30/07/2026
Unless otherwise stated, please provide information for the last five completed financial years and the current year to date. 1. Child Maintenance Service (CMS) complaints Please provide: a. The number of complaints relating to the Child Maintenance Service referred to the PHSO. b. The number accepted for investigation. c. The number investigated. d. The outcome of those investigations (for example, upheld, partly upheld, not upheld or resolved by other means). e. The number of findings of maladministration and/or service failure. f. The number of recommendations made to the Department for Work and Pensions arising from CMS complaints. 2. Timeliness Please provide: a. The average time between receipt of a CMS complaint and a decision whether to investigate. b. The average duration of CMS investigations. c. Any internal targets or service standards relating to the handling of CMS complaints. 3. Governance and Performance Please provide copies of any: performance reports; management information reports; governance reports; dashboards; or board papers produced within the last two years that monitor the handling or performance of complaints relating to UK Government departments, including (where available) CMS complaints. 4. Learning and Systemic Issues Please provide copies of any reviews, lessons learned reports, thematic reviews or assessments produced within the last five years concerning: a. Delays in investigating complaints. b. The effectiveness of the PHSO's oversight of complaints concerning the Department for Work and Pensions. c. Any systemic issues identified in complaints relating to the Child Maintenance Service. 5. Exceptional Circumstances Please provide copies of any policies, operational guidance, service guidance or internal procedures concerning: a. Requests for complaints to be considered urgently or exceptionally. b. Consideration of ongoing or irreversible harm when determining how complaints should be handled. c. Circumstances in which the PHSO may depart from its usual complaints process or prioritise a complaint. 6. Public Interest Please provide copies of any policies, guidance, criteria or internal documents that refer to: public interest considerations; systemic issues; wider public benefit; or exceptional circumstances when deciding how complaints should be handled or prioritised. If any of the requested information is already publicly available, I would be grateful if you could direct me to the relevant publication rather than withholding the request.
Section B — Complaint Volume and Categorisation B1. In the period from 1 December 2025 to the date of your response, how many complaints in total has the PHSO received about the Pensions Ombudsman — across all subject matters and irrespective of whether they relate to the Civil Service Pension Scheme? B2. Of those total complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman, how many were categorised as relating to: (a) delay in handling a complaint; (b) refusal to accept jurisdiction; (c) failure to investigate; (d) procedural irregularity; (e) any other category, and if so what categories? B3. Of the complaints falling within category (b) — refusal to accept jurisdiction — how many related to the Pensions Ombudsman declining to investigate on the grounds that an Internal Dispute Resolution procedure had not been completed, whether or not the underlying pension complaint concerned the Civil Service Pension Scheme? B4. Does the PHSO maintain a subject matter coding or tagging system for complaints received about the Pensions Ombudsman? If so, please describe the coding categories in use and confirm whether any category exists that would capture complaints arising from occupational pension scheme administration failures or from the transfer of pension scheme administration between administrators. B5. Please confirm the total number of complaints received by the PHSO about the Pensions Ombudsman in each of the five preceding calendar years — 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 — and the number upheld in each year, for comparison with the post-December 2025 period. Section C — The PHSO's Oversight Role in Relation to the Pensions Ombudsman C1. Please confirm the precise statutory basis on which the PHSO has jurisdiction to receive and investigate complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of complaints, including the specific Act and section under which that jurisdiction is exercised. C2. Has the PHSO received any formal or informal communication from the Pensions Ombudsman, the Cabinet Office, or any other government department or public body between 1 December 2025 and the date of your response, concerning the volume or handling of Civil Service Pension Scheme complaints received by the Pensions Ombudsman following the transition to Capita? If so, please describe the nature of that communication, the parties involved, and the date or dates on which it was received. C3. Has the PHSO published or produced any internal guidance, briefing, or policy document since 1 December 2025 relating to complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of Civil Service Pension Scheme matters? If so, please provide a copy or confirm where it is publicly available. C4. Is the PHSO aware of the Pensions Ombudsman's published statement of 30 January 2026 acknowledging the impact of the MyCSP to Capita transition on Civil Service Pension Scheme members and the Pensions Ombudsman's own caseload? If so, did that statement prompt any review or assessment by the PHSO of whether affected members were likely to seek recourse to the PHSO regarding the Pensions Ombudsman's