Correspondence policy
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
Both the Queen and the Prime Ministers office answer every single piece of correspondence sent to them by members of the public.
I wrote to Dame Mellor on the 21st August and sent a follow up letter on the 17th August. To date I have had no reply or acknowledgement. I find this ill mannered. My question however, is,
Does the PHSO have a policy of ignoring certain correspondence, as you seem to ignore a vast amount of correspondence, and this can't be coincidental?
Could you therefore supply me with the policy or procedural instructions for ignoring some of the public's letters to you?
If you have no policy or procedure for ignoring complainants letters to the PHSO, could you tell me why you do this and who gave the instruction for letters to be ignored.
Many Caseworkers ignore further correspondence from complainants, after a decision is reached regarding their case. Could you tell me who makes the decision to ignore further correspondence from complainants and what criteria is used to make this decision?
Could you tell me who made the decision to ignore my correspondence of the 21st August to Dame Mellor?
Could you provide me with the last 10 internal memo's Dame Mellor sent staff - redacting names where necessary.
Could you provide me with the last 10 emails Dame Mellor sent in her role as Ombudsman, redacting any necessary information.
Could you please provide me with the number of staff who work at Millbank Tower, who were not born in the United Kingdom. This would be recorded in the employment contracts. I'm presuming you have a human resources department with a data base?
Yours faithfully,
CA Purkis
Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.
All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
30 December 2013
Dear Ms / Mr Purkis
Your information request (FDN-179230)
Further to your email of 28 November 2011, I am writing in response to your information request. I will address each of your questions in turn.
1. ‘Does the PHSO have a policy of ignoring certain correspondence, as you seem to ignore a vast amount of correspondence, and this can't be coincidental? Could you therefore supply me with the policy or procedural instructions for ignoring some of the public's letters to you? If you have no policy or procedure for ignoring complainants letters to the PHSO, could you tell me why you do this and who gave the instruction for letters to be ignored.’
We do not have a policy which asks staff members to ignore certain types of correspondence. PHSO’s role is to investigate complaints that individuals have been treated unfairly or have received poor service from government departments, other public organisations within PHSO's jurisdiction and the NHS in England. To do this, we need to engage with members of the public and to help them with their individual concerns. All correspondence we receive should be responded to with an acknowledgment, even where the issues it raises have been responded to before.
How we respond to the correspondence we receive will of course depend on what it says and the decisions on how to best respond taken on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, where issues are raised which have already had a response, we may not respond to these again. However, where this happens, individuals will be advised of our approach and we will explain why it is that there is nothing more we can do in relation to the issues raised.
In addition, PHSO operates an 'Unreasonable Behaviour Policy', which I can provide to you, if you require it. In line with this policy, in some cases, we may seek to limit correspondence with individuals where their level of contact with PHSO has become disproportionate. In some cases, we will read all correspondence from a complainant, but will only send an acknowledgement unless there is fresh evidence which affects our decision on the complaint. The decision to restrict access to our Office will only normally be taken after we have considered possible adjustments to our service which may help the customer to avoid unreasonable behaviour. The decision will be taken at Director level (or above) and any restrictions imposed will be appropriate and proportionate. If you would like to receive any more information about this policy, please let me know.
2. ‘Many Caseworkers ignore further correspondence from complainants, after a decision is reached regarding their case. Could you tell me who makes the decision to ignore further correspondence from complainants and what criteria is used to make this decision?’
As explained in my response to question 1, there is no policy or criteria relating to ‘ignoring’ correspondence. Correspondence will be dealt with the member of staff best placed to deal with it. For instance, the caseworker who is looking at the complaint, or the Review Team if a decision has already been made on a complaint.
3. ‘Could you tell me who made the decision to ignore my correspondence of the 21st August to Dame Mellor?’
As this is a request for your personal information, we will respond to you privately in relation to it and process this part of your request under the Data Protection Act 1998. The statutory deadline for responding to this part of your request is 6 January 2014.
4. ‘Could you provide me with the last 10 internal memo's Dame Mellor sent staff - redacting names where necessary. Could you provide me with the last 10 emails Dame Mellor sent in her role as Ombudsman, redacting any necessary information.
We have concluded that this part of your request is exempt under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows public bodies to refuse a request if it is vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s Office has produce guidance on the application of this exemption which is available online at: www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library...
