08/01/2026
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I refer to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Annual Report and Accounts 2021–22, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 19 July 2022, and the formal correction dated 27 July 2022. The corrected text at page 119 states: “The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigates complaints about a central government department and/or its agencies, when referred to them by a Member of Parliament on behalf of a complainant. The PHSO share their findings with Parliament, to help it to scrutinise public service providers. Findings are also shared more widely to help drive improvements in public services and complaint handling. In 2021–22, there were eight referrals relating to the FCDO which were under consideration by the PHSO. Three of these were raised prior to April 2021. Of these eight, one was closed as the PHSO decided not to investigate, four were under consideration before investigation and three investigations were ongoing.” The report is available here: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fcdo-annual-report-and-accounts-2021-to-2022&data=05|02|informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk|6dd9598fb464465fd77208de3ca79710|7c88cec864114f329333cf6877fd3515|0|0|639014887701212303|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|60000|||&sdata=wLRarz3E9hHnG0aK6wH+zlkLmeoas82+M1FTkIBthbk=&reserved=0 Information requested For the eight referrals relating to the FCDO referenced above, please provide the following information, in anonymised and aggregated form only: Confirmation of the eight FCDO-related referrals recorded by the PHSO in the 2021–22 reporting period. For each of the eight referrals: the month and year the referral was received by the PHSO; whether it was raised prior to April 2021 or during 2021–22; the status outcome (i.e. closed without investigation, under consideration before investigation, or investigation opened). For the three investigations that were ongoing, please indicate: whether each investigation has since been completed, closed, or remains open; the month and year of closure or completion (if applicable). Whether the PHSO formally notified the FCDO of: the receipt of each referral; the decision not to investigate (where applicable); the opening of an investigation (where applicable). Whether the PHSO provided findings, recommendations, or learning points to Parliament or the FCDO in relation to any of these cases, and if so, the form of that communication (e.g. report, letter, summary).
06/01/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am writing to request information regarding complaints or investigations relating to hunger strikes by prisoners identified as Palestinian or expressing solidarity with Palestine in UK prisons. Specifically, I would like to request the following for the period 10 November 2025 to the present: Any anonymised summaries of complaints received by the PHSO regarding the treatment, welfare, or healthcare of prisoners on hunger strike. Any anonymised investigation reports resulting from such complaints. Any internal guidance, policy documents, or briefing notes regarding the handling of complaints about prisoner welfare, including health interventions during hunger strikes. Any correspondence between PHSO and other government departments (e.g., MoJ, HMPPS, DHSC) regarding hunger strikes by prisoners, anonymised as necessary. If possible, I would prefer electronic copies (PDF or Word). Summaries or anonymised extracts are acceptable.
• At what stage do you inform a government department/agency such as the NCA that a complaint has been received against it? • Does the Ombudsman have a specific protocol that it adheres to in relation to the stage it informs a public body that a complaint as been made against them? • How will a public body know that a complaint has been made against them if the Ombudsman does not inform them?
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information regarding the General Practitioner (GP) Clinical Advisers currently, or previously (in the past 12 months), employed or contracted by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman: 1. GP Clinical Experience Please provide the following information on an aggregated, anonymous basis for the entire panel of GP Clinical Advisers: • Total Number of GP Clinical Advisers: The total count of GPs on the current panel. • Average Years of Post-Qualification Experience: The average number of years spent actively practising medicine by the GP advisers since achieving CCT/CCST (Certificate of Completion of Training/Specialist Training) or equivalent. • Range of Years of Experience: The minimum and maximum number of years of post-qualification experience across the GP advisers. 2. Clinical Capacity and Status Please provide the following aggregate information about the primary clinical capacity in which the GP Clinical Advisers currently work within the NHS: • The number or percentage of GP advisers who are Partners in a GP practice. • The number or percentage of GP advisers who are Salaried GPs. • The number or percentage of GP advisers who are Locum GPs (or retired but maintaining clinical registration and practice). • The average number of clinical sessions (or Full-Time Equivalent – FTE) worked per week by the GP advisers in their primary clinical role (excluding work for the PHSO). If the information requested above is not held, please clarify this in your response. If any part of this request is refused, please provide a clear statement of the statutory exemption applied. I expect a response within the statutory 20 working days. Thank you for your time and assistance.
