22/10/2026
Thank you for your response of 24 September 2026 to my request (ref: 00005087). I have a few follow-up points before deciding whether to request an internal review. 1. Definitional gap in Q1 Your response provides the yearly figures I asked for, but doesn't confirm whether these represent complaints received, investigated, closed, or some other subset. My original request specifically asked you to clarify this. Please could you confirm which of these the figures represent (or whether it's a mix, as the accompanying table's column heading "Complaints received" might suggest but the general FOI response text also mentions "received, investigated and closed"). 2. Methodology note (Q3) not addressed My request for a methodology note, coding frame, or technical annex explaining how the ~3,000 complaints were selected and how issue categories were coded (Q3) doesn't appear to have been addressed at all in your response. No data was provided and no exemption was cited for this specific element. This is a discrete, low-volume request (a single document, if one exists) and shouldn't be caught by the Section 12 cost limit that applies to the underlying case-level dataset in Q2. Please could you either provide this note or confirm whether one exists and, if withholding it, state the exemption relied upon. 3. Narrowing Q2 I note your advice that even a single year's data would likely exceed the cost limit. Given that, I'd like to narrow my request for the underlying dataset (Q2) to a random anonymised sample of 50 complaint records from 2025–26 only, covering the fields listed in my original request (age group, NHS body type, and main issue category), with any personal or identifying details redacted. If even this reduced scope would exceed the appropriate limit, please advise what scope would fall within it, in line with your Section 16 duty to advise and assist. I'd be grateful for a response within 20 working days as required under the Act. If these matters can't be resolved informally, I'll consider requesting an internal review of the Section 12 refusal as it applies to Q2 and Q3.
21/10/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would be grateful if you could provide the following information about your organisation's pay structure: 1. The total number of pay bands (or grades) used by the organisation. 2. The salary at the bottom and at the top of each band, with the figures shown separately for each band. Please include the effective date of the pay scales. 3. The job roles or job titles placed in each band. 4. When salaries are reviewed, and how often this takes place. 5. A copy of the job evaluation scheme document used to place roles into bands, including: 1. a) the factors that are scored (for example knowledge, skills, responsibility and effort); 1. b) the scoring points or levels available for each factor; and 1. c) the points range that corresponds to each band. I would prefer to receive the information electronically, ideally as a PDF, Word or Excel document sent to this email address.
16/10/2026
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Could you please supply me with the following information: What proportion of complaints received relate to the inability to accommodate physical disability's when undertaking an x-ray or mammogram int East Anglia region during 2025 and 2026 so far. How many x-rays or mammograms have been cancelled due to a patients inability to undertake one of two procedure correctly. Has the NHS or Department of Health and social care received any complaints or comments about a patients inability to undergo a mammogram or x-ray due to their disability. What is your assessment of how NHS providers, in East Anglia, are implementing their duty to make reasonable adjustments in such circumstances. To what extent does the ombudsman believe the above is due to inaccessible equipment or staff attitude. Can I please have the mammogram data broken down by race, ethnicity, gender and age. Can I please have the x-ray data broken down by race, ethnicity, gender and age.
07/10/2026
"For each financial year 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25, please provide, in relation to decision review requests recorded as upheld, the number which resulted in: (a) the original substantive decision being changed; (b) a new decision being issued; (c) the complaint being reopened or further investigation/work being undertaken; (d) an admission, apology, explanation or other remedy without the substantive decision being changed; and (e) any other outcome. Please also provide the same breakdown, if held, restricted to Health Service/NHS complaints, and separately, if held, to complaints concerning Integrated Care Boards or NHS Continuing Healthcare. If PHSO does not record outcomes using these categories, please provide the closest equivalent categories held in its case-management system, together with the relevant counts."
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting recorded statistical information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman regarding complaints submitted about the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). Specifically, for the period covering 1 January 2023 to present, please provide: 1. Total ICO Complaints Received: The total number of complaints received by the PHSO concerning the administrative handling, service standards, or decision-making of the Information Commissioner's Office. 2. Victim of Crime Escalations: How many of these ICO-related complaints were submitted directly to the PHSO under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (without an MP referral). 3. Outcome Breakdown: A statistical breakdown of how these closed complaints against the ICO were resolved (e.g., rejected at initial assessment/triage, not accepted for investigation, formally investigated, or upheld). 4. Upheld Rate: The total number of complaints against the ICO that resulted in formal recommendations or remedies issued by the PHSO to the ICO. If this request exceeds the cost limit under Section 12 of the FOIA, please prioritize items 1 and 3.
