23/06/2023
I assume that the three month time limit to take a case for judicial review is also covered in legislation of some kind: please tell me which legislation and provide a link to it if possible. Please tell me what percentage of cases brought to the PHSO are challenged by the complainant and therefore go for review to the Ombudsman Assurance Team? Please tell me what percentage of cases that go for review to the Ombudsman Assurance Team result in the initial decision being overturned? Please tell me what percentage of complaints that are reviewed by the PHSO's Ombudsman Assurance Team and do not have their original decision overturned, end up progressing to a judicial review?
22/06/2023
thank you for the response to my FOI with regard to decision reviews. Could you please clarify some of the data for me? You state that in 2020/21 you received 280 decision review requests yet you carried out 455 decision reviews that year. 1. How many decision reviews were carried over from the previous year? 2. The way the data is presented it looks as though you review every request made but from previous experience, I know this not to be the case. Is the 280 figure the total number of decision review requests you received in 2020/21 or is it the number of decision review requests where you actually carried out a review? 3. If the 280 figure does not represent the total number of decision review requests received can you supply that figure?
20/06/2023
In a recent article in HSJ Rob Behrens discusses a 'portfolio of professional training' and the 'creation of an Ombudsman Academy' (the first in Europe). 1. Please provide all held data with regard to the Ombudsman Academy. 2. In particular who sets the curriculum and who accredits the standards.
Internal review request of request ref 00000522 I acknowledge receipt of your response below. However, I reject your latest attempt to avoid disclosure. The fact your legal team having intimated an available process it is ludicrous for PHSO now to say "No information is held" Accordingly the erroneous and prejudicial decision by ICO is also without foundation.”
Thank you for your reply. Please review my request. In answering my first question, it does appear that PHSO received many complaints (249) over the past 10 years, relating to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) but none have been accepted for detailed investigation. Your website shows that Pensions Ombudsman Service is one of the organisations you can investigate. It does therefore appear that many individuals seeking help from you have been very disappointed to have their complaint treated in such a manner. Evidently, it has been a complete waste of their time and that of their MP. My second question has not been answered: Can you please tell me, what type of complaint about TPO is considered by PHSO? Can you please answer this question? Perhaps you do not have a logical answer to this question. If this is so, please let me know?
I note that you have refused to supply business contacts for PHSO FOI Hierarchy, on the basis that you consider them to be personal—under some unsubstantiated opinion in PHSO policy. I note that you did give detail of Government FOI policy (the Rules) under which you refused according to your unsubstantiated ‘consideration’. In justification of seeking information under FOI (and in which I am not required to do or so justify) I hereby clarify for your illumination: a. I make this enquiry after seeing a need to discuss a certain posturing in the provision of statements of FOI response. These have been made in several responses by yourself and other FOI respondents, historically. I find this frustrating and somewhat vexatious without need. b. I do not understand seeming unhelpful or dismissive remarks made in FOI response, where clarity of question and material is construed otherwise. c. I do not see this as the responsibility of yet another Government department namely Information Commissioner’s office to investigate PHSO policies under which you opine or claim to operate transparently, with sincerity, and show interest in the evidence before you. d. In a recent response Ms Jackson, I asked to speak to i.e. have direct contact with your Line Manager for the purpose of complaint as above, where I defer in correct procedure for service complaint as given in earlier FOI enquiries. e. In this Case (i.e. this referenced FOI request) it would be natural to speak to your line manager—of whom I am yet unknowing—without making assumption in the terse response now given. I am none the wiser. f. In this request, I did not ask for any personal details about these people except the names under which they work, and control, and manage; and hold post at the PHSO (a government funded body) and business contact email and /or telephone (/extension) number by which they can be contacted for business purposes only. g. I note that you have provided your business contact name Ms A. Jackson but not detail of direct contact. Thank you. You may wish to revise that and the information I need of your line manager or FOI Case manager. h. I have to assume that PHSO workers are happy even proud to hold PHSO post and would therefore have no shame or need for secrecy in hiding business name, post and direct (or PA) contacts. It a line of secrecy that I have felt has impeded all enquiries demanding the principles that PHSO publicly claims. I again find this PHSO opacity frustrating and to some extent, vexatious. i. I note despite being made aware of your responsibilities to comply with Disability and Equality Acts, you show no respect in questioning this as you are required to do in law. PHSO interpretation of this law is of no consequence here. ASIDE: For your sole elucidation Angharad (and in the public domain here and elsewhere), my personal Disability (by definition; under the Act) has been an intense and worsening mental capacity under post-traumatic-stress heightened by PHSO opacity, impenetrability, lack of honesty, obduracy, obfuscation and vexatious responses over 14 years in a case of NHS negligence and maladministration leading up to my loved, supported, clever, generous and insightful son Nick’s death through self-harm following NHS visible maladministration and scant-documented negligent care which an NHS Foundation Trust BSMHFT declined to investigate or act-on in several opportunities before Nick’s death. I have asked for all this to be investigated, but you have declined to do so. I am now sick, and gutted in popular parlance. Your continued corporate (systemic) maladministration continues in abusive ways to cause my well-documented illness for which I need NHS medication, ongoing NHS treatment, and private expenditure to manage and