charter Mark authority
should demand an explanation. |
| 13) Fortunately the Ombudsman does publish
figures and these show that complaints against the DSA are continuing to
increase as the latest totals show. The period 2000/01 shows an increase of 27%
over the preceding period. This percentage may increase as the period does not
end until 31 March 2001. |
| 14) More people are challenging the DSA
business practices, The Ombudsman has used the term "unstructured consultation"
in a report about the DSAs consultation methods. What does this term mean? It
implies that the DSA does not consult in a very professional way as no
organised framework for consultation is in place. |
| 15) Some of you may wonder why I have
challenged the DSA with such vigour. The answer is simple. It uses
"unstructured consultation" and does not have a fair and effective complaint
procedure. When the DSA stopped acknowledging my e-mail as laid down in its
service standards I appealed to Mrs E Hodder, the Independent Complaints
Advisor. She informed that she could not help me. As a result I sent a letter
by courier to the Prime Minister's Office for help. You would agree that I
should have to take such steps if the system was fair. |
| 16) I therefore have no alternative but to
seek assistance from my Member of Parliament, Ombudsman and the Courts to
resolve outstanding issues. |
| 17) I am truly very disappointed that I am
forced to take this action, as you seem a decent person. If I do not receive a
more appropriate response within fourteen days from the date of this e-mail, I
shall implement the action referred to under serial 16) without further
reference to you. |
| 18) I have sent one copy of this e-mail by
fax to your fax number to ensure you get the message today.
|
2)
Fax letter to Gary
Austin11th October 2000
Dear Mr Austin,
Re: Complaint - Your letter
dated 4 October 2000
Thank you for
your letter of 4 October in response to my letter dated 13 September together
with some data that you had previously refused to provide. Your earlier refusal
does you no credit as it appears to observers of our exchanges that you are
clearly being obstructive as you have not reasonably justified your previous
refusal.
I do
not intend to comment on every aspect of your letter as I am to meet my Member
of Parliament shortly so my response will be through her good
offices.
However it may be helpful to point out that in your penultimate
paragraph of page 2 you refer to a fax letter of 26 April. This is incorrect as
my letter of 26 April was sent by e-mail as was pointed out in my fax letter of
4 June. The information you have provided was provided ages ago and is in no
way related to the information requested in my e-mail of 26 April and repeated
in my fax letter of 4 June. If you refer to the correct letter this fact will
be obvious!
This error is further compounded by the fact that you have
clearly not identified both fax letters dated 4 June which refer to separate
appointment holders and subjects. As I have pointed out previously the fax
telephone numbers appear on my telephone bill so the evidence is very clear!
These letters were copied to Customer Services and to your fax number. All
telephone numbers are shown on my telephone account.
Please reconsider your
decision not to provide compensation as it is unfair. If I do not receive a
reply within fourteen days from the date of this fax letter I shall assume your
position remains unchanged and as such I shall take action against the DSA
without further reference to it.
Yours
sincerely,
Peter Hill |
|
Return to content menu |
3)
15th January 2001
Dear Mr Austin,
Re:
Meeting 29 January 2001 - Agenda |
| |
Further to my letter of 2 January. Although I am
disappointed you cannot agree to my request for a meeting at my office, I
understand a meeting at Knowle Golf Club Bristol at 11.00 a.m. may suit you
better. The club is well signed but directions will be sent with the hard copy
of this fax.
I am sure we both understand the reason for this meeting.
The DSA has had the "time and opportunity" to resolve my grievance so this
meeting should be seen as a final attempt to settle matters or I will have no
alternative but to take action without further reference to it.
Having
said that I have no desire to be difficult and look forward to this meeting
with an open mind with a view to bringing this dispute to a positive conclusion
and improve matters between us.
An agenda makes good sense as it makes
it clear to both parties what is to be discussed. This is shown below. I would
like to address matters arising from the following: |
| |
1. My letter to you dated 11 October
2. My e-mail dated 16 November addressed to Colin Maddock, Deputy
Customer Manager
3. Ombudsman's letter dated 9 November (C.542/01)
4. Data Protection Act 1984
5. My letter of 13 July addressed
to David Wiles, DSA Data Protection Officer
6. Action to be taken by
DSA to correct the faulty data collection for the periods shown in my letter of
13 July 2000
7. Data Protection Act 1998 8. Fax letter dated 28
December addressed to Colin Maddock, Deputy Customer Manager, Complaint -
Application . . Reference Number 2527661 |
|
|
| Return to
content menu |
4)
Mr Gordon Court
IT
Director
Driving Standards Agency
E-mail/Fax to Gordon Court of 7
February 2001
Dear Mr Court,
Re: Complaint - Telephone Booking
System |
As I have received no acknowledgement from you to my
e-mail of 1 February copied to you, it is necessary to contact you again.
