27/01/2025
Please could I ask for a copy of your parliamentary strategy or public affairs strategy that covers how PHSO engage with Parliament.
24/01/2025
I would like to gather information regarding previous ombudsman cases shown below. I do have some background details about them but require more in depth information. The cases I require information for are as follows: Leeds Ombudsman Case, 1994 Coughlan Case, 1999 Pointon Ombudsman Case, 2003 Grogan Case, 2006 Pearce Ombudsman Case, 2007 Could you please provide, or advise where to obtain as much information as possible regarding these cases.
Please provide the following information for each grade and band within your department or organisation: 1. Salary Min/Max or Spot Rate: Provide the full salary range for each grade, including minimum and maximum pay points or spot rates. 2. Grade/Band and Civil Service Equivalent: If your department operates its own grading structure, please indicate the corresponding Civil Service grade where applicable. 3. Multi-Year Pay Deal: Please confirm whether your department is currently within a multiyear pay settlement. If so, provide details of this arrangement. 4. Mechanism for Reaching Maximum Pay Point: Outline if there is a structured pathway or mechanism for employees to progress to the maximum salary point within their grade (e.g., time-served contractual pay progression, performance/capability-based pay). 5. Non-Consolidated Pay: Confirm whether your department has a non-consolidated pay pot (e.g., for awarding bonuses or a reward and recognition scheme). Include details of such schemes and specify the total amount represented by the non-consolidated pay pot. 6. Contracted Hours: Confirm the number of hours salary calculations as based on (i.e. 42hour gross/37-hour net contracts, or any other variations/calculations). Particularly in relation to National Living Wage/Minimum Wage hourly rate calculations. 7. Weeks Per Year: Confirm whether salaries (hourly rates) are calculated based on 52 weeks per year, 52.2 weeks, or another arrangement. 8. Annual Leave: Confirm annual leave, public holiday, and privilege holiday entitlements for all grades (including retained grades). Specify any mechanisms for leave increases (e.g., one additional day per year up to a maximum, or increases after a set number of years). 9. Overtime Arrangements: Confirm overtime pay arrangements for all overtime scenarios (e.g., weekday, weekend, public/privilege holidays). Please provide the requested information in an electronic format, preferably as a spreadsheet/table or other accessible data format.
21/01/2025
My questions are towards the end: Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report, Volume 759: debated on Tuesday 17 December 2024 The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendal made a statement to parliament on the above date: She said with permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way that changes in the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. In the statement she said “The Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and I have given the ombudsman’s report serious consideration and looked in detail at the findings, and at information and advice provided by the Department that was not available to us before coming into Government. She made a clear statement that she and Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds) looked in detail at the findings. The Secretary of State for Works and Pensions made also a statement which she said “that research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing”. In a reply to questions from the house after Liz Kendal statement: she repeated this 90% figure many times, the below are extracts from Hansard Volume 759: debated on Tuesday 17 December 2024 from Steve Darling (Torbay) LD Liz Kendal had said “and when 90% of women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot accept that that flat rate of payment of up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op) Liz Kendal had said “When “90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not think that the proposed compensation scheme is fair or proportionate. That is why we have taken this extremely difficult decision.” from Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) Con Liz Kendal had said “This is not about the matter being too complicated; we do not believe that, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op) Liz Kendal had said “We do not believe that, given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) Liz Kendal had said “when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing,” from Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab) Liz Kendal had said “but I have already said why we think that is not justified when 90% of those women knew their state pension age was increasing.” from Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD) Liz Kendal had said “and given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that a compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind) Liz Kendal had said “When 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that giving flat-rate compensation is a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Jess Brown Fuller (Chichester) (LD) Liz Kendal had said “When 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot justify a flat-rate compensation scheme of up to £10.5 billion. We do not believe that that is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.” The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendal when she made her statement to parliament on the Tuesday 17 December 2024 with regards to the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way that changes in the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. She had said: Liz Kendal in replying to question from MPs had included this in her reply’s 90% of women knew that the state pension age was increasing, this inclusive of variations which is set out below. NINE TIMES Liz Kendal repeated it this answer. 90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing. 90% of those women knew their state pension age was increasing.” From a question from Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)Liz Kendal replied by this answer “ the ombudsman used the research that was provided to him—he looked at those aged 16-plus and found that 43% of them knew what their state pension age was—but he did not adequately reflect the research on the specific group of women affected. I think that is an important consideration, as part of our overall decision, which is not based on money alone. In Government, we have to look at what is a fair and proportionate use of taxpayers’ money, which is one of the elements along with the others—the impact of letters, the fact that the great majority of women knew—that has informed our conclusion, which I have set out” My questions for the FOI are set out below. The evidence that Liz Kendal had from your ombudsman report that made her make this statement "that the fact that the great majority of women knew, and the other similar statements made to parliament such as 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing, and or 90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing. The report that Liz Kendal had from your department in which she is reporting to parliament on, she has said in replys to questions from the house such as 90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing. 90% of those women knew their state pension age was increasing.” the statements has been inplied that