control psychological problems which PHSO induced showing tactic and intent. Thank you. Thank you now Angharad, for your tolerance and consideration, and any indication of that would be appreciated, along with signs of your legal duty to make allowance (adjustment), including the need for your own alignment with internal and unaccountable policies; which the NHS never did despite my expectations of best practice and NhsE accountability. I also expected the PHSO would practice what they boast, and would rise higher, and step up to the plate in their raison d'etre for sole existence. But in closing my case unresolved and valueless to NHS, you the PHSO even mocked “my expectations”, whilst withholding incriminating BSMFT and PHSO evidence, but signed by Mr R Behrens and confirmed effectively as ‘all complaints suppressed’ to PACAC. PHSO Policies did not come into that. I found that Vexatious, and it led to intensified illness in calculated tactic. End of elucidation. FOI RETURN: I requested business structure of line management, business post & titles, and business contacts. PHSO responsible persons with qualms on providing names may have their own problems or disabilities and I must personally respect that… but I don’t have responsibility in that, not being a ‘Service Provider’ (as such) to the PHSO. Who are these people? You have an opportunity to revise your lack of accountability in provision of data, without prejudice, in reviewing your account; referenced and in full, as I ask in Right. I require a review of your response with references, and a contact for your Senior Information Rights Officer to pursue my complaint as outlined in a. to d. Thank you
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'Pre intra and post COVID 19'.
The nature of the issue is.You didn't know what a Series Incident even is? Your reviews from what looked like next of kin who had gone down the path of resolution wanted no compensation but came to a standstill with no resolution.These reviews lots of them all the same horrendous complaint's because the Ombudsman service rejected them.You then got lots of phone calls .Abuse. You then shut down because of this.I couldn't contact you regarding my case.Even when my phone number was not witheld. Over 2 weeks. I have a case and I am entitled to no what to expect looks like very little.You know how many cases you have rejected and you are refusing me this information by bringing 450 pounds into it to be rid of me.I don't trust any of your caseworkers and I would like an internal review please
Q1 - At what point in the complaint consideration process did or does the PHSO enquire about complainant's disabilities, to ensure due allowance and adjustment is made to comply with Laws? You have given: "PHSO requests information about any required adjustments to its service at many points during the case handling process. Our complaint form asks service users to explain any adjustments required. Our Service Model guidance sets out the requirements our caseworkers need to meet" (a) I'm sorry can you please clarify PHSO responsibility to ask about disabilities (as per requirement of duty under the Act). Never in the entire duration of a case known to us both has PHSO you ever asked about fitness or disability to cope with NHS or PHSO service complaints OR cases brought to you by me. This is a nonsense. I have told PHSO many times to many-faceted workers and specifically to PHSO chief Behrens that growing disability has been a problem in the entire process, including trying to even get recognition of disabling abilities. (b) You also said "many points during the case handling process" which appears to be pure conjecture and opinion with which I wish you would not cloud specific FOI questions." . At what 'many' points, please, considering that approaches are also be made verbally? My experience is that verbal or email 'returns' would be the norm for Service complaints, and in fact has been, and would apply in cases of FOI service complaints. (c) It is not the service-user's obligation to declare any disabilities under the Act., or to determine what adjustments the PHSO--the provider--might need to make. The process you describe appears to ignore this. Please can you be more specific? Q2 - Then, during the run or lifetime of PHSO considerations, how did or now does the PHSO keep up to date with complainant's disabilities whether becoming more or less debilitating?" As above - the PHSO has never shown an interest in disability either at the start of a case or when service complaints arose during its progress (including your own FOI dept. response to say PHSO doesn't need a complaint process". In any case, the same difficulties are encountered during feedback of issues regarding terms of case dismissal or closure, or of PHSO mental abuses of complainant--spoken or written. I have to ask again therefore--if these workings are in model or guidance as you surmise--how has it been 'policed' by managers during complainant interactions including any follow-up on subsequent failures? Please can you be more specific about PHSO policing and recording of this issue and reporting to PACAC on abuse of disability in complainants? And: You have given: "This information is reasonably accessible to you, therefore it is exempt under Section 21 of FOI Act etc etc." also "you can access this information on our website... in Guidance" i.e. Not Policy. An Aside: "This information is reasonably accessible to you" . Wrong, actually. If I may, I will give that your statement of conjecture is contentious to say the least, since neither yourself nor the PHSO in general casework has ever ascertained how reasonably accessible that information is to me and especially due to the complexity and how user-averse the PHSO website is, and the frequency information is edited without notice. It may be that I could ask you 6 times and you will give me 6 totally different references which I may have difficulty finding without such. There is no need to quote too-often-used exemptions where information can be accurately and practically referenced elsewhere. Q3 - In both the above cases, what questions were or might now be put to the complainant to establish level of ability? I am more confused by this: if there is no mandatory Policy or even no optional Guidance on this, how does the lay caseworker probe and assess PHSO needs to address the disability--as per under the Act? Please can you be more specific? I can see that there are questions revealed now that might be put under new FOI but to help circumvent that need perhaps my asking for a Review of the answers given should be undertaken by your line manager or the next most suitable officer in lieu? I request a review please.