Please could you provide the names, job titles and work contact details, including email addresses where available, for members of the senior leadership team at the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. If this information is already publicly available, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the relevant webpage or publication.
I am writing to make a second request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please could you provide the names, job titles and work contact details, including email addresses where available, for members of the management team at the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. If this information is already publicly available, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the relevant webpage or publication.
05/10/2026
If any of the following requests provide further clarification, then please let me know, and I will be happy to provide it. The queries all relate to wheelchair care provision by Integrated Care Boards and their allocated providers in England. For each calendar year beginning on 1st January 2015, until the date of the latest available information in 2026, for each integrated care board in England relating to NHS wheelchair services, please provide the following information - broken down by calendar year and by ICB: 1. The number of wheelchair-service complaints received. 2. The number of these which were investigated. 3. The number of these which were upheld. 4. Please rank which ICBs and their relevant wheelchair suppliers were most frequently complained about.
02/10/2026
PHSO states publicly that it publishes “most of our decisions”. I would like to establish what proportion of decisions are actually published and understand the process governing publication and non-publication. To keep this request proportionate and readily within the appropriate cost limit, I am seeking only centrally held statistics and existing recorded policies, procedures and governance information. I am not asking PHSO to undertake a manual review of individual case files or to create new statistical information. 1. Number and proportion of decisions published For each financial year from 2021/22 to 2025/26, please provide, where these figures are already held centrally: a. The total number of PHSO casework decisions made. b. The number of those decisions published on the PHSO Decisions Portal. c. The number of those decisions not published on the Decisions Portal. d. Any percentage or publication rate already recorded by PHSO. If PHSO does not hold a calculated percentage, please simply provide the underlying figures that are held. I am not asking PHSO to create a new calculation. If the terminology PHSO uses internally differs from “casework decisions”, please provide the equivalent centrally held figures which underpin PHSO's statement that it publishes “most of our decisions”, together with a brief explanation of what those figures represent. 2. Publication criteria and process Please provide copies of the current recorded policies, procedures, guidance, instructions, criteria, checklists or process documents which set out: which casework decisions are published on the Decisions Portal; which decisions are not published; the criteria used when deciding not to publish a decision; any anonymisation or identification-risk criteria affecting publication; and the process through which a decision moves from case closure to publication or non-publication. I am requesting existing documents only. 3. Who decides whether a decision is published Please provide the existing recorded information identifying: the team, function or job role responsible for determining whether a decision is published; who is authorised to decide that a decision should not be published; whether the caseworker has any role in that decision; whether publication or non-publication requires managerial approval or sign-off; and whether decisions not to publish are subject to any review or quality assurance. I am seeking job titles, roles and organisational responsibilities only, not the names or personal information of individual staff members. 4. Recorded reasons for non-publication Please provide any existing centrally held list, coding framework, policy or categories used to record reasons why a casework decision is not published. I am not asking PHSO to review individual case files to identify or calculate reasons for non-publication. If statistics showing the number of non-published decisions by reason/category are already held centrally, please provide them. If no such statistics are already held, please simply state that they are not held. Separate FOI request For the avoidance of doubt, I have submitted another FOI request to PHSO within the preceding 60 consecutive working days. That request concerns staff training materials. This request concerns entirely different information: casework publication statistics, the criteria and process governing publication of decisions, and responsibility for publication decisions. The two requests do not seek the same or similar information and should therefore be treated as separate requests for the purposes of regulation 5 of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This request has also deliberately been framed so that it does not require a manual examination of individual case files or the creation of new information. It seeks centrally held statistics and existing governance documents only. If any individual item requested above is not held centrally and answering that particular item would require a manual review of individual case files, please state that the information is not held in the form requested rather than undertaking such a review. This should not prevent disclosure of the remaining centrally held information.
Please provide me with your policy about service complaints.