from 3.5 million women 90% of the which is 3.15 million women knew that the state pension age was increasing. My Question is: Could you confirm that the figures that Liz Kendal has used is correct or is she not correct. Liz Kendal had said to parliament research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing, My Question is: Please could you supply the research that she had alluded to, My Question is: How many women in total aged 45 to 54 were in this research. It is critically important because Liz Kendal had said that it had informed the government to make a conclusion and that she had repeated the outcome of this research in her speech to parliament many times in her statement. Liz Kendal had said in her statement that It references research from 2004 showing that 43% of women aged over 16 were aware of their state pension age, My Question is: Please could you supply the research that she had alluded to. MyQuestion is: How many in this cohort of the 1950’s women do the research from 2004 relate to. It is critically important because Liz Kendal had said that it had informed the government to make a conclusion this research was in her speech to parliament when she made her statement. Sir Keir doubled down on comments by chancellor Rachel Reeves that affected pensioners knew about the changes and therefore should not receive compensation. He said: “The research shows... that 90 per cent of those impacted knew about the changes that were taking place.” Rachel Reeves sid “I understand that women affected by the changes to the state pension age feel disappointed by this decision, but we looked in full at the ombudsman recommendations and they said that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming. Angela Madden, chair of the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign group, said: “This isn’t just misleading; it’s an insult to millions of 1950s-born women who were blindsided by these changes.” Meanwhile, Rebecca Hilsenrath, the ombudsman, told Times Radio: “What we don’t expect is for an acknowledgement to be made by a public body that it’s got it wrong but then refuse to make it right for those affected.” My Question is: Based upon your report, do you agree what Keir Starmer had said “The research shows... that 90 per cent of those impacted knew about the changes that were taking place.” My Question is: When you have given one of your report to a Public Body or even a Goverment for them to review your finding , and you find in your opinium that they have misled and or embilished your written contents, for the benifit not to take recommending actions , what action or policy do you have in place to seek re dress of such misleading to public and Parliament. Liz Kendal said to parliament that Given that sending out letters earlier, which we should have done, would not have made the difference that the ombudsman claims it would, and given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that a compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money. It is very clear that the Labour Government gave substantial credence that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, and have made it a clear addition to a financial conclusion not to pay out to the 1950’s any compensation. Parliament have been given a statement for the Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report by The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendal, I could not find any detail from the PHSO report that concludes any of the statements that
My question is at the end of some statements/interviews with government ministers Rachel Reeves: improving services more important than Waspi women payout Chancellor says high cost of compensation cannot be justified because most of women affected had known pension changes were coming Jessica Elgot Deputy political editor Wed 18 Dec 2024 04.06 EST Improving public services is a higher priority than spending £10bn compensating Waspi women, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has said, as MPs and campaigners criticised the decision to reject the watchdog’s recommendation for a flat-rate compensation scheme. Her comments came after campaigners accused Labour of hypocrisy for having promised to compensate women hit by the rising state pension age. The parliamentary ombudsman had recommended paying out £1,000 to £2,950 to each of the more than 3 million women affected. Reeves said the “expensive compensation bill” could not be justified as most women said they did know about the pension age changes. Reeves, who backed the Waspi campaign in opposition, said: “I understand that women affected by the changes to the state pension age feel disappointed by this decision, but we looked in full at the ombudsman recommendations and they said that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming. “And as chancellor, I have to account for every penny of taxpayers’ money spent. And given that the vast majority of people did know about these changes, I didn’t judge that it would be the best use of taxpayers’ money to pay an expensive compensation bill for something that most people knew was happening.” Rebecca Hilsenrath, the ombudsman, criticised the government’s decision not to offer compensation. She told Times Radio: “It’s great that the government are saying that our intervention will lead to service improvements and it’s fair to say also that people who come to us, overwhelmingly, are motivated by wanting things to improve for other people. Waspi compensation not affordable, Starmer tells Diane Abbott at PMQs “But what we don’t expect is for an acknowledgment to be made by a public body that it’s got it wrong but then refuse to make it right for those affected.” The homelessness minister, Rushanara Ali, admitted the situation was “deeply regrettable” but said the women had received an apology. She said compensation would not be a “fair or proportionate” use of taxpayers’ money. She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The fact is that we have got a huge, huge job to do in terms of making sure that the conditions that pensioners live in in our country are improved and that’s why our focus is on protecting the triple lock, which will unlock £30bn in this parliament, supporting pensioners … and that includes those who were women born in the 1950s. “So this government has inherited a devastating set of issues; we are responding to those challenges.” Ali told Sky News the cost of the compensation was too great at £10bn, “which we don’t feel is fair or proportionate in terms of use of public money, given that some 90% of those affected, according to the ombudsman’s report, it would not have been made a difference in terms of the delay in the letters. “But the reality is, this has been a very difficult issue for those affected, and it’s deeply regrettable, and lessons will need to be learned.” Challenged again on Labour’s promises to the Waspi women in opposition – including from the now work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall – Ali told Sky: “I go back to the point about the lessons that need to be learned, and the fact that this government has apologised for that delay. But we’ve got to focus on the issues at hand, in terms of improving the living standards of pensioners.” Rachel Reeves said, but we looked in full at the ombudsman recommendations and they said that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming. My question is this statement above true did you tell the government that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming.