If a GP is found to have acted contrary to Regulations and Conduct by PHSO Decision --what is your process powers for dealing with a GP that refuses to adhere to your Decision, often resulting in immense stress /adverse situations to the patient who has complained to you?
15/06/2023
Under FOIA please provide all official documents and drafts, emails, notes, recordings of interchanges between the VOA and Adjudicator Office and VOA and Ombudsman from 1 January 2021 to current. I will approach these bodies separately if need be. Please confirm.
Response to 00000919 where section 12 exemption applied: To aid in your search, I have narrowed down the search parameters: . Instances where the complainant has experienced inappropriate behaviour from a police officer, staff member, contractor or volunteer. For instance, they were rude or aggressive. . the witnessed acting inappropriately by a police officer, staff member, contractor or volunteer . issues arising from having been adversely affected by the conduct of a police officer, staff member, contractor or volunteer, even if it did not take place in relation to them. To be clear I am after: . the number of recorded complaints; . the number of investigated complaints; . the kind of ‘reasonable and proportionate’ resolution for complaints that have NOT been investigated; . the outcomes of complaints that HAVE been investigated. . Number of VRR (Victim Right to Review for rape and other sexual offences during the same time frame 01/05/2022 and 30/04/2023.
These numbers are not reflective of what was wrote in the PHSO stats for 2016-17 on page 26 of the below link which states the 50% of complaints were upheld. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/PHSO Parliamentary Statistics Report 2016-17_1.pdf Please can you send a full dataset of the last 11 years so I can verify. Original case ref 00000440
You have disclosed that: 'PHSO's recruitment agency spend for the 2022 financial year was £1,261,641.41. The recruitment agencies engaged are Michael Page, Hays, Robert Walters, Green Park, Search, Gatenby Sanderson, and Reed.' https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.whatdotheyknow.com_request_recruitment-5Fspend-5F2022-5Fand-5F2023-5F2042-23incoming-2D2315004&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Rbm6SSzB-RuZkBxvZzo7QNA7NNDpFVaH5P9CXsuN3oBHEawj63j348bb4fUMN5xG&m=JmTT-KmypS5X1QZ9f3L0HU2mGiT1BUz-KUcakkJMDHg&s=G7T-UTIBXMYajrCAj_ISbhYs2GF7rT7d-LfBQMGu2No&e= 1. Please break down the figure of £1,261,641.41 by agency. 2. Please provide the number of staff recruited for you by each agency for the period covered by the payment. 3. Please provide a copy of the 'Senior and Corporate organogram May.docx'. The one you sent - ref. 00000898 - is blank.
14/06/2023
Please could you provide me with any documentation, guidance, or operation modules that relate to the principles of Executive Oversight involved in the investigation, determination, and review process? Also please could you provide the same regarding if there is new clinical advice in a Final report what are the guidelines for the complainant to be allowed to respond? Also can you please provide any guidance or information relating to a complainant's right to respond to further clinical advice received after the Provisional report before the Final report is published?
13/06/2023
In your 2021/22 Annual Report you stated that 453 cases were 'resolved'. Only 394 cases were upheld 1. How many of the 453 resolved cases were resolved in favour of the complainant? 2. How many of the 453 resolved cases led to an apology? 3. How many of the 453 resolved cases led to a compensation payment? 4. How many of the 453 resolved cases led to an agreed action plan to improve performance? 5. Do complainants of a resolved case receive a written report from PHSO? 6. Are details of any resolved cases published on the PHSO website? If so please provide a link. 7. What criteria are used to determine which cases to resolve and which to investigate?
