24/04/2026
Please confirm whether the FCA has ever been aware of, and/or approved and/or condoned (and/or whether any of its policies in operation since 2018 would allow it to approve or condone) HSBC Bank plc’s use of any methodology for calculating redress for mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) on a credit card, which involved any or all of the following approaches: A. Reconstructing the figures for a credit account which had had PPI attached to it, by using estimated PPI premium data instead of real data, where the bank demonstrably had real data on file for the account; B. Using simple interest instead of compound interest when reconstructing an account and adding ‘historical/contractual interest’ to the PPI premiums, (despite the fact that compound interest will have been added to the PPI premiums historically over time, under the contract when the account was live); C. When reconstructing an account, splitting the time that the account was open into different periods, and treating each period differently with regard to the way premiums were refunded, the way interest was added, the type of interest added (i.e. simple or compound), the rate of interest applied (i.e. the rate applicable to the credit card at that specific time, or a different rate) and whether interest was added up to and/or beyond the date the account was closed, or only for the defined, confined period in question. D. When reconstructing an account, not adding ‘historical/contractual interest’ to all of the PPI premiums that were paid while the account was open (which will all have had interest added while the credit account was live); E. Calculating ‘historical/contractual interest’ on the PPI premiums for a different period than the period for which the credit account was live (e.g. continuing to add it at a simple rate beyond the closure date of the account, instead of adding statutory interest for the period after the account was closed); F. Calculating ‘historical/contractual interest’ for any part of the time that the account was live, by using a different rate than the rate(s) that applied to the account at that time when it was live; G. Since the Judgement Debts (Rate of Interest) Order 1993 took effect, not adding yearly compensation (‘statutory interest’) to the entire ‘total loss of investment opportunity’ figure (by which I mean the sum of the total premiums paid plus the total amount of ‘historical/contractual interest’ which was added to those premiums while the account was live) at the statutory rate of 8% simple; H. Not calculating that (yearly, compensatory) statutory interest from the date the account was closed, up to the date of redress; I. Not deducting 20% income tax from that statutory interest before making payment (or an offer of payment) of redress to a customer, in accordance with the Income Tax Act 2007 as amended by the Finance Act 2013, specifically Section 874 (Duty to deduct from certain payments of yearly interest); Section 369 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005; and the Code of Practice on Taxation for Banks. If the FOS has approved or condoned any such departure by HSBC from the methodology for redress calculation detailed here: How does the ombudsman approach redress where a PPI policy has been mis-sold? – Financial Ombudsman service, please confirm the exact nature and extent of any such departure which has ever been approved or condoned.
23/04/2026
I manage the health And Safety Executive’s (HSE) complaints team. As part of our annual report to our parent department (DWP) we are required to provide some information on ombudsman cases. Would you be able to assist me in providing the numbers for the following (where available / recorded), for the year 2024/2025 please? • Enquiries received • Complaints assessed • Complaints resolved through intervention • Complaints accepted for investigation • Investigations upheld or partly upheld • Investigations not upheld or discontinued
• Any internal discussions identifying or acknowledging potential breaches of Sections 14, 16 or 17 of the Legal Services Act 2007 • The internal guidance, SOP, or policy relied upon to justify refusing, pausing, or delaying an MP referral. 3. Data Integrity & Conflict of Interest (GDPR Article 5(1)(f)) • All internal reports, memos, or conflict of interest declarations filed by (Redacted) following my SRA report on 14 March 2026. • The Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), risk review, or internal assessment that justified their continued access to my sensitive data between 10 and 23 March 2026 despite the manifest conflict of interest. • A copy of the DPO’s Article 33/34 report to the ICO regarding the identified data breaches • The Compliance Officer for Legal Practice’s (COLP) report to the SRA under Rule 9.1 concerning the PHSO allowing a non lawyer to perform reserved legal activities in breach of Section 16 of the Legal Services Act 2007. • Any internal guidance, Equality Impact Assessment, or “Impact Assessment” consulted regarding my disability, Section 20, and Section 149 (PSED) before issuing responses.