1) What is the name of the department and person where civilian dentists and doctors can complain and receive protection from corruption; from being abused, misled, deceived, defrauded, degraded, disparaged, exploited, entrapped and trafficked for criminal scams, falsely propagandised and racketeered upon for our "intellectual capital" and "volunteer" (false, fraudulent nomenclature) hours? If there is no civilian protection/safeguarding mechanism for healthcare workers, please clearly state which department of military corporate industry is responsible for this. Will this be A) the Provost Marshal, or B) the Ministry of Defence, or C) Trinity House? 2) Where/which department can civilian dentists and doctors gain access to the transparent T&Cs of the concealed/hidden "volunteer" corporate contracts (currently illegal) and for the intellectual property licenses to our livelihoods? 3) The legal reasons you believe your hands are all tied up from taking legitimate action against wrongful and unconscionable abuse, including corporate manslaughter of civilians by these healthcare councils. 4) The underlying reasons and rationale for the Ombudsman's discrimination between the legal, civil and human rights of civilians and why you believe that dentists and doctors are not entitled to the same rights as the rest of civilians; and why you believe you are not obliged to take action. 5) Since when (i.e.: date/year and title of mandate) healthcare civilians' legal, human and civil rights were co-opted / hijacked under the false and fraudulent pretenses and scam-charades of "volunteers", "intangible assets" and "securities" of "neoliberal" corporate industry?
Please advise the number of PHSO cases regarding DVLA medical complaints since PHSO case P-001082 dated 21 July 2021; that is cases taken to a concluding report, not those closed after investigation. We sought clarification to which you responded. I would like to know the number of cases fully investigated and partially or fully upheld beyond the case that I have quoted, where the complaint was about the DVLA and a medical issue. This is to verify the summary information on the PHSO web site - that if the filters are correct - shows there were no further DVLA Medical Group cases that were fully investigated and partially or fully upheld. I have had difficulty with the online summary in the past.
16/01/2025
This week, the Government chose to deny the compensation you recommended in your Women’s State Pension Age Report. To justify this, PM Keir Starmer repeatedly claimed in the House of Commons that the evidence showed 90% of women were aware of the proposed change. I believe he has picked specifically on the following parts of your report, ignoring many other sections that contradict it - 105. Research in 2005 and 2006 evaluating APFs found that 97% of women aged over 50 knew when they would receive their State Pension. This compared to 55% of women aged under 50 (women born in the 1950s would have been aged 46 to 56 years at the time, so would have fallen into both groups). Significantly, the research also found that 38% of women aged 40 to 49 (born 1956 to 1966) thought they could draw their State Pension at 60, when their actual State Pension age was 65. 106. In 2006 DWP carried out the first of three ‘Attitudes to Pensions Surveys’. The survey found that 83% of respondents were aware women’s State Pension age was going to rise in future. This included 90% of women aged 45 to 54 (women born in the 1950s would have been aged 47 to 56 in 2006). The survey did not ask respondents about their own State Pension age, so we do not know if respondents knew whether and/or how the changes affected them. Under the FOI Act can you please give me access to the reports the PM has based his claim on. Specifically, Research in 2005 and 2006 evaluating APFs and The 2006 DWP first ‘Attitudes to Pensions Survey’. I am particularly interested in the methodology used in these pieces of research as the implications of its prominence in Government decisions have negatively impacted millions of women and once again increased the injustice you identified.