29/12/2025
Disability & Equality Considerations under FOIA, please disclose all: 2. o Guidance followed for applicants with; tremor, cognitive impairment, mental health related communication barriers 5. o All internal training materials used by caseworkers on time bar discretion o complaints about the caseworker (if held) internal and/or complaints or concerns filed about caseworker (REDACTED). o Performance notes relating to time bar decisions or equality handling ff any are exempt, please state which exemption applies.) Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, PHSO must respond within 20 working days, please provide the information electronically via email form with the information and the legal reasons for refusal
Please provide the following information: 1. Any current internal guidance, procedures, policies or training materials used by PHSO staff when deciding whether to investigate complaints about Cafcass, particularly where the complaint concerns a Section 7 reportor other professional reports used in family court proceedings. 2. Any internal guidance, policies or instructions that explain when a complaint about Cafcass is treated as being about “court decisions or evidence” (and therefore outside PHSO’s remit) and when it is treated as being about Cafcass maladministration or procedural failings (within PHSO’s remit). 3. For each of the last three completed financial years, the number of complaints received by PHSO about Cafcass, and for each year: o how many of those complaints were accepted for investigation; and o how many were declined at the initial assessment or screening stage.
23/12/2025
You have provided me (below) animal with scrambled 'text' responses that Cannot interpret with clarity why my FOI requests are not fully responded to. I should be provided a formal letter of response for FOI requests clearly pointing out to me a "Disabled" person with debility and loss of function responses that are succinct and provided in a chronology which complies with PHSO November 2025 v23 SERVICE POLICY Section 16: "Requests for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010". Under Para 1.42 If PHSO receive a request (provided in 16 complaints signed by MP issued to PHSO) for a reasonable adjustment, and repeated several times at any stage of the casework process, then it must be fully considered under the Equality Act and its related Codes of Practice. (Legal requirement). Under Para 1.43 Any request for a reasonable adjustment should be added to the case (PHSO has not added request) and if PHSO decide an adjustment is reasonable PHSO should clearly record the individual’s disability (PHSO have not done so) over what reasonable adjustments are requested and when PHSO agreed (PHSO have not provided the complainants Dynamics 365 record). Your responses to FOI requests 3, 4 and 5 are not provided under scramble 'text' I cannot properly interpret, but PHSO claim """""will exceed £450 threshold without providing strict proof evidence to show how this analysis or position is made""""". Your position is not lawful to imply costs will exceed thresholds without determining actual costs involved in obtaining and providing information requested. You claim a rate of £25 an hour divisible by £450 would be exceed 18 hours is one for the 'Birds'. I am a disabled person with debility and loss of function and could spend less time looking at any data E-System on complaints concluded in 2025 for any public service provider. I therefore consider any PHSO 'non-woke' credible analyst could retrieve data within 18 hours, and provide that to me under FOI request. I request you reconsider your failings and respond to this complaint urgently and before I consider legal action.
I am seeking anonymised statistical data regarding complaints or inquiries related to COVID-19 vaccine injuries received by your office since the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines (beginning December 2020). Specifically, I request the following information: 1. Total Number of Complaints/Inquiries • How many complaints or inquiries related to COVID-19 vaccine injuries (including adverse reactions, side effects, or complications) has the PHSO received in total from December 2020 to the present date? 2. Cases Taken Forward for Investigation • Of the total complaints/inquiries received regarding COVID-19 vaccine injuries: • How many have been accepted for full investigation? • How many have been partially upheld, fully upheld, or closed with recommendations? • How many remain open/active? 3. Comparative Data • For the same time period (December 2020 - present), what is the total number of complaints/inquiries received regarding injuries or adverse reactions from non-COVID-19 vaccines (e.g., flu, HPV, meningitis vaccines)? • What is the percentage increase in COVID-19 vaccine injury complaints compared to: • The average annual number of vaccine injury complaints received in the 5 years prior to December 2020 (2015-2019)? • The same time period for non-COVID-19 vaccines? 4. Common Themes and Outcomes (Anonymised) • What are the most common types of medical issues reported in COVID-19 vaccine injury complaints (e.g., neurological, cardiovascular, autoimmune, etc.)? • Have there been any patterns identified regarding medical overshadowing, misdiagnosis, or clinical negligence in these cases? I am aware of concerns raised about medical overshadowing (where vaccine-related symptoms are dismissed or attributed to other causes) and diagnostic delays in COVID-19 vaccine injury cases. The data requested will help understand the scale and nature of these issues without compromising patient confidentiality. 5. National Investigation Consideration For COVID-19 vaccine injuries, the PHSO should investigate if official data shows thousands of complaints (which I believe are currently estimated 3,800), involvement of 150+ NHS Trusts, consistent patterns of no care pathways and diagnostic delays, and an 8,000% increase over pre-COVID averages. • Has the PHSO considered or discussed undertaking a national investigation into COVID-19 vaccine injury complaints? • If so, what were the reasons for accepting or declining such an investigation?