One of the indicators for a vexatious request is a ‘scattergun approach’, whereby the request is the result of a ‘random approach’ and ‘lacks any clear focus’, or seems to have ‘been solely designed for the purpose of “fishing” for information without any idea of what might be revealed’. Page 21 of the Information Commissioner guidance provides more detail on handling this type of request.
In this case, we have concluded that the balance of public interest in the proposed release of the Ombudsman’s last ten emails is outweighed by the public interest in supporting the proper use of the Freedom of Information Act.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has produced useful guidance on how to best frame an information request to a public body, which might assist you in making requests in the future. It is available online at: www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/official_i...
5. Could you please provide me with the number of staff who work at Millbank Tower, who were not born in the United Kingdom. This would be recorded in the employment contracts. I'm presuming you have a human resources department with a data base?’
This information would not be recorded in an individual’s employment contract and is not information which we require of staff when employing them. We check to see whether an individual has the necessary employment visa, but this is not the same thing as finding out where an individual was born. In order to establish whether we hold any information relevant to this part of your request, we would need to check each individual employee’s HR file. We have estimated that to do this for circa 300 individuals would significantly exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ as set out at section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is also unlikely that such a search would provide you with the information that you require.
I hope that this information is helpful. If you are unhappy with my decision not to give you all the information you requested, you can ask for a review by writing to: [email address] If you still have concerns after that, you can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office to look into your case. Their contact details are available on their website at: www.ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [email address]
Dear Aimee
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 'Correspondence policy'.
At the PASC meeting on the 16th December, The Chair pointed out to Dame Mellor that the public had been forced into making Freedom of Information requests from her organisation. Not a very resounding endorsement.
As you may be aware, I have made more than a few FOI requests to your organisation. Over 40 in fact. That is quite a shocking statistic for one person. I make these requests because I need information in order to understand how such a large and supposedly well run organisation has let so many people down in such spectacular fashion. I need this information in order to see if I can change things and help the large numbers of people which the PHSO have failed.
I, unlike you, do not get paid to sit down and write a request. It takes up a lot of my time and effort. With this now clear, I can assure you that none of my requests have been "scattergun". Especially not this one. There is no fishing expedition here. I can also assure you that my approach is far from random or lacking focus. I have never been more focused with a clear purpose.
While you might think that you see a repeat of a request in a different guise on occasions, you might like to consider that it has taken me several attempts to get correct and accurate information from you on more than one occasion.
Dame Mellor is The Ombudsman. She is the head of an organisation which is ultimately accountable to no-one. This is a very dangerous position for us, the public. We pay her very large salary and all of the "top heavy" management which has recently been appointed.
You state that her role is to "investigate complaints that individuals have been treated unfairly or have received poor service from government departments etc". I am afraid that if that is her role, I do not believe she is doing her job properly, and as a tax paying member of the public, I have every right to question how she does her job.
You told me in a previous FOI request that Dame Mellor signed off on 47 cases. Dame Mellor also sat in front of the PASC on the 16th December and seemed very ill informed as to facts and figures pertaining to her organisation. She also seemed very out of touch with her organisation and staff. This was a public meeting.
I believe your organisation may have lost the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act, which is an act of parliament and gives the public right of access! The ICO are there to provide guidance and oversee the Act, but they have no statutory powers.
So I would very much like you to re-consider my request for the last 10 internal memos and 10 emails sent by the Ombudsman to her staff, in an organisation paid for and supported by us, the public, I would like to see exactly what The Ombudsman's role is on a fundamental level, as well as her interaction with her staff. I think I am entitled to this, unless of course your organisation is not as open and transparent as you claim?
I would also like a copy of your 'unreasonable behaviour policy'. We are all aware of the PHSO unashamedly unreasonable behaviour, but I don't think we realised you are actively encouraged to do so by policy. Can't wait to read it.
1. Lastly, you claim that "ALL correspondence we receive should be responded to with an acknowledgement EVEN where the issues it raises have been responded to before.
2. Further on however,you say "in some cases we will read all correspondence from a complainant, but will only send an acknowledgement unless there is fresh evidence which affects our decision on the complaint.
3. Then - in some cases, where issues are raised which have already had a response, we may not respond to these again. However, where this happens, individuals will be advised of our approach and we will explain, why it is that there is nothing more we can do in relation to the issues raised.
Apart from these three statements contradicting each other, they are also inaccurate. The PHSO fails to acknowledge correspondence or explain their actions. I can factually prove this on many cases.