The present telephone booking system has now been in place since
approximately March 1999. The apology written by Bernard Herdan, Chief
Executive, in DESPATCH refers. However the problems of the DSA telephone
systems over many years are clearly documented in the MSA Newslink magazine
dated May 99 (Vol. 2 issue 87). The stinging criticism covers many years and is
on the front page.
You have recently admitted that this system is
unreliable in DESPATCH (autumn 2000).
Complaints about this unreliable
telephone booking system where customers pay for calls that are not connected
or the computer is down continue.
At a recent Customer Focus meeting
last month, the DSA defended its position and would not meet the concerns of
its customers, and change its telephone number to a local call number (0345,
08456 etc.).
It is my understanding that the DSA receives a sum of
money (one penny) for every call it receives (referred to as a "hit") from
their telephone supplier, irrespective of whether the customer actually speaks
to someone, or is connected to the booking clerk. Is this correct?
It
has been admitted by the DSA that it receives approximately 300,000 calls per
day. This generates a considerable sum of money, even if it is only one penny
per hit and calls are not connected to an operator. Is this correct? If it is
not, would you please provide the correct amount to put the record
straight?
If this figure is correct, the DSA has gained millions of
pounds at the expense of its customers. Unlike most customers they have a
choice of another supplier. We do not, so this is grossly unfair.
The
compensation system the DSA it has in place does not address this problem as it
is not cost effective to claim a few pence. Would you please provide the
following details so this aspect can be put in perspective: |
| |
a. Total number of
claims for compensation, for financial years 1999/00 and April 2000 to 31
........December 2000.
b. Total amount paid out in compensation, for
financial years 1999/00 and April 2000 to 31 December 2000.
c. What is
the total "Down Time" when the booking system has not worked to full capacity
or at all in hours and days for financial years 1999/00 and April 2000 to 31
December 2000?
|
|
Would you please explain why the DSA will not introduce
local call rates until the fault in booking system is rectified, and why it was
not introduced in the first place for the reason shown in my eighth paragraph?
You will see that I have copied this to my Member of Parliament. It is
my intention to appeal to the media as the DSA does not take notice of ADI
associations. Perhaps this may have the desired effect! As the first e-mail was
dated I February and the DSA has had " the time and opportunity" to resolve
this issue, I shall contact the Media on or after the 14 February without
further reference to it. I have sent one copy of this e-mail by fax to Gary
Austin's fax number to ensure you get the message today. Thank you in
anticipation.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Hill |
|
| Return to content
menu |
5)
DSA Complaints Procedure as seen by another
Driving Instructor |
| |
Dear Peter,
I see that you had your meeting
with the Chief executive of the DSA.
It went pretty well as expected.
The purpose of the meeting was not to solve your complaint but to
justify a so-called "independent" complaint procedure, which is designed to
fulfil requirements for holding Charter Mark etc rather than answering customer
complaints, designed to frustrate the complainant to the point that you will
give up! You will soon become aware that you need a £1000. 00 computer
and polish up your IT skills! Also to seek assistance from anyone who is
prepared to help! Soon you realise what it takes to take on the Establishment!
I will try and explain, you will understand because you have tried
the complaint procedure.
1 You write to the Agency with a
complaint.
2 After being given the "run around " for a while, you may
decide, if you are a dedicated pursuer" that you are not getting anywhere fast,
and you will write to the Chief Executive, you have now entered the one-way
street of the complaint procedure! Doomed to failure!
3 After the run
around gets even worse, and if you are still a dedicated pursuer, you might
seek assistance from your MP, in order to achieve a bigger gun!