22/12/2025
Can you please confirm that you make up the Executive Board of the PHSO.
I request an Internal Review of your response to my Freedom of Information request dated 31/10/2025. The reply provided is incomplete, legally insufficient, and fails to meet several statutory duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. ________________________________________ 1. Failure to comply with Section 1(1)(a): Duty to Confirm or Deny My request explicitly sought: • internal policies, • internal communications, • escalation mechanisms, • risk assessment frameworks, and • procedures relating to urgent, life threatening clinical cases. Your response did not confirm whether these documents exist, which is a breach of Section 1(1)(a) FOIA. If such materials exist, you are legally required to confirm this. If they do not exist, you are legally required to state that they do not exist. Your reply does neither. ________________________________________ 2. Misuse of Section 21 FOIA You relied on Section 21 to claim that the Service Model Policy and Guidance is publicly available. My request, however, sought non-public, internal supervisory and escalation documents. Section 21 cannot be invoked to avoid confirming the existence of internal documents that are not publicly accessible. ________________________________________ 3. Systemic Escalation and Urgent Clinical Risk You failed to address documents, protocols, or internal procedures for handling urgent clinical cases, such as: • severe respiratory distress • high-risk deterioration • clinically significant red-flag alerts The NHS recognizes these as extreme, immediate threats to life. I hereby request again: Provide any and all internal protocols, escalation procedures, risk-assessment flows, or decision-making frameworks used by the PHSO when handling urgent, life-threatening clinical cases. If such documents exist, you must confirm and disclose them. If they do not exist, then the PHSO is formally acknowledging that no internal mechanisms exist to respond to life-threatening clinical risk. ________________________________________ 4. Consequence of Absence of Protocols: Evidence of Systemic Dysfunction Engaging Article 2 ECHR If the PHSO confirms that it does not possess protocols for urgent clinical harm, this constitutes formal evidence of systemic dysfunction within the NHS oversight structure. Under UK jurisprudence, including R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool & Fylde [2020], a breach of Article 2 ECHR arises not only through individual medical errors but when the State: • fails to maintain adequate systems to protect life, • lacks frameworks to prevent foreseeable fatal risk, or • allows structural gaps that expose individuals to life-threatening harm. The absence of PHSO protocols to address severe respiratory distress — a scenario recognized by NHS England as extreme, immediate risk — would constitute structural/systemic failure engaging Article 2 ECHR. Your response to this FOIA request is therefore crucial evidence for potential escalation to the Information Commissioner’s Office, Judicial Review, and, if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights. ________________________________________ 5. Section 16 – Duty to Assist Your initial response fails to meet the duty to provide advice and assistance. You did not: • clarify which searches were conducted, • specify which document categories were considered, • explain why decision-making frameworks “are not held”, or • assist in understanding your internal processes. This constitutes a breach of Section 16 FOIA. ________________________________________ 6. Required Outcome of This Internal Review I request the following: 1. Confirmation of whether internal urgent-risk protocols exist or do not exist. 2. If they exist: disclose them, or specify lawful exemptions. 3. If they do not exist: formally state this in writing. 4. Reassess the use of Section 21. 5. Provide a detailed explanation of search methodology. 6. Address all legal deficiencies identified above. ________________________________________ 7. Deadline and Next Steps In accordance with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office, I expect a full response to this Internal Review within 20 working days. Should a response not be received within this period, I will consider this as a failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will take appropriate further action, including escalation to the Information Commissioner’s Office, pre-action protocols, Judicial Review, and, if necessary, proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, as outlined above. ________________________________________
19/12/2025
also I wanted to find out how many complaints they (Cambridge Street Dental Practice ) have in the ombudsman specially related to NHS patients and also any complaint related to periodontitis I was thinking: - 2020-2025 - complaints about not managing well gum disease/periodontitis - how were those complaints resolved - was the patient satisfied with the outcome? Does this help? Please let me know how can I be more specific