08/06/2023
In 2021/22 PHSO carried out 6,760 primary investigations. How many of those investigations resulted in: 1. a partial uphold of the complaint 2. a full uphold of the complaint 3. a further detailed investigation 4. closure with no uphold
06/06/2023
PHSO claim of Alignment with BSI Standards The PHSO has claimed conformance with BSI Standard known as “ISO 9001” specifying “Requirements for a quality management system when, in brief, an organization needs to: “a) Demonstrate its ability to consistently provide products and services that meet customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and “b) Demonstrates its aims to enhance customer satisfaction through the effective application of the system, including processes for improvement of the system and the assurance of conformity to customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.”. Thus, were the PHSO’s claim is to be substantiated, it would have undergone an audit by a certification body accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), which is the national accreditation body for the UK. The certification body would have audited the PHSO's quality management system and processes to ensure they meet the requirements of the ISO 9001 standard. If the PHSO passed the audit, it would have been awarded certification to the standard, and the certification would be subject to ongoing surveillance audits by the certification body to ensure ongoing compliance. It would be bound to a schedule of self-audits, available for independent inspection. Please would you supply some information on how this was implemented and, then, how this is independently assessed and assured for PHSO’s claimed conformity. (1) When was ‘compliance with ISO 9001’ implemented at PHSO? (2) May I see copy of statement / certification confirming independent assessment at that time? (3) How often is PHSO system independently assessed? (Provide schedule.) (4) When PHSO was last independently assessed as part of ongoing surveillance, was there a report from the Assessors? May I see that online or otherwise? (5) When was PHSO last self-assessed in its Internal Audit programme? (Provide schedule please). (6) Can I see the last three years of outcome in measures of customer satisfaction including • any evidence of independent assessment of service complaints? • conclusions of assessments -- corrective actions taken on reported/discovered problems reported or discovered; e.g. in the form of: • evidence of an Internal Audit, Non-Conforming & Corrective Action Tracker Are any of the above easily found and accessible to me? To help in your research and response, you may wish to bear in mind: I enquire regarding all key requirements as given above (also see detail, below), from “ISO 9001… Abstract”, especially with regard to: • Demonstrating consistency in conformance (a, above) • Meeting statutory and regulatory requirements (a, above) • Measure of customer satisfaction upholding essential aims of a quality control system claiming ISO9001 (b, above). I am less interested in written PHSO case investigation matter you may offer—which will be of minor significance if not established through the Quality System I question, that is, tested to be carried out and fully compliant, and flexible enough to be improved as necessary under a proper quality control system. I am asking about Assurance systems showing assessed Procedures are followed, and that Measures are comprehensive and balanced. Additionally, that in-house assessments under ISO 9001 are carried out without prejudice by PHSO Quality Manager team; tested, reported and, critically, that professional Independent Assessments are echoed in that manner, to provide the “Assurance” element of compliance. Nota Bene I am particularly interested in obtaining clarity and transparency of actions in this matter, in the expectation of assistance, without inflection of dismissal, diversion, slander or tension, as I have felt in previous responses and have notified to you for attention—yet to receive recognition of my complaints, or constructive feedback as I would expect. (7) Please advise me of the entitled PHSO Quality Manager’s name and departmental address. I submit my enquiry as given. If you are not clear on any aspect of my 7 questions, please respond at earliest opportunity. If you consider it will take too much resource, advise me sooner rather than later. I can then submit it in smaller tranches modified according to previous responses. Thank you for your attention within permitted period and costs. ------------------------------------------------- More about ISO 9001 (amended 2015) I offer the following, which may be your reference in future enquiry in PHSO claims of conformance: ISO 9001 Mandatory Requirements — Documents and Records Monitoring and measuring equipment calibration records Records of training, skills, experience and qualifications Product/service requirements review records Record about design and development outputs review Record about design and development inputs Records of design and development controls Records of design and development outputs Design and development changes records Characteristics of product to be produced and service to be provided Records about customer property Production/service provision change control records Record of conformity of product/service with acceptance criteria Record of nonconforming outputs Monitoring measurement results Internal audit program Results of internal audits Results of the management review Results of corrective actions This is a list of essential requirements, not each of which will be directly relevant to Services provision, but most will still be relevant in PHSO environment where accuracy and trust has to be maintained. e.g. training, design and development of internal processes, records of conformity, of non-conformity, of corrective actions, monitoring and audits. External and internal Complaints would have significant input to these process with clear priority over self-assessments.
further information from with regard to guidelines and standards we use.
01/06/2023
1. Since 2017, how many complaints have been raised to PHSO about Gloucestershire Health & Care Trust or it’s predecessor 2gether Trust? (Where numbers Allie, please identify numbers by year of complaint being made, years raised to PHSO & years PHSO completed their process) 2.How many complaints involving GHC Trust or 2gether Trust have been used as examples of learning by PHSO. Please cite the reports that include the learning. 3. Is the Ombudsman (Rob Behrens) personally aware of concerns over PHSO processes during investigations into GHC Trust or 2gether Trust? What has he done to ensure complainants are fully heard over their concerns? 4. Up to the limit of remaining time available to process this FOI, please provide : A. A summary of topics within complaints made , indicating the most common B. A summary of learning identified , indicating any repetition of learning (and the number of times repeated)