21/08/2026
Dear Information Access and Assurance Team, Please find attached my request for information made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this request. I look forward to your substantive response within the statutory time limit. Should you consider that any part of this request requires clarification in order to comply with your obligations under the Act, please contact me at your earliest convenience. This request relates only to complaints concerning NHS England, NHS Trusts, NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs0, NHS hospitals and GPS Services. It does not include complaints concerning other organisations within the PHSO's jurisdiction. Please provide the information separately for each calendar year 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 to date of the response, where available. 1. 9Overall complaints submitted to PHSO Please provide: the total number of complaints received by PHSO: the number of complaints accepted for investigation: the number of complaints not accepted for investigation, together with the recorded reason (s) for refusal: the outcomes of complaints, broke down into the following categories where recorded: upheld partly upheld Not Upheld Resolution Closed after Initial enquiries; and any other recorded outcome categories. 2. Complaints involving non-native English speakers Please provide the number of where: the complainant or affected patient was not a native English speaker reasonable adjustments relating to translation services were requested in order to access the PHSO complaints process.
18/08/2026
I would like information and details about how to make a formal complaint about the experience with the Phso. So far my complaints about the Phso have gone ignored by management. Otherwise can you please tell me how to contact the CEO/Managing Director of Phso, as to make my complaint aware with them. And finally, what other (external) organisations can I contact about complaint about the Phso, or would it be expected to contact our local MP and make them aware of the complaint.
Can you provide me a copy/information about your complaints policies, to explain what the processes and procedures are when the complaints are specifically about the PHSO, and how they should be handled.
Dear Information Rights Team, I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For each year from 2021/22 to 2025/26, please provide the following recorded information relating to complaints about CAFCASS, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. 1. The number of complaints or enquiries received concerning CAFCASS. 2. Of those, the number accepted for investigation, and the number declined or closed before a decision was reached, with reasons if recorded. 3. Of those investigated, the number upheld, partially upheld, and not upheld. 4. Any recorded criteria or threshold used to decide whether a complaint about CAFCASS proceeds to investigation. If any of this information is not held in reportable form, please confirm that in writing. If you consider any part exempt, please release the remainder and set out the exemption you are relying on for the rest.
I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning complaints recorded by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in relation to Abbey Field Medical Centre, Colchester. I understand from the PHSO's published NHS complaints data that complaints concerning Abbey Field Medical Centre have been recorded in recent reporting years. I am not requesting the identities of complainants, copies of correspondence, medical information, or any other information capable of identifying individual patients. For the reporting years 2023/24 and 2024/25, please provide, for each complaint concerning Abbey Field Medical Centre: 1. The broad complaint category or subject matter recorded by PHSO. 2. Whether the complaint concerned any of the following: o access to GP appointments; o telephone access to the practice; o reception or care-navigation staff; o online or telephone triage; o refusal or failure to assist a patient with a triage/appointment request; o a patient being advised that no appointments were available; o signposting to NHS 111, an urgent treatment centre or another service instead of arranging GP assessment; o delay in obtaining medical assessment or treatment. 3. The broad outcome of the complaint, for example: o upheld; o partly upheld; o not upheld; o resolved without investigation; o not accepted for investigation; o discontinued; or o any other outcome category used by PHSO. 4. Where a complaint was investigated or otherwise resulted in recommendations, whether PHSO identified: o service failure; o maladministration; o inadequate complaint handling; o problems with appointment access or triage; o communication failures; or o failures involving reception or administrative staff. 5. Whether any recommendation, remedy, service improvement, staff training, policy/procedure change or other corrective action was requested or agreed as a result. Where exact details cannot be disclosed because of the confidentiality requirements applying to PHSO complaint information, I would be grateful if the information could instead be provided at the highest level of anonymised aggregation that can lawfully be disclosed. For example, if individual complaint categories cannot be supplied, please provide the number of Abbey Field Medical Centre complaints falling within each broad category, together with aggregate outcomes. If any part of this request is considered exempt from disclosure, please provide the remaining non-exempt information and identify the exemption relied upon. If the requested information is already publicly available, please provide the precise publication, dataset or webpage where the relevant Abbey Field Medical Centre information can be found.
17/08/2026
Has any other complaint investigated by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman taken this length of time to complete? If so, how many?
14/08/2026
I am seeking to research how many PSHO decisions that are reviewed with legal assistance are upheld following an initial adverse decision. This is to assist me with research work on UK compliance with Art 13 of the ECHR. I would like to work with you to find a way for you to provide this information without undue use of your time or resources.