Please provide the case closure codes for 2024-25 & 2025-26 in a similar format to that from a previous FOI request linked below https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/case_closure_code_for_2022_23_20&data=05|02|informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk|07aaffa6731c423f2b4c08df0db7020c|7c88cec864114f329333cf6877fd3515|0|0|639244751860043889|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|0|||&sdata=PJKYyD73k6A6jKNh76VUbREgDIwHAiIzcGKPsyBWmiY=&reserved=0 If case closure codes are no longer used please provide similar details showing the number of cases closed grouped by the reason for case closure for the years 2024-25 & 2025-26
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, There were 464 cases recorded as Resolved in 2024-25 and 511 cases recorded as Resolved in 2025-26. Please provide the number of cases recorded as Resolved in which financial compensation was obtained for the complainant in 2025-26 and also the total amount of financial compensation obtained for complainants in these Resolved cases in 2025-26. Please also provide the number of cases recorded as Resolved in which financial compensation was obtained for the complainant in 2024-25 and also the total amount of financial compensation obtained for complainants in these Resolved cases in 2024-25. Yours faithfully, Nicholas Wheatley
Please provide the current recorded guidance or training material used by PHSO caseworkers which explains how they should determine the relative authority or weight of different standards or sources when deciding what should have happened in a complaint. In particular, I am seeking any material which tells caseworkers how to distinguish between, or choose between: legislation or statutory regulations; NHS contractual requirements; regulatory or professional standards; national clinical guidance; local NHS or organisational policies; guidance produced by professional associations; and non-binding guidance produced by trade unions, including trade unions representing the profession or organisation whose conduct is being investigated. Please include any material explaining whether PHSO operates a hierarchy of authority between these categories. I am particularly seeking recorded information which explains whether caseworkers are expected to identify the legal, statutory, contractual, regulatory, professional or advisory status of a source before using it to establish what an organisation was required or expected to do. Please also provide any current recorded guidance or training material concerning the use of guidance produced by the British Medical Association (BMA), including in its capacity as a trade union representing doctors, when assessing complaints about GP practices or doctors. I am not requesting individual case files, statistics, correspondence, or a search of historic decisions. If there is no recorded guidance or training material which addresses the relative authority of these different sources, or the distinction between binding requirements and non-binding trade-union or professional-association guidance, please simply confirm that no such information is held. If the relevant information is contained within the current Service Model, Caseworker Academy material, Balancing Evidence guidance, quality-assurance instructions or another existing document, please provide that document or the relevant section.
01/10/2026
I would be grateful if you could share the organisation’s monthly sickness absence rate and monthly turnover rate (rolling 12 months) for the period April 2026 to August 2026. I am keen to minimise any additional work for you, so please feel free to provide the information in whatever format is easiest. A brief email with a simple table of figures would be perfectly sufficient. If it is simpler, I am also very happy to liaise directly with your HR department, please do feel free to share their contact details if that would reduce the workload on your side.
28/09/2026
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about the process, timescales and procedures relating to OAT (Ombudsman’s Assurance Team) reviews. Please could you provide the following information: 1. What is the formal process, and what stages are normally followed, when an OAT review is undertaken following a challenge to a previous caseworker decision? 2. Is there an expected, target or indicative timescale for completing an OAT review? 3. What is the average time taken to complete an OAT review? 4. What is the median time taken to complete an OAT review? 5. What is the longest recorded period that an OAT review has remained ongoing before a final outcome was reached? 6. How many OAT reviews have taken longer than 6 months, 9 months, 12 months, 18 months and 24 months? 7. For the above statistics, please provide the figures for the most recent five-year period available and clarify how PHSO defines the start and end of an OAT review for the purpose of calculating these times. 8. Where further clinical input is considered necessary during an OAT review, what process is followed, and are there expected timescales for obtaining that clinical input? 9. Is there any requirement for senior clinical or management oversight of an OAT review before conclusions are reached? 10. At any stage of an OAT review, is the Ombudsman personally involved in, consulted about, or required to approve the review, the further clinical input being sought, or the final conclusions? If so, at what stage and in what circumstances? 