response to those complaints? C5. What is the PHSO's published or operational position on complaints made to the PHSO about the Pensions Ombudsman's exercise of its discretion not to investigate a complaint, specifically where the reason given for non-investigation is that the complainant has not completed a statutory Internal Dispute Resolution process that the relevant administrator has itself failed to operate in accordance with its statutory obligations? Section D — Accessibility and Awareness D1. What steps has the PHSO taken since 1 December 2025 to make Civil Service Pension Scheme members aware that complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of their cases may be referred to the PHSO? Please identify any specific communications, publications, or outreach activities directed at that membership group. D2. Is there any published or publicly accessible guidance on the PHSO's website or in any PHSO publication that specifically addresses the right of Civil Service Pension Scheme members to complain to the PHSO about the Pensions Ombudsman? If so, please provide the URL or reference. If not, please confirm whether such guidance is under consideration. D3. Has the PHSO received any enquiries — as distinct from formal complaints — from Civil Service Pension Scheme members or their representatives since 1 December 2025 raising concerns about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of CSPS complaints? If so, how many, and how were those enquiries handled? Section E — Systemic Issues E1. Does the PHSO have any mechanism for identifying and responding to systemic failures in the Pensions Ombudsman's operations, independent of receiving individual complaints? If so, has that mechanism been applied in relation to the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of Civil Service Pension Scheme complaints since 1 December 2025? E2. If the PHSO were to receive a significant volume of complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of a single category of cases — such as Civil Service Pension Scheme complaints arising from the Capita transition — what threshold of complaints, if any, would trigger a formal systemic review of the Pensions Ombudsman's conduct in that category? E3. Is the PHSO aware that the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee are conducting an active joint inquiry into the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme, with an oral evidence session scheduled for 8 July 2026? Has the PHSO made any submission to or communication with those committees in connection with the Pensions Ombudsman's role in receiving complaints from affected scheme members?
28/07/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide the following recorded statistical information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for the period 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2025. This request relates to complaints concerning NHS services or NHS organisations providing services in Blackpool where the recorded subject matter included the response to alleged or suspected sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, grooming, sexual misconduct or other sexual safeguarding concerns involving a person under the age of 18. For each calendar year, please provide: The number of complaints received falling within the scope of this request. The number of those complaints that proceeded to investigation. The number resulting in an upheld or partly upheld finding. The number resulting in recommendations or agreed actions relating to child safeguarding practice, policy, procedure, training or case handling. I am requesting aggregated statistical information only. I do not seek names, addresses, medical information, case details, decision summaries or information capable of identifying any child, complainant, family member, witness, healthcare professional or other individual. I am not asking the Ombudsman to manually review individual complaint or investigation files or to create new information. If the information is not held in the exact categories requested, please provide the closest equivalent categories available from existing searchable or reportable records. If annual figures cannot be disclosed because of small-number identification risks, please provide combined figures for the full period from 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2025 or apply appropriate suppression rather than withholding the entire dataset. If any part of this request would exceed the appropriate cost limit, please provide the information that can be supplied within the limit and provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I write to request an internal review of your decision to refuse my Freedom of Information request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I respectfully submit that section 14(1) has been incorrectly applied. My request was a genuine request for recorded information concerning the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's statutory role, published procedures and governance arrangements. It did not seek opinions, legal advice, explanations or case-specific information. The request was clearly limited to recorded information. Public interest The PHSO's published purpose is to provide an independent complaints service, investigate maladministration and service failure, improve public services through learning, and help ensure accountability across government and public bodies. My request concerns the Ombudsman's own recorded policies, procedures and governance relating to the handling of allegations involving maladministration, corruption, systemic