16/12/2025
Subject: Freedom of Information request – Sickness policies, sickness absence data and home-working arrangements (2019/20–2023/24) Dear Freedom of Information Officer, Please treat this as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024, please provide the following information. ________________________________________ 1. Sickness absence and sick pay policy 1. Copies of any sickness absence policies, procedures or staff handbook sections in force at any time between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2024 which set out: a. The PHSO’s approach to managing sickness absence; b. Entitlement to sick pay for staff (for example, periods of full pay and half pay, qualifying periods, and any differences by grade, length of service or contract type – full-time vs part-time); c. Any specific provisions relating to long-term sickness, stress, mental health–related absences, or similar. 2. If more than one version of the sickness policy existed during this period, please provide: o the current version, and o each earlier version that applied between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2024, indicating (where known) the dates each version came into force and/or was superseded. Electronic copies (PDF, Word or similar) are acceptable. ________________________________________ 2. Sickness absence data – all staff, complaint-handling staff, and part-time staff For each financial year from 2019/20 to 2023/24, please provide: 2.1 All PHSO staff (organisation-wide) 1. The total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff; 2. The headcount of staff, broken down into: o number of full-time staff; o number of part-time staff. 3. The total number of working days lost due to sickness absence; 4. The percentage of working time lost to sickness absence (or equivalent measure you routinely use); 5. The average number of days’ sickness absence per FTE (if recorded). 2.2 Complaint-handling staff (including call handlers, caseworkers, investigators and equivalent roles) For the same period, please provide: 1. The total number of FTE staff in complaint-handling roles; 2. The headcount of complaint-handling staff, broken down into: o number of full-time staff; o number of part-time staff. 3. The total number of working days lost due to sickness absence for this group; 4. The percentage of working time lost to sickness absence for this group (if recorded); 5. The average number of days’ sickness absence per FTE in this group (if recorded). 2.3 Part-time staff – organisation-wide For all part-time staff across the organisation, for each financial year from 2019/20 to 2023/24, please provide: 1. The total number of part-time FTE; 2. The total number of working days lost to sickness absence for part-time staff; 3. The percentage of working time lost to sickness absence for part-time staff (if recorded); 4. The average number of days’ sickness absence per part-time FTE (if recorded). 2.4 Existing reports If you produce any standard internal reports, dashboards or summaries which show sickness absence rates and trends over this period (for the organisation as a whole and/or for complaint-handling functions and/or for part-time staff), please provide copies of those documents, redacted only as strictly necessary to remove personal data. I am not requesting personal data or information identifying individual employees. Aggregated statistics and anonymised reports will be sufficient. ________________________________________ 3. Working from home / hybrid working and office attendance For the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024, please provide: 1. Copies of any policies, guidance or staff communications which set out the PHSO’s approach to: a. Home working, remote working, or hybrid working arrangements; b. Office attendance expectations (for example, minimum number of days per week or month in the office); c. Any changes to these expectations over the period (including COVID-related changes and subsequent revisions). 2. If more than one home-working / hybrid-working policy or guidance document has been in force during this period, please provide: o the current version, and o each earlier version that applied between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2024, indicating (where known) the dates each version came into force and/or was superseded. 3. Any internal documents that explain how office attendance is monitored, including: a. Whether attendance is tracked at an individual level (e.g. through sign-in systems, desk booking, swipe cards, or similar); b. Whether there are any targets or expectations for office-based vs home-based working (e.g. minimum days in the office); c. Any standard reports or dashboards provided to management regarding office attendance rates or compliance with attendance expectations. If standard internal reports or dashboards exist showing attendance patterns or office usage during this period, please provide copies of these, redacted as necessary to remove personal data.