1. The number of cyber security breaches that have being identified that were found to be a result of a malicious threat actor (i.e. not accidental data breach) 2. The breakdown in high-level causes of these breaches as identified by cyber security incident response teams (CSIRTs), for example (but not limited to) unpatched software/hardware, lack of multi-factor authentication (MFA), leaked user credentials, lack of in-transit encryption, etc 3. The number of breaches that occurred that were attributed to a previously known vulnerability to the organisations hardware, software, policies, or processes, for example where system was known to be at risk due to being unpatched or out of support, or security controls were recommended but not enforced, and was defined within the resulting incident response report. 4. The estimated combined costs incurred as a result of cyber security breaches defined in request number one in each year. No specific details are requested in relation to software/hardware utilisation, but rather high-level causes of breaches. I believe the high-level nature of this request does not allow for the use of s.31(1)(a) of the FOIA as this would not be likely to prejudice the security of your systems or data, as these are historical incidents which have since been dealt with. The public interest in understanding breach causes across public sector organisations outweighs the public interest in the exemption.
22/04/2026
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Could you please supply me with the flooring information: What proportion of complaints received relate to the inability to accommodate physical disability's when undertaking an x-ray or mammogram nationally during 2025 and 2026 so far. What proportion of complaints received relate to the inability to accommodate physical disability's when undertaking an x-ray or mammogram in East Anglia during 2025 and 2026 so far. What is your assessment of how NHS providers, nationally, are implementing their duty to make reasonable adjustments in such circumstances. To what extent does the ombudsman believe the above is due to inaccessible equipment or staff attitude.
20/04/2026
Subject: System Level Information Request (2020–Present) & FOI/EIR Request — Multisystem Conditions (EDS, PoTS, CCI, Chiari, Tethered Cord, Endometriosis) — Devon & Cornwall Dear all, 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE (SYSTEM LEVEL ONLY) I am requesting full, complete, and unambiguous system level information relating to the understanding, planning, governance, commissioning, diagnostic capacity (including MRI and advanced imaging), equality considerations, workforce knowledge, and service design for the following conditions across Devon and Cornwall: • Ehlers Danlos syndromes (EDS) and Hypermobility Spectrum Disorders (HSD) • Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) and related autonomic dysfunction • Craniocervical instability (CCI) • Chiari malformation • Tethered cord • Endometriosis • Related multisystem conditions and common comorbidities This request concerns systemic matters only and does not seek personal medical records. --- 2. TRANSPARENCY, AUDIT TRAIL AND RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS • All responses must remain within a single email chain. • Partial or selective responses will not be accepted. • If information does not exist, this must be stated explicitly. Each organisation must identify a named accountable officer. --- 3. FULL RECORD SCOPE This request covers all records from 1 January 2020 to present, including drafts, emails, internal discussions, briefings, EIAs, commissioning papers, risk registers, training materials, research reviews, and correspondence with national bodies. --- 4. DEFINITION OF A “HOLISTIC SERVICE” — EVIDENCE BASED RESPONSE REQUIRED Each organisation must provide: • A clear definition of what it means by a “holistic service” for multisystem conditions. • The evidence base relied upon (NHS England, NICE NG56, WHO, peer reviewed literature). • Whether this refers to a commissioned service or an aspirational concept. • All documents where the term has been used to justify commissioning or non commissioning decisions. If no definition exists, this must be confirmed in writing. --- 5. SYSTEMIC INFORMATION REQUEST — THEMES A–J Responses are required across the following themes: A. Clinical governance & multisystem care B. Commissioning & funding C. Research & evidence D. Equality & women’s health E. Imaging & diagnostics F. Workforce training G. National local correspondence H. Safety & risk I. Service models & planning J. System level briefings --- 6. FORMAL FOI / EIR NOTICE This email constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Any refusal must cite the exemption relied upon and the public interest test.