failure and access to justice. These matters fall squarely within the broader public interest in transparency and accountability. It is therefore difficult to understand how a request seeking recorded information concerning the Ombudsman's own governance arrangements can properly be characterised as vexatious. Previous requests Your refusal appears to rely primarily upon the fact that this is my ninth request in eight months and that an ICO complaint is currently outstanding. Neither of those matters automatically engages section 14(1). The ICO's published guidance makes clear that repeated requests are not, of themselves, vexatious. A public authority should consider the purpose and value of the request together with the burden of compliance and should not rely simply upon the number of requests made. My request seeks recorded information that has not previously been identified or disclosed. Failure to explain the burden Your response states that the request demonstrates unreasonable persistence but provides no explanation of the burden that complying with this specific request would impose. In particular, the response does not explain: - what searches would be required; - which business areas would need to be consulted; - why the request would impose a disproportionate burden; - why any burden would outweigh the clear public interest in transparency concerning the Ombudsman's published functions. Statutory role The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is established to investigate complaints of maladministration and service failure and has powers to make recommendations, publish reports and, in certain circumstances, lay reports before Parliament. Given those statutory functions, it would be reasonable to expect that recorded information exists describing: - the Ombudsman's role and responsibilities; - internal guidance; - governance arrangements; - referral mechanisms; - operational procedures; and - relevant decision-making frameworks. My request sought only the identification or disclosure of such recorded information. Request for clarification If the PHSO maintains that section 14(1) has been correctly applied, I would be grateful if the internal review would explain: 1. Why this specific request, considered on its own merits, is considered vexatious. 2. How the public interest in transparency concerning the Ombudsman's statutory functions was balanced against any alleged burden. 3. Why the request could not have been answered by identifying existing published policies or recorded documents, where appropriate. 4. Whether the decision was based upon the wording of the request itself or principally upon my previous correspondence with the PHSO. I respectfully request that the internal review be conducted by someone independent of the original decision-maker and that the decision be reconsidered afresh in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Information Commissioner's guidance on section 14. If the refusal is upheld, I would be grateful if the review addressed each of the points raised above, as I intend to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office.
27/07/2026
Follow-Up to FOI Response — Reference FOI2026/00004663 — Request for Clarification and Further Information Thank you for your response to my Freedom of Information request, received following my chaser of 2 July 2026. I note the PHSO's position that after searching all complaints received relating to the Pensions Ombudsman from 1 December 2025 to the date of your response, no complaints were found matching the specified criteria. I am grateful for that response but I have a number of detailed questions arising from it, each of which I ask to be answered specifically and in writing. I make these requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and under the PHSO's duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of that Act. I ask that each question below be addressed individually and that the response identify, for each question, whether the information is held, and if held, provide it, or if not held or exempt, identify the specific basis for non-disclosure under section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section A — Search Methodology A1. Please describe in full the search methodology used to identify complaints matching the criteria in my original request. Specifically: which databases, registers, or complaint management systems were searched; what search terms were used; and whether the search was conducted by keyword, by subject matter category, by date range, or by some other method. A2. Please confirm whether complaints received about the Pensions Ombudsman in general terms — for example, complaints about delay, failure to engage, or refusal to accept jurisdiction — were included in the search, or whether the search was limited to complaints that expressly referenced the Civil Service Pension Scheme, Capita, or the MyCSP to Capita transition by name. A3. Please confirm whether complaints received verbally by telephone or in person, rather than in writing, were included in the search, and if not, why not. A4. Please confirm the date on which the search was conducted and the date up to which complaint records were searched. If the search was conducted before the date of your response, please confirm whether any complaints received between the search date and the response date were included. A5. Please confirm whether complaints that were logged initially under a general category and subsequently reclassified would have been captured by the search, and what quality assurance process was applied to ensure the search was comprehensive.