15/12/2025
I would like to request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding complaints handled by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) relating to the GP practices listed below. This request covers the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024. ________________________________________ 1. Target GP Practices (by organisation name and address) Please provide complaint data for the following GP practices. To assist with accurate identification, we have included both the organisation name and postal address in the attached Excel template for your convenience: • Heathbridge Practice – 15 Heathbridge Road, London SW18 2PG • Putneymead Group Medical Practice – 66 Putney High Street, London SW15 1SN • Chartfield Surgery – 10 Chartfield Avenue, London SW15 4EN • The Roehampton Surgery – 12 Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5EG • Mayfield Surgery – 45 Mayfield Road, London SW18 4PE • The Alton Practice – 22 Alton Road, London SW18 3QQ • Wandsworth Medical Centre (Putney branch) – 100 Upper Richmond Road, London SW15 2SH If any organisation name appears differently in your system, please provide results under the name you hold on record. ________________________________________ 2. Requested Complaint Data (2019/20 to 2023/24) For each of the above GP practices, please provide the following: A. Complaint Volumes • Total complaints received by PHSO relating to the practice (per year) • Number accepted for formal investigation • Number not accepted for investigation • Number closed at assessment stage B. Investigation Outcomes For complaints that proceeded to investigation, please provide counts for: • Upheld • Partly upheld • Not upheld C. Complaint Categories / Issues Raised Please provide counts of complaints by category or primary issue type (per year), using PHSO’s own classification. Examples (but not exhaustive): • Clinical care / clinical judgement • Staff behaviour / conduct • Communication • Administration / delays / process • Access / appointments • Other categories as defined by PHSO D. Additional Information (if held) • Number of complaints escalated or reopened • Any corrective actions or recommendations recorded (aggregated only) If exact figures for a specific practice cannot be released due to small-number suppression or risk of identification, aggregated annual totals for all seven practices combined would be acceptable. ________________________________________ 3. Format Please provide the data in CSV or Excel format if possible. For your ease, we have attached an Excel template illustrating the requested structure, including organisation names, addresses, and a sample first row for guidance. ________________________________________ 4. Publication If this data is later published or referenced, attribution will follow PHSO requirements. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if any clarification is needed.
12/12/2025
I appreciate the clarification you were able to provide; however, I remain concerned that key elements of my request have not been addressed. I want to restate that I have not asked for personal data, biographical details, or anything that would identify the individual beyond what I already know. What I requested was limited to procedural safeguards that directly affect the integrity of my own case: 1. Whether the individual has system access to case files, including mine; 2. Whether any recusal has been recorded; 3. Whether such a recusal—if in place—extends to visibility of material and influence over allocation or scoping; 4. The date on which the individual became associated with PHSO, purely for the purpose of understanding organisational routing and oversight. These questions relate solely to my case (Redacted), and to PHSO processes, not to the private personal details of a member of staff. Nothing I asked for requires disclosure of personal data under Section 40, and the exemptions cited do not appear to have been applied correctly. To be clear: • Confirming whether someone has access rights to live case files is not personal data; it is an internal procedural safeguard. • Confirming whether a recusal exists is not personal data; it is a procedural and governance measure used to maintain impartiality. • Confirming the date and capacity in which a staff member first became part of the organisation is, again, not private personal information when asked purely to assess whether any conflict could arise. I am simply seeking assurance that the individual has no access to my file and cannot influence allocation, scoping, or the outcome. The repeated assertion that they are “not involved in the handling of the case” does not answer these procedural questions. Given this, I request an internal review of the application of Section 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i), and of the decision not to provide the procedural information necessary for my confidence in the process. For the review, please consider: • Whether the information requested is actually personal data, or whether it concerns PHSO’s internal processes, which should be disclosable under FOIA; • Whether the repeated reliance on “assurances” rather than clear procedural confirmations meets the standard required for transparency and fairness; • Whether the refusal to clarify system-access rights, recusal status, or organisational association undermines my ability to trust that the case is being handled impartially.