4 I f
your complaint is worthy you may be advised to ask the Parliamentary Ombudsman
to look at your complaint, at last you may have arrived where you may achieve a
genuine independent decision. At this time you will have bought a computer,
honed your IT skills and spent hours writing letters to people who appear top
have A-levels in answering anything except what you asked! Finely disappearing
under the mounting paper and it does not end there, as you hoped it might,
after wining the day with the ombudsman! Their next move is to offer you a
meeting because of the pressure! You know the rest, that's where we started!
5 Good luck to anyone considering having a go.
6 Is that
enough, or do you want me to go on!
Best wishes
Name and
address supplied |
|
| Return to content
menu |
| |
6)
Dear Ms Corston,
Re: - Minutes of
Meeting between DSA & ADI Consultative Bodies - July 2000 Final Edition
(not a draft) |
| |
I am very sorry to have to write to you again but as
set out in my letter to you of 26 February I have no choice. I have attached a
copy for your convenience.
Would you please ask the DSA to provide a
copy of the minutes referred to above, as a colleague has been unsuccessful in
obtaining a copy despite making repeated requests.
These meetings are
undemocratic for the following reasons:
| |
a. These minutes are not published in
DESPATCH for all ADIs to read.
b. The people who attend these meetings
do not represent the majority of ADIs of which there are approximately 129,108
on the Register as at 20 October 2000. BSM represents approximately 2000 ADIs
and AA even less. DIA and MSA represent approximately 10.000, ADINJC 203 and
ADI Business Club 87 leaving a considerable shortfall of ADIs that have no
knowledge of these meetings.
c. I have requested total numbers these
people represent but the organisations have refused to provide details.
d. The Ross Silcock report (September 2000) states that 43% of ADIs are
not members of a representative body or association.
e. The criteria
for organisations that hold consultative status are never formally reviewed.
Gary Austin's letter of 27 December refers
|
|
The DSA's policy is contrary to that of "Open
Government" which the Government operates. Would you please ask the DSA to
publish these details in DESPATCH with immediate effect so all ADIs can be
informed of what is going on in their industry rather than just a select few?
Gary Austin has stated that the criteria for consultative status is not
formally reviewed. Why is this not the case and when the did last review took
place? The evidence suggests that a review has never taken place but I would
like to be clear on this point.
Would you please ask the DSA to provide
a detailed answer under the Government Code of Practice on Access to
information which we are entitled to and they are required to give.
Thank you once again for your help.
Yours sincerely,
Peter J Hill |
Return to content menu |
| |
| |
7)
E-mail to Miss Moira Thompson Charter Mark
4
March 2001
Re: Charter Mark - Driving Standards Agency |
Dear Miss Thompson,
Re: Charter Mark - Driving
Standards Agency
1) Thank you for your letter of 19 November.
2) You have stated the Charter Mark Policy & Marketing has
therefore agreed that no further contact will be made with you" Would you
please clarify this statement and provide the information below or would you
prefer for me to write to you via my Member of Parliament?
3) You will
recall in my recent e-mail that I informed you as a matter of courtesy that I
had made reference to the Charter Mark on my website. I assume you have looked
at this information and found it to be correct as I have not heard from you to
the contrary.
4) The fact that you no longer want to receive details
from customers about the poor performance of the DSA does seem to be a little
unusual for a body that is supposed to monitor performance of Charter Mark
holders. Complaints received direct from the public should be included in the
total. Your refusal to acknowledge my complaints indicates these are not taken
into account and as the DSA is not open about complaints against it this would
seem essential. What action is to be taken to address this issue?
5) It
appears the DSA did not publish full details of complaints in its Annual
report. This warrants an explanation. Was one sought? If the DSA had nothing to
hide full details would have been published. What action have you taken to
ensure full details of complaints against the DSA are recorded in detail for
independent examination?
6) The fact that you did not write to me as a
result of the information contained in your letter of 15 August 2000 does you
no credit and warrants an explanation. Will you please provide one? When
information is concealed from customers they may become more determined to
obtain the truth!
7) Fortunately the Ombudsman does publish figures and
these show that complaints against the DSA are continuing to increase as the
latest totals show. The period 2000/01 shows an increase of 27% over the
preceding period. This percentage may increase as the period does not end until
31 March 2001.
8) You are aware that complaints against the DSA have to
go through a Member of Parliament to access the Ombudsman and it is causing
them an unnecessary workload and indicates the seriousness of the complaint.
Were you aware of the increase in complaints against the DSA?