16/07/2026
2. Disclosure of the internal policies relied upon when applying the Respectful Behaviour Policy in my case.
14/07/2026
I am requesting the following recorded information held by the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) relating to the Bretton Medical Practice, Bretton, Peterborough for the period 31 June 2025 to 31 June 2026 - please see additional information to support your search at the end of this email, thank you: 1. All complaints received by the PHSO in the last 12 months (31 June 2025 to 31 June 2026) that name or concern Bretton Medical Centre, including: ◦ Complaints relating to administration, practice management, communication, or access to services. ◦ Complaints relating to clinical practice, clinical decision making, prescribing, diagnostics, or patient safety. ◦ Complaints relating to staff behaviour or professionalism. 2. For each complaint, please provide: ◦ Date the complaint was received. ◦ Whether the complaint was accepted for investigation, closed at assessment, or referred back to the local resolution stage. ◦ Summary of the issues raised. ◦ Outcome of any investigation (upheld, partially upheld, not upheld). ◦ Any recorded recommendations, service improvement actions, or learning points issued to the practice or the ICB. 3. Any PHSO case summaries, decision notices, or published investigation reports produced in the last 12 months (31 June 2025 to 31 June 2026) that reference Bretton Medical Centre.
13/07/2026
I refer to your recently-published report with the heading above and generally. As you know, section 4 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 precludes an investigation where the aggrieved person has a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law. At first sight, the injured child could have brought a claim for damages for personal injuries in a court of law. Even if there is a remedy by way of proceedings, the complaint may still be investigated if the Commissioner is satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect that person to resort or have resorted to it. The information I seek under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is: 1. Any information and documentation in the case of the child that led the Commissioner to conclude that it was not reasonable to expect the child (through a Litigation Friend such as her mother) to resort to bringing a claim for damages. 2. In relation to this case, did the Commissioner have regard to the likelihood that any claim would have been settled by professional indemnity insurers without the need for court proceedings to be issued? 3. Any policy document(s) related to decision-making generally about whether to conduct an investigation when where it is apparent that the aggrieved person has a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law.
10/07/2026
Regarding the ICO complaints — please provide the number of complaints received about the ICO in the two financial years 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2025 only, limited to those that progressed to primary investigation. I understand from your response that no complaints were upheld in this period. I do not require a case by case review of whether complainants were disabled or vulnerable. I simply ask for the total number of ICO complaints received in that two year period and the number that progressed to primary investigation.
09/07/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am writing to request information regarding vehicles currently owned, leased, or operated by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. For each vehicle, I would be grateful if you could provide the following details: • Make and model • Colour • First registration date with the DVLA • MOT issue date or expiry date • Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) If possible, please provide this information in a spreadsheet or table format, such as Excel or CSV.
07/07/2026
I am looking for some assistance with your organisation’s Spend/Transparency data, available on the following weblink: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/freedom-information-and-data-protection There appears to be no file available for the month of April 2026 Could you advise when the file will be made available to view online? Would it be possible for you to email me a copy of the April 2026 file please and thank you.
Thank you for your response dated 16th June, which addressed point 3 of my request (internal policy on scope revision). I note that points 1, 2, 4, and 5 of my request have not yet been addressed: 1. Scope revision decision (internal records, who initiated and authorised it, and the reasons) 2. Communications with NELFT outside the formal evidence-gathering process 4. Case oversight (identity and role of anyone beyond the assigned caseworker involved in the case) 5. Third party communications Could you confirm whether these are being dealt with as a separate response, and if so, when I should expect this? I am conscious the statutory 20 working day period (from my request of 3 June 2026) has not yet elapsed, but as the response received addressed only one of five points I wanted to check this is the intended approach rather than an oversight. If any part of the remaining request is to be refused, please confirm the specific exemption(s) relied upon and whether the public interest test has been applied, in line with section 17 of the Act.