Freedom of Information Request: Complaints About the Child Maintenance Service I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information about complaints relating to the Child Maintenance Service that have been referred to PHSO. I request the following information: 1. 1. How many complaints about the Child Maintenance Service (or its predecessor, the Child Support Agency) were received by PHSO in each of the years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25? 2. 2. Of those complaints, how many were: (a) accepted for investigation, (b) declined, and what were the most common reasons for declining? 3. 3. How many CMS-related investigations resulted in PHSO finding maladministration or service failure? 4. 4. In cases where PHSO found maladministration, what were the most common failings identified (e.g., incorrect calculations, delays, failure to use correct data)? 5. 5. How many CMS-related cases resulted in PHSO recommending financial compensation, and what was the total value recommended in each year? 6. 6. How many CMS complaints to PHSO specifically involved allegations that income data used in calculations was inaccurate? 7. 7. What was the average time from complaint receipt to investigation completion for CMS cases in each year?
15/04/2026
What Are The Correct Procedures To Follow When A Formal Complaint Is Made About A Outstanding PHSO Case Where Correct Procedures Were Ignored & Dishonesty Used Just So As To Delay/ Interfere With & Cover It Up In Part Or Fully?
13/04/2026
I would like the name and his registration number of your GP adviser, because if he is a doctor registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) he is bound by ethical guidance when acting as an expert.
I would like to know • How many cases about maternity care did the PHSO investigate for the years 2023/24, 2024/25, and 2025/26. • Please provide a breakdown for the types of maternity cases there were investigated and what issues were as well as their conclusions. • I would also like to know the number of these complaints which were upheld, and I would also like an ethnicity breakdown regarding the ethnicity of the patients investigated as part of the maternity cases.
09/04/2026
Freedom of Information Request The total number of complaints that the Ombudsman has received in relation to The Walton centre within the past 20 years, including enquiries and those that were taken to detailed investigation, The total number of complaints that the Ombudsman received for the same time period that were partly or fully upheld Whether it is possible for a clinical advisor to be considered not to have a conflict of interest as per any policy, if they have had any contact with a trust, i.e. academic research connections, collaborations, meetings or training courses/days/attendances, employment, whether current or former. And, whether this conflict of interest declaration is entirely at the discretion of an advisor to declare. assessments were completed in line with these
I write to clarify that my request is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is not a Subject Access Request, nor is it a request for disclosure of my personal data. While the request relates to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s handling of my Subject Access Request submitted on 13 June 2023, this does not alter its nature as a request for recorded information concerning institutional conduct, decision-making, and compliance. For clarity, my request relates to: My Subject Access Request submitted on 13 June 2023 Complaint Reference C-2010930 ICO Case Reference IC-285746-F9P3 and concerns the handling of these matters, including: findings by the Information Commissioner's Office that the PHSO infringed its data protection obligations on more than one occasion; the ICO’s finding of infringement dated 1 February 2024; the ICO’s instruction that the PHSO respond within 14 days; the PHSO’s failure to comply with that instruction; and a confirmed data breach occurring on 13 February 2020. The request seeks recorded information including, but not limited to: internal communications, case notes, and correspondence; logs, workflow records, audit trails, and tracking systems; decision-making records, escalation records, and management discussions; IT records relating to claimed email delivery failures; communications with external bodies, including the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, and the Cabinet Office; records relating to case allocation, reassignment, and identification of decision-makers; and records relating to the investigation and handling of the confirmed data breach of 13 February 2020, including communications involving Bindmans and any internal assessments of that breach. This is a request for information about how the PHSO has handled its statutory obligations, including compliance with formal findings and instructions issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is therefore properly and squarely within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The fact that the requested information relates to the handling of a Subject Access Request does not convert this request into a SAR. It remains a request for institutional records concerning governance, compliance, and accountability. I recognise that some of the requested information may contain personal data. However, this does not justify reclassifying the request in its entirety. Where necessary, any personal data can be redacted and the remainder disclosed in accordance with the Act. There is a strong public interest in transparency in this case, given that: the Information Commissioner’s Office has found that the PHSO infringed its data protection obligations on more than one occasion; the ICO issued an instruction on 1 February 2024 requiring a response within 14 days; the PHSO has not complied with that instruction; and the request concerns the handling of a confirmed data breach dating back to 13 February 2020. This request forms part of a set of related but separate requests concerning case-specific handling and systemic governance. Each request should be considered independently for the purposes of cost and scope assessment. Accordingly, I ask that this request be processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If you consider that any specific elements fall outside FOIA, please identify those elements precisely and provide a compliant response for the remainder. If any exemptions are relied upon, please specify: the exemption relied upon; full reasoning; and details of any public interest test
I am submitting this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please provide the following information for each of the last financial year (2024/25): 1. The number of Step 2 decisions (initial assessment decisions) issued by the PHSO. 2. The number of requests for review of Step 2 decisions received. 3. The number of Step 2 decisions that were changed, overturned, or amended following a review. 4. The number of Step 2 decisions that were upheld following a review. 5. The number of Step 2 reviews escalated to a senior caseworker. 6. Any internal guidance, policy, or criteria used to determine whether a Step 2 decision should be reviewed or overturned. If any of the above information is not held, please confirm this explicitly.