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please provide the following information relating specifically to complaints made about Cafcass for the five most recent completed financial years, namely: • 2021/22 • 2022/23 • 2023/24 • 2024/25 • 2025/26 If the information for 2025/26 has not yet been finalised, please provide the data for the most recent five completed financial years for which the information is held. For each financial year, please provide: 1. The total number of complaints received concerning Cafcass. 2. The number of complaints accepted for investigation. 3. The number of complaints not accepted for investigation. 4. Where recorded, the reasons complaints were not accepted for investigation, broken down by category and the number within each category. 5. The number of investigations completed. 6. The outcome of those investigations, showing the number that were: o Upheld; o Partially upheld; o Not upheld; o Resolved, discontinued or otherwise closed without a determination (if recorded). 7. The number of recommendations made to Cafcass following investigations. 8. Where recorded, the number of cases in which Cafcass accepted and implemented the Ombudsman's recommendations. 9. The average time taken to conclude investigations relating to Cafcass. 10. The number of complaints concerning Cafcass that were declined because the complainant had not completed the Cafcass complaints procedure. 11. Where recorded, the number of complaints concerning Cafcass that were closed without investigation for reasons other than jurisdiction, together with a breakdown of the recorded reasons. 12. Details of any published investigation reports, case summaries or thematic reports relating to Cafcass issued during the period requested, or links to where these are publicly available.
13/08/2026
I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request aggregate information about complaints involving Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decisions. For each financial year from 2017/18 to 2025/26, please provide: 1. The number of complaints identified by PHSO as involving a DNACPR, DNAR or DNR decision. 2. Of those complaints, the number that were: a. accepted for detailed investigation; b. fully upheld; c. partly upheld; d. not upheld; e. resolved or closed without a final investigation decision. 3. The number of upheld or partly upheld complaints involving a failure to inform or consult the patient, their relatives, carers or representatives about the DNACPR decision.
This request seeks only current corporate documents — policies, procedures, casework guidance, standards, training materials and written instructions in force on the date this request is received. It does not seek legal advice, legal opinions, emails, case files, or information relating to individual complaints or investigations. Please provide copies of the following documents, if held. 1. Any current casework guidance, policy, procedure or written instruction used by Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman caseworkers when investigating complaints that include an allegation that an organisation within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction failed to comply with the Equality Act 2010, or failed to identify or provide reasonable adjustments for a disabled person. 2. Any current guidance, policy or written instruction describing how compliance with the Equality Act 2010 (including the public sector equality duty under section 149) is taken into account when the Ombudsman applies its Principles of Good Administration, its Principles of Good Complaint Handling, or its test for maladministration or service failure. 3. Any current training material provided to caseworkers concerning the Equality Act 2010, disability discrimination, or reasonable adjustments, as these issues arise in casework. 4. The Ombudsman's current policy or procedure on the identification and provision of reasonable adjustments for disabled people who bring complaints to, or correspond with, the Ombudsman's own service.
I would like to make a freedom of information request. I am doing a research project investigating call-off contracts in the public sector. I have identified twelve potential call-off contracts awarded by Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman, but I can't find details of the framework agreements they were awarded from, or which lots were used. I have attached an Excel file that contains the information I am looking at. The last two columns ("Title of framework used" and "Further framework info") is where I am missing information. Please could you provide the name of the specific framework agreement or DPS/Dynamic Market used here, as well as the lot used if the framework was divided into lots. If there is any further info which you think would help me locate the framework agreements (e.g., a link to the framework's Contract Finder or FTS listing, the framework provider, or a widely-used reference number such as CCS's RM codes), please use the final column for this. Please use the second column for the relevant lot information. Please note that I have identified these contracts as possible call-off contracts, so some of them might not be. Some could be, for instance, procured directly (without being called off from a framework agreement), or could be themselves notices of the establishment of a framework agreement. Therefore I would kindly ask you to specify in these incidences what kind of procurement was used in the "Title of framework used" column. I have provided the title, description, the publication date, and procedure type used to award each potential call-off, as well as a URL link to the call-off in question and a unique reference ID for each potential call-off. Please let me know if there is anything else you need to complete the request.
10/08/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request non personal information relating to how my complaint was handled, including: 2.1 Internal Policies and Guidance • The exact version of the PHSO Discretionary Time Limit Policy used by (redacted) • Any internal guidance or instructions issued to staff on handling time limit waiver requests. • Any internal guidance on assessing digital exclusion or vulnerability. • Any internal guidance on handling complaints where HMCTS has destroyed records. 2.2 Internal Training Materials • Training materials provided to caseworkers on applying the time limit policy. • Training materials on discrimination, fairness, and vulnerability assessment. 2.3 Internal Review Procedures • The internal process for second tier review of caseworker decisions. • Any internal documents explaining when a review must be provided. 2.4 Internal Communications Policies • Policies governing internal communication between caseworkers and the Feedback Team. • Policies governing escalation when a caseworker leaves their post.
07/08/2026
I would if it would be possible to have information about the children's heart surgery practices and wards at Leeds General Infirmary West Yorkshire
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information in relation to complaints concerning Cafcass that have been investigated by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). For the period covering the past 20 years, please provide: 1. The total number of complaints received by the PHSO relating to Cafcass. 2. The total number of those complaints that were upheld, either in full or in part. 3. For each complaint that was upheld, please provide: o the date the final decision was issued; and o the PHSO case reference number. If it is not possible to provide the information for the full 20-year period, please provide the information for the longest period for which records are held. If any part of this request is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the remaining information and specify the exemption(s) relied upon for withholding any information.