I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please provide the following information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO): 1. Since 1 January 2023, how many complaints has the PHSO received that relate to: o Artificial Intelligence (AI); o Generative AI; o OpenAI; o ChatGPT; o Large Language Models (LLMs); o AI governance, accountability, transparency, or oversight. 2. 3. Of those complaints, please provide: o The number accepted for assessment; o The number accepted for investigation; o The number declined or closed without investigation. 4. 5. Any guidance, policies, briefing documents, training materials, or procedures used by PHSO staff when assessing complaints involving: o AI systems; o Automated decision-making; o AI-related data protection concerns; o Complaints involving AI companies operating in the UK. 6. 7. Any correspondence, meeting notes, briefing papers, reports, or internal discussions since 1 January 2023 between the PHSO and: o The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO); o The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT); o Any government department or regulator concerning AI governance, AI accountability, or complaints involving AI providers. 8. 9. Any documents, reports, or internal reviews discussing whether current ombudsman processes are adequate for handling complaints involving AI systems, AI-related harms, or emerging AI technologies. 10. Any records discussing accountability gaps where: o A complainant alleges harm involving an AI system; o A regulator declines enforcement action; o An ombudsman declines investigation; o No clear route to remedy exists for the complainant. 11. 12. Any reports, reviews, or assessments undertaken by the PHSO regarding the adequacy of current UK complaint mechanisms for AI-related disputes. Please provide the following information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO): 1. Any reports, reviews, assessments, briefing papers, or internal discussions since 1 January 2023 concerning the adequacy of existing UK complaint mechanisms for addressing concerns involving: o Artificial Intelligence (AI); o Automated decision-making; o Large technology companies; o Emerging digital technologies. 2. 3. Any documents discussing circumstances where: o A complainant raises concerns with a regulator; o The regulator declines enforcement action; o An ombudsman declines investigation; o No clear route to remedy remains available. 4. 5. Any internal discussions, policy papers, or assessments relating to potential accountability gaps affecting individuals who seek redress concerning AI systems, digital services, or technology providers. 6. Any correspondence, meeting notes, reports, or briefing papers exchanged since 1 January 2023 between the PHSO and: o The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO); o The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT); o Other government departments or regulators concerning AI governance, digital accountability, complaint handling, or regulatory oversight. 7. 8. Any recommendations, concerns, or observations recorded by the PHSO regarding whether existing public complaint routes are sufficient to address disputes involving AI technologies and large technology companies. 9. Any guidance provided to PHSO staff concerning complaints involving novel technologies where responsibility may be shared across multiple organisations or regulators. Please provide the following information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO): 1. Since 1 January 2023, how many complaints has the PHSO received relating to: o Apple Inc. or Apple UK; o iCloud services; o Subject Access Requests (SARs); o Personal data access requests; o Metadata requests; o Data retention, deletion, or account information disputes. 2. 3. Of those complaints, please provide: o The number accepted for assessment; o The number accepted for investigation; o The number declined or closed without investigation. 4. 5. Any guidance, policies, training materials, briefing notes, or procedures used by PHSO staff when assessing complaints involving: o Data protection rights; o Subject Access Requests; o Personal data access disputes; o Large technology companies operating within the UK. 6. 7. Any correspondence, meeting notes, briefing papers, reports, or internal discussions since 1 January 2023 between the PHSO and: o The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO); o The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT); o Any government body concerning data access rights, Subject Access Requests, metadata requests, or technology company accountability. 8. 9. Any documents, reports, or internal reviews discussing difficulties experienced by UK citizens when obtaining personal data, metadata, account records, or information held by major technology companies. 10. Any records discussing accountability gaps where: o A complainant alleges incomplete disclosure of personal data; o Subject Access Requests remain unresolved; o Regulators decline enforcement action; o No clear route to remedy exists for the complainant. 11. 12. Any reports, reviews, or assessments undertaken by the PHSO regarding the adequacy of current UK complaint mechanisms for disputes involving access to personal data held by large technology companies.