Under the FOI Act 2000, I require the following institutional data: The PHSO Severity of Injustice Scale Policy: The current internal manual or guidance document used by staff to define and assign "Level 6" status. Triage vs. Remit Statistics: How many cases in the last 24 months have been triaged at Level 6 and subsequently closed for "lack of remit" within a 48-hour window?
07/04/2026
I am submitting a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the total cost incurred by the PHSO in investigating my complaint from February 2025 to present, including internal and external expenditures. This request seeks only the aggregate cost of the investigation and does not request any personal data. Accordingly Section 40(1) does not apply. The request is limited to the overall cost figure, and therefore Section 12 ( cost of compliance ) should not apply. Similarly, excemptions such as Sections 31, 36 or Section 42 would not reasonably apply to the disclosure of a simple figure representing Public expenditure. Under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act, public authorities must provide reasonable advice and assistance to requesters where clarification is required. If the total cost cannot be disclosed directly, please provide any financial coding, budget allocations, cost centre references, or accounting entries used to record the expenditure associated with this investigation, as these concern Public financial records rather than personal or confidential material. I note the significant Public interest in transparency regarding the use of Public funds and request a substantive response within the statutory timeframe. If the request is refused, please provide the specific exception relied upon, the reasoning for its application, and details of my rights to request an internal review. For transparency a copy of this communication will be sent to the National Audit Office and other oversight Departments. I look forward to receiving the information requested.
01/04/2026
Can I ask for some further advice please. I am interested from a personal but also an academic point of view of cases investigated and found in favour of by the Ombudsman relating to Safeguarding. Can I ask where I might find this information of your case outcomes.
31/03/2026
Does the information rights team have any legal or statutory obligation (including under the Police Reform Act 2002, associated regulations, or statutory guidance) to refer or otherwise present credible evidence of police and or Institutional corruption to any appropriate authority for investigation? Please answer “Yes” or “No”. If the answer is Yes, please specify the relevant legal or statutory basis. If the answer is No, please confirm that no such obligation exists.
30/03/2026
Does the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman have any obligation or by law to report any credible evidence of corruption to the appropriate authorities ? Evidence of which is again copied into this request. The following is a legal ombudsman’s original decision telling you that fraudulent legal documents were sent to HMRC by ex police officer/solicitor (Redated), this decision was latter overturned due to outside influences, ex detective (Redacted) who has connections to all of the accused.This ombudsman upholds all complaints submitted and says the estate owed nothing, the invoice levied is almost three times its value and there is no evidence to convince her that this is legitimate. This decision had to be overturned or the SRA and Hampshire police could no longer help this solicitor get away with her crimes.
Invoking the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and so far as allowed by law please provide the following: 1. In the last 5 years the number of complaints to PHSO versus (a) NHS; and (b) General Practitioners (I mean the number of complaints to PHSO about NHS) 2. The outcome of of such complaints including those which were subject to judicial review or threat of judicial review 3. The average length of time taken to dispose of such complaints (of each kind) from intake to resolution. (Where a complaint has reached Administrative Court via Judicial Review but does not reach a substantive hearing) 4. The number of such complaints which resulted in medical assessment or review
27/03/2026
How many NHS hospital complaints the PHSO received for each of the last five years which related to the death of a patient. How many NHS hospital complaints the PHSO received for each of the last five years which related to medical malpractice.