Kier Starmer has recently stated in parliament that research has shown 90% of WASPI woman knew about the state pension age rises. This claims this is based on data from the Ombudsman. Could you please provide the following information: Was this a research study or a poll? When was it conducted? What methodology was used - interviews, questionnaire etc? How many participants were there if interviews were used? If questionnaires were used how many were sent out and what was the response rate? What questions were asked? What were the results per question? How and where were the results disseminated? Can you also send me a copy of the 'research'
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Liz Kendall (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) criticised the Ombudsman's report regarding financial redress for women who lost out as a result of the retirement age increasing (WASPI). The Ombudsman failed to take into account vital information he was provided with during his investigation: Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report Hansard Volume 759 17 December 2024 No. 65 (p167) 'First, the report does not properly take into account research showing that there was actually considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. It references research from 2004 showing that 43% of women aged over 16 were aware of their state pension age, but it does not sufficiently recognise evidence from the same research that 73% of women aged 45 to 54—the very group that covers women born in the 1950s—were aware that the state pension age was increasing, or research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.' https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-12-17&data=05|02|informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk|f658ec38564148453bb308dd26a29fa8|7c88cec864114f329333cf6877fd3515|0|0|638709202097639789|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|0|||&sdata=e1tkzB1eZsB/mvb4UM2k1BD/YZNEIO1VjxBwvS356gQ=&reserved=0 1. Please send me details of who commissioned and carried out the research referred to. 2. Please send me details of the research methodology the Ombudsman had sight of when preparing his report. 3. Please send me full details of any analysis undertaken by the Ombudsman to test the robustness of the research methodology.
15/01/2025
1. What is the minimum and maximum response timeframe of the General Medical Council for complaints and enquiries? 2. What is the minimum and maximum response timeframe of NHS England for complaints and enquiries? 3. What is the minimum and maximum response timeframe of the Care Quality Commission for complaints and enquiries? 4. What is the minimum and maximum response timeframe of the Department of Health and Social Care for complaints and enquiries? 5. What is the minimum and maximum response timeframe of the Health and Social Care Select Committee for complaints and enquiries? 6. What is the minimum and maximum response timeframe of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for complaints and enquiries?
14/01/2025
This is an information request relating to quango staff being given permission to work from outside the United Kingdom. By United Kingdom, I refer to Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland, not including the crown dependencies. Please include the following information for the following financial years, 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24 : • The number of employees currently with permission to work outside of the United Kingdom • The number of employees who were given permission to work outside of the United Kingdom in the 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24 financial years • If possible, for each employee given permission, please provide their pay band, and the country which they were provided permission to work from If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under the Section 16 obligations of the Act, as to how I can refine my request. If you have any queries please don’t hesitate to contact me via email or phone and I will be very happy to clarify what I am asking for.
What percentage of the affected WASPI women were contacted for the research carried out by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in advance of this decision being made and what percentage does that constitute in terms of the whole WASPI group?
13/01/2025
Have the PHSO ever investigated anything in regards Worthing Borough Council and their Management Agreement with South Downs Leisure Trust, an independent charitable trust organisation?
I would like to request a FOI of the full cost of the Waspi Report completed in March 2024 by PHSO over the years it took to produce same.
09/01/2025
Your website gives 5 bulletpointed sources of 'evidence' that the investigating NHS trust should gather (this is in the section 'Good complaint handling guides for the NHS'/ 'Carrying out the investigation'). We would like to know which of these types of evidence carries the most value for a complaint to be upheld. For example, if a complainant says something happened but the hospital notes don't have this evidence recorded, does the lack of written evidence override the witness testimony? And vice versa, if a complainant denies an event that is recorded as happening in hospital notes, which evidence is relied upon? Testimony or written notes? What happens in a case where the trust disputes the complaint and the only other evidence is hospital notes? Just as a reminder the types of evidence are in the screenshot attached. Our question is about how different types of evidence impact on complaints being screened ...at what point is there enough evidence for the PHSO to become involved. Specifically, how much weight do hospital notes and records carry?
I can see from your website that: - You set the standards for complaints in the NHS: NHS Complaint Standards | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) - You publish data about complaints made to the Ombudsman: What our data tells us | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) I’m curious to know whether anyone: - Monitors adherence by Trusts to your standards for complaints in the NHS - Monitors complaint data across all Trusts, as complaints submitted to the Ombudsman must have already received two replies from a Trust to be considered eligible and will thus be just a part of all complaints Without that, it isn’t possible to identify centrally whether a Trust is: - Performing significantly worse or better than another Trust - Improving or deteriorating t
06/01/2025
1. The number of penalty notices issued in the past six years to new benefit claimants compared to claimants who have been receiving benefits for over 12 months. 2. Evidence of when and what information relating to your "Check Before You Tick" campaign was provided to MyDentist Westbrook. 3. Details of other efforts made since September 2019 to inform and educate the public about eligibility for NHS dental treatment and the "Check Before You Tick" campaign. 4. Evidence of whether the number of penalty notices issued has increased or decreased since the implementation of the "Check Before You Tick" campaign.
Thanks for your reply, and I fully understand your decision. Maybe you could update your systems. please can i from north east north east north cumbria
23/12/2024
1. How much did the investigation and production of the report as a result of the Waspi complaint cost the Ombudsman? 2. How many people worked on the complaint and report over the six year period (and were they full or part-time) it took the Ombudsman to investigate?