06/07/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I'd like to request the following information: For each of the last five calendar years in which information is available, please provide: 1. The number of complaints received by the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman relating to female sterilisation procedures, requests for female sterilisation, or access to female sterilisation services 2. The number of complaints received from women who alleged that they were refused a sterilisation procedure by an NHS provider 3. Where available, a breakdown of the reasons alleged for refusal (e.g. age; possibility of changing their mind)
I would also like a response from yourselves as to why you do not track your complaints and escalations. This is highly improper and poor conduct yet it is your defense for refusing to comply with the remaining questions. Please provide any documentation you have on why you do not track these basic performance metrics. I recognise this question constitutes a new FoI and therefore await response.
03/07/2026
Hello, 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. Thank you very much in advance.
I write regarding the Ombudsman decision concerning case reference 54b4b4f8- f059-f111-a825-7c1e52048687 (“A practice in the area”, decision date 10th February 2026). I am an NHS consultant and have reviewed the facts set out in the published decision with profound concern. On any fair reading, the case appears to disclose not merely poor complaint handling or service failure, but potentially grave failures of clinical governance, supervision, patient safety, and professional ac- countability involving a Physician Assistant (previously “Associate”) and the supervising GP. The facts as described raise obvious questions about: 1. Whether the supervising GP’s conduct meets the threshold for referral to the General Medical Council, including but not limited to concerns regarding: ˆ unsafe delegation and/or inadequate supervision of a Physician Assistant; ˆ failures in professional judgment creating a foreseeable risk of serious patient harm; ˆ potential departures from Good Medical Practice in relation to patient safety, clinical responsibility, and accountability. 2. Whether the Physician Assistant’s conduct should be referred to the GMC, given the seriousness of the concerns described and the potential implications for public protection and fitness to practise. 3. Whether the facts disclose matters requiring police assessment, including the possibility that criminal offences may have arisen depend- ing upon the full evidential picture available to the Ombudsman but not publicly disclosed. I appreciate that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is not itself a criminal or professional regulator. However, the Ombudsman plainly occupies a position of public trust in identifying serious risks to patient safety and ensuring concerns are escalated to the appropriate bodies where there is evidence suggesting impaired fitness to practise or potentially unlawful conduct. In a case of this seriousness, it is difficult to understand how the Ombudsman could conclude its involvement without expressly addressing whether referral to the GMC and/or police was considered, and if not undertaken, why not. I therefore request, as a matter of urgency, that the Ombudsman: 1. Confirm whether referrals have already been made to: ˆ the General Medical Council; ˆ the relevant police force; ˆ the relevant Integrated Care Board, Responsible Officer, or other patient safety authority. 2. If no referrals have been made, urgently reconsider the matter and provide a reasoned explanation as to why the facts do not justify regulatory and/or criminal notification. 3. Confirm what assessment was undertaken of ongoing patient safety risk arising from the conduct identified. This is not merely a retrospective complaint issue. The central question is whether conduct identified by the Ombudsman reveals a continuing risk to cur- rent and future patients and therefore triggers a public protection obligation. Given the gravity of the matters described in your own published findings, I would be grateful for a substantive response within 14 days.