11. Where an OAT review has remained ongoing for a prolonged period, is there any stage at which the matter is escalated to the Ombudsman, a senior Ombudsman, or another senior decision-maker for oversight or intervention? 12. Where an OAT review concerns clinical care, does PHSO normally seek to obtain all relevant original medical records and underlying records or data, rather than relying solely on records previously supplied by the organisation complained about? 13. If the organisation has not provided all original or potentially relevant records, what steps does PHSO normally take to establish whether further records exist and whether they should be obtained and reviewed before the review is concluded? 14. While an OAT review remains ongoing, particularly where not all original records have yet been obtained, does PHSO request or require the organisation concerned to preserve all potentially relevant records and underlying electronic information so that they are not destroyed, altered or otherwise lost while the review remains open? 15. Does this preservation extend to electronic records, audit trails, system data, machine-generated data, amendments or alterations to records, and other underlying information where these may be relevant to a complaint concerning clinical care? 16. If there is a PHSO policy, procedure, guidance or standard practice dealing with the preservation of records during an ongoing OAT review, please provide a copy or link to it. 17. If an OAT review has been ongoing for a prolonged period and the complainant has still not received an outcome, what formal steps or escalation routes are available to the complainant? 18. Is there a point at which a complainant can request that the delay is reviewed by a more senior member of staff or that a formal explanation is provided as to why the review remains outstanding? 19. If an OAT review ultimately does not provide an outcome within a reasonable period, what further avenues are available to the complainant to raise concerns about the delay or seek progression of the review? I am seeking this information to understand the general OAT review process, the expected timescales and the safeguards in place during a prolonged review. I am not requesting confidential information about any individual complainant’s case. Additional questions sent on same day: 1. Whether OAT reviews that are already in progress will continue to be dealt with under the existing OAT process or whether they will be transferred to a different team, process or decision-making structure. 2. Whether there are any changes planned to the handling, review, clinical input, senior oversight or final decision-making of OAT reviews that are currently ongoing. 3. Whether an OAT review that is already in progress could be delayed, paused, transferred or otherwise affected as a result of the transition to the Public Services Ombudsman. 4. Whether there is any possibility that an ongoing OAT review would need to be restarted, reassessed or transferred to another member of staff as a result of the transition. 5. Whether there is a planned date by which ongoing OAT reviews will be transferred to the new arrangements, and if so, what safeguards are in place to prevent existing reviews from being delayed as a result. 6. Whether complainants with OAT reviews currently in progress will be notified of any changes affecting their review. 7. Whether there is any internal guidance, policy, implementation plan or other document explaining how existing OAT reviews will be dealt with during and after the transition to the Public Services Ombudsman. 8. Whether the transition is expected to have any impact on the timescale for completing OAT reviews that are already in progress.
25/09/2026
Please treat this as a request for recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is separate from my Subject Access Request and seeks generic process information only. Please provide the current version, title and date of any recorded policy, procedure or staff guidance used by PHSO for: 1. handling enquiries or evidence about an HMCTS complaint before the HMCTS internal complaints procedure is complete; 2. determining when a complaint about HMCTS administration involving an outsourced enforcement contractor is within PHSO jurisdiction, premature, or requires another procedural step; 3. distinguishing complaints about HMCTS’s own administration or contractor oversight from complaints solely about the conduct of an enforcement contractor; 4. retaining, linking or disposing of evidence supplied at enquiry or eligibility stage before a complaint becomes eligible for investigation; 5. information-sharing with HMCTS or another public body at enquiry or eligibility stage, including any generic policy on disclosure of an enquirer’s identity or personal data; 6. reasonable adjustments or accessible communication at the enquiry and complaint-intake stages, insofar as generic recorded guidance is held. I do not request information about any other complainant, details of any live investigation or material protected by PHSO’s statutory confidentiality provisions. If the relevant material is already published, links plus document title/version/date will be sufficient. If part of a document is exempt, please provide the non-exempt remainder where reasonably possible.