06/08/2026
I request an internal review of PHSO’s handling of FOI case /00004735. I recognise that my three requests were submitted on the same day and that PHSO aggregated them for the purposes of its response. I also recognise that Section 12 may apply where the statutory cost limit would genuinely be exceeded. However, I ask the reviewer to reconsider whether the refusal adequately demonstrates that the Section 12 estimate applies to all distinct categories of information requested, and whether PHSO discharged its duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance under Section 16. The refusal explains that searches across certain broad terms generated 1,198 complaint results and estimates approximately five minutes per case, producing an overall estimate of approximately 99 hours. However, substantial parts of my requests did not ask PHSO to review individual complaint files. They separately requested existing: • guidance and policies; • training materials and procedures; • briefing documents and briefing notes; • reports, reviews and assessments; and • general institutional material concerning AI, data rights, accountability gaps and the adequacy of complaint mechanisms. The response does not explain how the 1,198-result complaint-search calculation applies to those separately identifiable categories of institutional information. My requests also expressly distinguished general information from individual case material. In particular, I stated: “This request relates to general information held by the PHSO and is not a request for information relating to any specific individual complaint or case file.” I also stated: “This request is made under the Freedom of Information Act and is not a request for information relating to my personal complaint.” I therefore ask the reviewer to consider whether reliance on statutory restrictions concerning case-related information adequately addressed the separate requests for general, non-case-specific information. I further request review of the search methodology. The response states that searches for “AI”, “SAR” and “FOI” would generate excessive false positives. However, my requests contained more specific search terms, including: • OpenAI; • ChatGPT; • Generative AI; • Large Language Models / LLMs; • Apple; and • iCloud. Please confirm whether those terms were searched individually and, if not, whether they could reasonably have been used to identify a narrower body of potentially relevant information. I ask the reviewer to clarify: • the number of results generated by each search term actually used; • whether the stated 1,198 results contained duplicate or overlapping search hits; • whether the five-minute-per-case estimate was based on a sampling exercise and, if so, the methodology and sample size; • which specific parts of my requests were assessed as requiring examination of all 1,198 results; • whether searches for existing policy, guidance, training, briefing, report and review material were undertaken separately from complaint-record searches; and • whether general, non-case-specific correspondence was considered separately from information protected by statutory restrictions applying to individual investigations. Finally, I ask the reviewer to reconsider the Section 16 position. The refusal states that PHSO cannot suggest any way in which the request could be reduced. Given the distinct information categories and specific search terms above, please reconsider whether reasonable advice and assistance could identify a narrower request capable of being answered within the appropriate limit. I am not asking PHSO to exceed the statutory cost limit. I am asking for sufficient explanation and practical assistance to understand which specific parts of my requests create the estimated burden and how the requests may reasonably be narrowed.
I further request review of the search methodology. The response states that searches for “AI”, “SAR” and “FOI” would generate excessive false positives. However, my requests contained more specific search terms, including: • OpenAI; • ChatGPT; • Generative AI; • Large Language Models / LLMs; • Apple; and • iCloud. Please confirm whether those terms were searched individually and, if not, whether they could reasonably have been used to identify a narrower body of potentially relevant information. I ask the reviewer to clarify: • the number of results generated by each search term actually used; • whether the stated 1,198 results contained duplicate or overlapping search hits; • whether the five-minute-per-case estimate was based on a sampling exercise and, if so, the methodology and sample size; • which specific parts of my requests were assessed as requiring examination of all 1,198 results; • whether searches for existing policy, guidance, training, briefing, report and review material were undertaken separately from complaint-record searches; and • whether general, non-case-specific correspondence was considered separately from information protected by statutory restrictions applying to individual investigations. Finally, I ask the reviewer to reconsider the Section 16 position. The refusal states that PHSO cannot suggest any way in which the request could be reduced. Given the distinct information categories and specific search terms above, please reconsider whether reasonable advice and assistance could identify a narrower request capable of being answered within the appropriate limit. I am not asking PHSO to exceed the statutory cost limit. I am asking for sufficient explanation and practical assistance to understand which specific parts of my requests create the estimated burden and how the requests may reasonably be narrowed.
I make a freedom of information request on PHSO to be provided a copy of the HMCTS Complaints Handling Guidance you used to assess complaint
Provide me with your complaints policy, that explain how your processes and procedures are handled when one makes a complaint specifically about the PHSO and it's conduct. And a copy of your "Respectful Behaviour policy (the Policy)".
03/08/2026
Where does a member of the public go to report and present credible and substantial evidence of serious fraud and corruption committed by a police force and government institutions when the IOPC refuses to act or accept the evidence ?
Under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to know by each year for the past 10 years from 2016: • How many appeals against IRP Continuing Health Care funding decisions the PHSO received each year • How many of these appeals were upheld each year • How many of these appeals led to a change in the original IRP original decision each year If recorded I would also like to know a single line of the reasons for the PHSO decision, although I appreciate this may not be recorded.