please regard these below as FoI requests. 1. You state a rejection for submitted cases that match your published inclusion criteria by mentioning it is excluded for being "employment related". You do not have any published list of exclusion criteria publicly available. A) Please provide a definition of "employment related" issues as to what is excluded from PHSO review even when it meets the listed inclusion criteria? B) Please provide a comprehensive list of exclusion criteria? 2. The case was escalated to a manager for mismanagement, this followed the process described on your website. Instead of escalating to a manager your officer responded themselves, when asked again they stopped answering. A) what is your formal process to escalate to managers, you appear to have no mechanism to do this despite stating it as the formal process on your website? B) where an agent refuses to follow the process, how is a member of the public expected to escalate a case to a manager in line with your process? C) what percentage of cases escalated to management require multiple requests for escalation to be submitted before the process is followed? D) how many requests for escalation are needed on average in these cases where multiple requests need to be submitted? E) what percentage of escalations to managers where multiple escalations are needed are ever responded to by a manager? 3. You have rejected to investigate a case of the NHS failing to follow up on a whistleblowing case, failing to follow whistleblowing policies, and breaching confidentiality, because the whistleblower was NHS staff (in a different NHS organisation) and this counts as an "employment issue" to you. A) how many cases of NHS failing to follow up whistleblowing have been reported to you by NHS staff? B) what percentage of these have you refused to investigate? 4. Your staff have indicated that if the NHS refuses to investigate whistleblowing that reported 'thousands of contracts across multiple NHS organisations are in breach of NHS policies and legal requirements for legal contracts and that these may mean multiple thousands of pounds underpayment for these staff members', that this is outside of the scope of the PHSO and you will not investigate it. Please provide a copy of the documentation/policies/guidance/terms that confirm this? For all time periods please respond with the time frame for this year (from Jan 01) and for the past 12 months.
Please provide the following documents, which formed the operational framework applied to my case: 1. PHSO Service Model – all versions in force during 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 (Including Version 21 and any subsequent revisions or reworded versions that were operational during the period in which my complaint and review were handled.) 2. PHSO Code of Conduct / Staff Behaviour Standards (The full published version applicable to caseworkers, managers, and clinical advisers.) 3. PHSO Clinical Adviser Policy / Use of Clinical Advice Guidance (Including criteria for selecting clinical advisers, qualification requirements, disclosure rules, quality assurance processes, and how clinical advice is incorporated into investigations.) These documents form part of the personal data context of my complaint and review, as they governed the decision making process applied to my case. They therefore fall within the scope of Article 15 UK GDPR. Reasonable Adjustments Request Due to disability and the volume of digital material already provided, I require: • Hard copy format • Postal delivery • Simplified access • Urgent provision before 1 July 2026
30/06/2026
PART 2 – FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST Under FOIA 2000, I request all non personal information held by the PHSO relating to: A. Investigation Methodology • how my complaint was assessed • what enquiries were made • what checks were carried out • what evidence was verified • what evidence was disregarded • how the PHSO evaluated the Insolvency Service’s statements • whether the PHSO considered the March 2026 FOI/SAR disclosures • whether the PHSO considered the destruction of the bankruptcy file • whether the PHSO considered the 1997–2002 asset trail • whether the PHSO considered the police correspondence B. Internal Guidance, Policies, and Procedures • internal investigation manuals • case handling guidance • triage criteria • escalation criteria • quality assurance procedures • internal training materials • internal policy documents used by investigators C. Communications With the Insolvency Service (Non Personal Portions) • all requests for information sent by the PHSO • all responses received • all follow up enquiries • all clarifications sought • all PHSO summaries of Insolvency Service responses D. Internal Decision Making Frameworks • internal review procedures • internal decision templates • internal assessment frameworks • internal risk assessments • internal legal or policy interpretations E. Records Relating to PHSO Compliance • how the PHSO applied the Principles of Good Administration • how the PHSO applied the Principles of Good Complaint Handling • how the PHSO applied the Principles for Remedy 3. Format of Disclosure Please provide: • all documents in electronic format (PDF or readable digital files) • all emails in .msg or .eml format • all metadata associated with emails and documents • a clear index of all documents disclosed 4. Identification I am happy to provide any identification documents required to process this request. 5. Statutory Deadlines • UK GDPR SAR: one calendar month • FOIA request: 20 working days These deadlines run concurrently. 6. Closing Given the seriousness of the issues raised — including destroyed records, concealed assets, inaccurate information provided by the Insolvency Service, and the March 2026 FOI/SAR disclosures — it is essential that I receive full and transparent disclosure of how the PHSO handled and investigated my complaint. Please confirm receipt of this combined request and advise if you require any further information.