Please provide the following recorded information held by PHSO. I am seeking general policy, process and statistical information, not personal data about my individual case, which is the subject of a separate Subject Access Request. 1. The complete prioritisation criteria, Public Value Model, scoring methodology, weighting guidance and decision-making instructions in force on 28 July 2026. 2. The corresponding material in force on 26 August 2026, identifying any changes between the two dates. 3. All guidance explaining how PHSO assesses the severity of injustice when deciding whether to investigate or prioritise a complaint. 4. Any guidance, policy or instruction authorising or explaining the use of PHSO's published financial-remedy severity scale when making investigation or prioritisation decisions. 5. If a separate internal severity framework is used for investigation decisions, the complete framework, descriptions, scoring guidance and examples. 6. All guidance concerning the circumstances in which concerns about a final decision may be examined by someone independent of the original decision-maker, including the meaning of "more serious injustice" and "matter of public interest" in PHSO's published feedback process. 7. All guidance concerning requests for reconsideration, challenges to decisions not to investigate, service complaints about decision-making, and the distinction between those processes. 8. All policies or instructions concerning referral to a manager or senior officer, managerial approval, moderation, legal input or quality assurance for decisions not to investigate. 9. All templates, forms, checklists or standard decision records used for severity, prioritisation, public-value and no-investigation decisions. 10. All guidance concerning identification and assessment of potential systemic issues, including failures to apply national policy, inconsistent decision-making, flawed processes, delays likely to affect others and insufficient oversight. 11. All guidance concerning the use of complaint information to identify patterns, recurrent problems or issues capable of affecting groups of people. 12. For the period 1 January 2024 to 26 August 2026, the number of complaints received by PHSO about the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, broken down where held by: - calendar year; - issue category; - complaints concerning Home Detention Curfew; - complaints concerning POCA or confiscation proceedings; - complaints accepted for investigation; - complaints declined because of severity, prioritisation, public value, remedy or resource considerations; and - complaints in which a possible systemic issue was recorded. 13. For the same period, any recorded average or median time taken by PHSO to decide whether to investigate complaints about the PPO. If the statistical information in paragraphs 12 and 13 is not held in the precise form requested, please provide the nearest available recorded breakdown and explain what categories or search fields are used. Please provide the information electronically in searchable form. Where material is already publicly available, please identify the exact document, version and location rather than providing only a general link. If any part of the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit, please provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the Act so that I can refine that part while the remaining information is processed. Please do not treat one potentially burdensome statistical element as preventing a response to the policy and guidance elements. If information is withheld, please identify the exemption relied upon and explain the public-interest assessment where applicable.
1) The proforma letter sent to MP's (both maladministration and relevant duty basis), performing a referral role for complainants. 2) Detail clearly the communication from PO accessible to House of Lords members, including s.10(1). 3) Provide the PO's policy detailing the use of administrative discretion in respect of dissemination of reports in relation to s.10 PCA 1967 in respect of such members of the House (Commons), as the Commissioner 'thinks appropriate'. Please indicate when this further s.10 House of Commons circulation is deemed appropriate, but also how these supplementary recipients are determined. 4) Detail whether all recipients of individual complaints are CC'd and have knowledge of one another, or whether a policy of BCC-ing is adopted and the reasons for the policy adopted. 5) Detail the frequency with which additional circulation of s.10 reports are sent, in proportion to the obligatory MP referral letter at 10(1) in years 2022, 2023 and 2024: a) Governmental Minister responsible, for example either the Secretary of State or another minister responsible for presenting issue (group per complaint response) b) Corresponding opposition shadow Ministers (group per complaint response) 6) Please provide the PO's policy detailing the use of administrative discretion in respect of deciding or not deciding to provide for laying a parliamentary report. Both represent decisions, from which inferences are made. 7) Detail the capacity for the PO to identify thematic reporting (as a basis for 6), based upon the replication of issues, from independent complainants? 8) Detail the number of themed complaints concerning experiences/issues Health and Social Care in years 2022 - 2024.
I am looking for some assistance with your organisation’s Spend/Transparency data, Spend over £25,000 available on the following weblink: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/freedom-information-and-data-protection/our-publication-scheme/transparency-data-spending#accorditab__body2045-1 Are you able to provide me with a copy of the June 2026 to August 2026 file or advise when the correct file will be available on the website above? Note: Would not access the available file "June 2026, July 2026, August 2026", which leads to "Failed to load CSV document." or The Page you are looking for doesn't exist or another error occurred." Can you help us on this request, Thank you.
I am looking for some assistance with your organisation’s Spend/Transparency data, Spend over £500 available on the following weblink: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/freedom-information-and-data-protection/our-publication-scheme/transparency-data-spending#accorditab__body2045-1 Are you able to provide me with a copy of the June 2026 to August 2026 file or advise when the correct file will be available on the website above? Note: Would not access the available file "June 2026, July 2026, August 2026", which leads to "Failed to load CSV document." or The Page you are looking for doesn't exist or another error occurred." Can you help us on this request, Thank you.