Please could you provide me with the number of employees on work visas (non British Citizens) that are employed by the PHSO at Millbank Tower, as you claim you check visa status, you must have a record of it.
The PHSO might like to consider the difference that many individuals or action groups have made in History. Companies, organisations and even Presidents have been brought down because they believed they were not accountable to the public.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
Yours faithfully,
CA Purkis
Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.
All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
Gadawodd Della anodiad ()
It seems clear to me that the policy is no further correspondence once you have received your review. They do not explain why they cannot reply - you just get the acknowledgement slip and no more. If you have issues with the quality of their review they don't want to know about it.
Gadawodd CA Purkis anodiad ()
They do not always acknowledge correspondence with a receipt, and even if you absolutely prove that they have made an error, they still ignore you. This is outrageous behaviour and must be part of their "unreasonable behaviour" policy. What a joke! The fact that they even need such a policy speaks volumes about this arrogant and patronising organisation. As noted above - a private company would never be able to get away with this. But let's not forget how proud the Dame is of her staff. Proud of a complaints organisation that has more complaints about its own service than the organisations it has jurisdiction over? My vote goes to Jim Martin for outstanding leadership skills! The PHSO should be taking a leaf out of his book.
Gadawodd Brenda Prentice anodiad ()
Maybe we should all consider bring our stories to BBC Watch Dog.
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
This is outrageous behaviour and must be part of their "unreasonable behaviour" policy.....
The PHSO finds you 'unreasonable' if you provide a logical response to the inadequate and inaccurate investigation of your case.
You have to remember, the PHSO logic is that it is always 100percent right - it is absolutely infallible in its decisions.
The PHSO Doubjespeak is that you must therefore be 'unreasonable' not to accept this.
+ A combination of Kafka and '1984' must be required reading for PHSO employees to comprehend this 'Doublespeak' .
RESTRICTED
Dear CA Purkis
I am writing in response to your email of 30 December 2013 to Aimee Gasston. I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your information request entitled 'Correspondence policy'.
Under our internal complaints procedure, your complaint has been passed to the Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office, Mr Steve Brown.
Mr Brown will consider your concerns and will send you a full reply once his review is complete. This review of your complaint is the only review that we will undertake.
We aim to reply to such complaints within 40 working days.
Yours sincerely
Tanya Jackson
Business Support Officer to the Review Team Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk
Follow us on
Gadawodd CA Purkis anodiad ()
Tanya Jackson. Jt Oakley does this name seem familiar to you - no pun intended.
Dear Complaintsphso,
Thank you for your reply. Could you provide me with the following information regarding your
Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office
1. How long has been in his position?
2. What was his position before he was employed at the PHSO?
Yours sincerely,
CA Purkis
Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.
All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
Gadawodd CA Purkis anodiad ()
Dear God - it just gets worse and worse..
Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office?
Are they making up these titles as they go along?
Sounds more like a PLC than a public regulatory body.
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
Head of Risk? Sounds fun.
His job must entails arriving in every morning and saying something like:
'Two-mile-up parachute jump team building today - who's with me?'
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
......and don't Iand on the Talent on the way down'
Dear CA Purkis
Your information request (FDN-180620)
I write further to your email of 30 December 2013, in which you asked for
a copy of PHSO’s unreasonable behaviour policy and how many of PHSO’s
employees working in Millbank Tower do so on a working visa.
Please find attached a copy of the unreasonable behaviour policy.
In response to your question about the number of London staff using
working visas, the number is four.
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk
All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
So if PHSO employees are unreasonable in that they don't adhere to points 1,2 and 3,... Is the behaviour of individuals - being ignored and having been insulted - still unreasonable?
Dear CA Purkis
Your information request (FDN-181310)
I write further to your email of 8 January 2014. In your email you wrote,
‘Could you provide me with the following information regarding your Head
of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office
1. How long has he been in his position?
2. What was his position before he was employed at the PHSO?’
The Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office, Steve Brown,
has been in post since August 2013. His previous employment history since
joining PHSO is as follows:
September 2003: Joined PHSO as an Investigation Manager
May 2005: Deputy Chief Executive's Business Programme Manager (Later Head
of DCE Office and Governance)
September 2012: Head of Chief Operating Officer's Office and Governance
(Later Interim Head of Executive Office and Governance)
August 2013: Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office
I am unable to provide you with any information regarding the Head of
Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office’s employment prior to
2003. This is because this information constitutes Mr Brown’s personal
information and is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
If you are unhappy with my application of section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 you can request an internal review by writing to the
Review Team at: [1][email address]
If you remain dissatisfied you can approach the Information Commissioner’s
Office. Details of how to do so can be found on their website at:
[2]www.ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely
Claire Helm
Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk
All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
Gadawodd CA Purkis anodiad ()
Deputy Chief Executive's Business Programme Manager (Later Head
of DCE Office and Governance)?