9) The
DSA have still not acknowledged my e-mail to Gordon Court of 7 February about
the telephone booking system. The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) is to
take the matter further on my behalf.
10) The FSB State "The Western
Regional Committee agreed last night that he (he being Peter Hill) has a
genuine grievance against the Driving Standards Agency on 3 counts. Firstly,
their failure to respond to his correspondence, secondly, the way in which the
DSA charge for telephone calls, and keep callers waiting to earn more money,
and finally, that they cancel driving tests at a moments notice costing the
instructors time and money". Driving test candidates are required to give 10
working days notice to change or cancel driving test appointments.
11)
The Regional Committee feels that this should be a National issue.
12)
Support for my actions and that over the telephone system in particular has
come from a driving instructor as far away as Australia. Shown below is an
extract from a letter that I have received that was written to a Member of
Parliament. I have been given permission to publish it.
13) The DSA
holds the Charter Mark Award, but from evidence outlined in the e-mail, they
clearly should not. It appears they have not achieved standards for Driving
Tests, ADI Check Tests and are now failing to acknowledge e-mail within
government service standards. Can nothing be done about this as many other
organisations hold this award with justifiable pride? It certainly questions
the term "Award for Excellence".
14) When I found my e-mails were no
longer being acknowledged by the DSA as per service standards (48 hours) I
wrote to Mr Blair, Prime Minister to enlist his help as the Independent
Complaints Advisor could not assist me. I have received an acknowledgement from
his office so I am satisfied you need take no action. It should not be
necessary to write to the Prime Minister but under the circumstances I felt I
had little choice. My letter to Tony Blair is shown below my signature block
for your convenience.
15) Is not a requirement of a Charter Mark holder
to have a fair and effective complaint procedure? The evidence suggests that
this is clearly not the case. Paragraph 13) makes it clear other core service
standards are also not being achieved. Perhaps it would be simpler to ask what
service standards are actually achieved by the DSA?
16) Would you
please provide the following information: Is Mrs Hodder still holding the
appointment of ICA and if not what date did her appointment cease? Has a
replacement been nominated? If so would you please provide details and the date
appointment is to commence if not the same as the date Mrs Hodder leaves.
Irrespective of any changes of the Independent Complaints Advisor, have the
"terms of reference" of the ICA changed as a result of recent complaints?
17) Would you please provide a detailed answer under the Government
Code of Practice on Access to Information?
18) If I do not receive a
reply within your service standards (4 days) I shall assume you do not intend
to reply. If that is the case I shall write to my Member of Parliament without
further reference to you.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Hill Peter J
Hill
Tel: 07973 742362
www.peterhill.fsbusiness.co.uk cc: OIP
(Please send private replies to peterhill.adi@virgin.net) |
| |
Letter to Prime Minister's Office
14 February
2001
Tony Blair MP Prime Minister
Prime Ministers Office
10
Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
14th February 2001
Dear Sir,
Re: Complaint Driving Standards Agency - E-mail Acknowledgement
The Driving Standards Agency is failing to comply
with Government policy in regard to the acknowledgement of e-mail. Evidence to
support this allegation is attached. More can be provided on request.
I
had a meeting with Gary Austin on 29 January but It was very unfortunate that
he was late (nearly half an hour), did not have all letters that were relevant
to the agenda and that had to leave early before the agenda had been completed.
The fact that he remained in our golf club car park for approximately 20
minutes after our meeting leaves me a little perplexed. He informed me that the
reason for bringing the meeting to an abrupt conclusion before the agenda had
been covered was that he had to visit someone who was terminally ill.
The attachments are as follows:
|
| |
| a. |
E-mail to Jean Corston MP (3 Pages) dated
13 February 2001 |
| b. |
E-mail to Moira Thompson, Charter Mark
Authority (I page) dated 13 February 2001 |
| c. |
E-mail to Gary Austin dated 13 February
2001 (I page) |
|
|
|
I appreciate that it should not be
necessary to write you but under the circumstances I feel I have little choice.
You will see from the e-mail to Moira Thompson all e-mails were copied to Gary
Austin.
I have the honour to be, your obedient servant.
Yours
faithfully,
Peter J Hill
cc: Jean Corston MP Moira Thompson,
Charter Mark Gary Austin, Chief Executive, driving Standards Agency
8. |
| Return to
content menu |
| |
|
|