11/12/2025
I am writing to request a formal internal review of the response to my Freedom of Information request (Reference: 00003775), dated 11 November 2025. My request has been only partially answered, and the response provided demonstrates a misunderstanding of, and non-compliance with, core UK GDPR principles. Grounds for Internal Review: 1. Failure to Conduct a Mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA): Your response states that "We do not hold a recent DPIA for the complainant feedback survey. This is because the use of ORS is a longstanding process." This justification is legally insufficient. Under Article 35 of the UK GDPR, a DPIA is required for processing that is "likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons." The processing of sensitive personal data of complainants—often vulnerable individuals—via a third-party surveyor clearly meets this threshold. The age of a process is irrelevant; in fact, longstanding processes require periodic review to ensure ongoing compliance. The absence of a recent DPIA indicates a serious failure in your data protection governance. 2. Opaque and Split Handling of Request: Splitting my request across the FOI Act and the Data Protection Act 2018, with a delayed response for the latter, is obstructive. It prevents a holistic understanding of your data processing activities. I require a complete picture of how my data, and that of other complainants, is handled. Requests for the Internal Review: 1. Reconsideration & Action: I request that you reconsider your position and immediately initiate a proper DPIA for the complainant feedback survey conducted by ORS, in line with UK GDPR Article 35. 2. Disclosure: Following the completion of the internal review, please provide a copy of the newly conducted DPIA, or a detailed summary thereof. 3. Clarification: Provide a clear explanation for the decision to split my request and confirm the date by which I will receive the full response under the Data Protection Act (ref: 00003621). 4. Confirmation: Confirm the lawful basis for sharing sensitive complainant data with a third-party processor, and detail the specific technical and organisational measures in place to safeguard this data, as required by Article 32.
10/12/2025
Subject: Freedom of Information request – Capability and performance management for complaint-handling staff Dear Freedom of Information Officer, Please treat this as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For each financial year from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024, and in relation to staff whose primary role is handling complaints (including call handlers, caseworkers, investigators and equivalent): 1. The number of staff who were subject to a formal capability or performance management process where one of the stated reasons was: o failure to meet timeliness targets; o failure to meet quality standards for investigations or decisions; o failure to follow prescribed procedures in handling cases; o concerns about communication or behaviour towards complainants. 2. Of those, the number who: o successfully completed the process and were considered to be meeting required standards; o were moved to another role; o resigned during the process; o were ultimately dismissed on capability/performance grounds. 3. Any standard internal performance management guidance or policy documents used to govern capability/performance processes for complaint-handling staff during this period. I am not requesting personal data about individual staff members, only anonymised statistics and generic policy documents. Please provide the information electronically by email.
09/12/2025
I request an internal review of your Freedom of Information Act 2000 response dated October 29, 2025, as I believe the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman holds the requested information or did not conduct a reasonable search. Please provide the following specific information held by the PHSO, limited to cases flagged at the detailed investigation stage and created since January 1, 2023: 1. Anonymized summaries or aggregate statistics on the 3 DEFRA cases that progressed to detailed investigation, including any references to Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme closures or related farming subsidy delays. 2. Anonymized summaries or aggregate statistics on any GCA cases that progressed to detailed investigation, including references to Groceries Supply Code of Practice (GSCOP) enforcement or retailer-supplier imbalances. 3. Any non-case-specific internal guidance or assessments on risks to competition/consumer harms from government farming policies (e.g., SFI/IHT), excluding full investigation reports. 4. Records of coordination correspondence with DEFRA/GCA on enforcement, limited to non-exempt summaries or metadata (e.g., dates, topics).
08/12/2025
Section 6 (3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner ACT 1967 determines the time limit for complaints to be considered by the Ombudsman. For a complaint to be reviewed, subject to special circumstances, it must be referred to a member of the House of Commons not later than twelve months from the day the complainant first had notice of matters alleged in the complaint. In practice the Ombudsman does not apply the law as set out in the Act but inserts its own wording to require a complaint to be made to a member of the House of Commons within twelve months of the date on which the complainant first had knowledge of matters at issue in the complaint. There has been no amendment to the Act to authorise this revised wording so I would be grateful if you could let me have copies of all letters and documents (including, inter alia, all internal and external emails, all internal and external minutes of meetings, all manuscript notes or memoranda, all departmental or other guidance) which led to the Ombudsman applying time limits which are ultra vires.
Please resubmit my Freedom of Information request amending the words "which are ultra vires" to the words "which commence when the complainant first had knowledge of matters at issue in the complaint rather than the date on which the complainant first had notice of matters alleged in the complaint".
05/12/2025
Thank you for this response. Could you provide the following further information please. • How many complaints since 2017 has been made to the Ombudsman about the NCA? • Does the Ombudsman notify the NCA when it receives a complaint even if the complaint is closed at the primary investigation stage?