Head of Chief Operating Officer's Office and Governance
(Later Interim Head of Executive Office and Governance)?
Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office?
Have they employed someone especially to make up these titles?
Gadawodd CA Purkis anodiad ()
Still waiting for Mr Brown's impartial opinion of my request for a review. Now I might be going out on a limb here, but I suspect he will find that his organisation's handling of my original request was just fine and dandy. This open and transparent organisation does little wrong, after all, as they have such a great leader - her own words to the PASC- not mine.
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
Deputy Chief Executive's Business Programme Manager (Later Head
of DCE Office and Governance)?
Head of Chief Operating Officer's Office and Governance
(Later Interim Head of Executive Office and Governance)?
Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office?
Have they employed someone especially to make up these titles?
:::::::
I suspect that the HR Director of People and Talent ( this is not a joke ) has been using her Corporate Job Title Bingo Card to conjurer up new confusing descriptions.....so that no one person can be held to account for anything.
The general rule about organisations is that the more ridiculously complicated the job titles ...the less anyone understands what is going on. And the more mess and general anguish ensues.
In addition, if you want to boot someone out, it's easy to say this mysterious job is no longer needed - so here is a massive golden handshake, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Steve Brown
Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Follow us on
[2]fb [3]twitter [4]linkedin
All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
2. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
3. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
4. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
'We do not have a policy which asks staff members to ignore certain types of correspondence. PHSO’s role is to investigate complaints that individuals have been treated unfairly or have received poor service from government departments'.
::::
Of course.
Mid Staffs and Morecambe Bay being two huge NHS scandals in which people died, so the PHSO was keen and able to investigate, when it received complaints from those who had suffered.
Except the PHSO declined to investigate in both cases.
.......And turned the complainants away.
Gadawodd D. Speers anodiad ()
Not an example of good practice I would say! To be the final part of appeals process, in a non-working NHS Complaints system. And to fail to accept the recommendation of the Health Select Committee of a "complete role overhaul" Made in http://www.parliament.uk/business/commit... carry on and not investigate two of the NHS biggest scandals is tantamount to complete misunderstanding of the PHSO remit!
Gadawodd CA Purkis anodiad ()
We work to put things right where we can and to share lessons learned to improve public services.
Off the PHSO Website. Its completely untrue and misleading.
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
The annoying part is when the PHSO make a blinding mistake - like refusing to investigate deaths in Morecambe Bay - it issues 'guidance' to cover its incompetent tracks - after the scandal of the baby the deaths has hit the press and so is public knowledge.
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/asset...
Is anyone convinced by this post-scandal posturing?
Gadawodd Della anodiad ()
PHSO turned down Julie Bailey and James Titcombe. They only investigated at Morecambe Bay after judicial review forced them to reconsider the case. That's how keen they were to 'put things right'.
Gadawodd Brenda Prentice anodiad ()
I could have written this for Mr Brown! Forgone conclusion. Result is what we expect.
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
The thing that worries me about Brown Steve's responses is that he always states that he is satisfied..
.....But never specifies why.
Gadawodd CA Purkis anodiad ()
He doesn't have any reasons. It's standard - I think it falls under the PROTECT heading they so sweetly put on all their correspondence. You know the ones - PROTECT RESTRICT etc?
Gadawodd D. Speers anodiad ()
Looking more and more like the PHSO process is untenable!
The whole thing is a complete nonsense and waste of public money!
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Gadawodd [Name Removed] (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()
This explanation is truly ironic.
What private business would operate like this..... Unless they are a dodgy company featuring on Watchdog?
It explains why correspondence seems to go into a black hole - no receipt for instance.
I have had to send a justified complaint via the FoI team because that is the only e-mail address that seems to receipt correspondence.
This makes more work for them ....( when they should be answering the complex requests via WDTK ) and it is plainly ridiculous that anyone who wishes to further their complaint is forced into this measure.
+ FoI team ..it's in your own interests to provide some senior officer email addresses for complainants who wish to do anything but meekly accept bizarre correspondence - which doesn't seem to apply to their own case.