FDN-172117... Additional information on special treatment and ethics of PHSO employees.

The request was refused by Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you.....your reply opens up some interesting questions.

Four requests:

1.....it is interesting to note that the Head if the Review team does not have to report any complaint about him/herself to his/ her line manager and therefore has a special privilege.

Is this the only post that does not have to report a complaint, in the first instance, to his/ her line manager?

::::::

2. If not, what other posts are allowed this special favour?

::::::::

3. Since the PHSO ethical system depends on trust - and not supervision, have all members if the PHSO staff always behaved ethically?

If not, how many PHSO employees have not done so in the past three years?

::::::
4. How many PHSO employees gave behaved unethically over the past five years on a year by year basis.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

On 1 Oct 2013, at 14:48, foiofficer <[email address]> wrote:

PROTECT

By email
Ms [Name Removed]

1 October 2013

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

Your information request (FDN-172117)

Further to your email of 3 September 2013, I am writing in response to your information request. I will respond to each of your statements in turn.

‘1 When a person complains about an employee, that the complaint does not go on their PHSO employment record.’

This is not correct. If a member of a public made a complaint about a member of staff, this would not automatically be added to their employment record or HR file. If disciplinary action was carried out in consequence of a complaint made by a member of the public, this would be added to an individual’s employment record.

‘2. If two or more complainants make complaints about the same person, still nothing is stated on their personal record.’

This is not correct. Please see my response to question 1.

‘3 That a complaint is not automatically referred to an employees' line manager. 4. ....So their line manager may be unaware of the complaint.(as, according to the records , when Ms Beazley 'organised' the complaint against her, without referring it to her line manager. ).’

This is not correct. Complaints about staff are generally referred to line managers for resolution in the first instance.

Where a complaint is about the Head of the Review Team, an external reviewer will usually be appointed to conduct the review of that complaint, who will report back to a senior member of staff independent to the Review Team. Any learning from such a review would be shared with the Head of the Review Team’s line manager.

‘5. That the PHSO has still no ethics officer to monitor serious compaints about employees.’

I have previously advised you that PHSO does not have an ethics officer, and this remains the case. Rather, all members of staff are expected to behave ethically and in line with the Ombudsman’s principles.

‘5. That Dame Julie Mellor is personally content with this system, in that complaints from the public are:

* Not logged on employees' records,

* Employees can choose who investigates a compaint against them.

* And that, using these criteria, each complaint is investigated fairly... In a clear and transparent way, with due courtesy to rhe complainant, and is not processed through a one-sided 'toxic cocktail' of a complaints system..’

You have asked for a statement of opinion which is not recorded. As you are aware, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 only entitled individuals to seek an opinion where it is already recorded. However, I hope that the information I have provided above is helpful and answers your questions.

Yours sincerely

Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [email address]

Follow us on
<image008.jpg> <image009.jpg> <image010.jpg>

From: Jan [first name redacted] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 03 September 2013 23:32
To: Gasston Aimee
Subject: Clarification of your complaints system

Dear foiofficer,

'To provide you with some context, PHSO receives well over 23,000
enquiries each business year (23,422 in 2010/11, 23,846 in 2011/12
and 26,961 in 2012/13). Between 1 January 2011 and 8 August 2013,
we received a total of 395 complaints about our service. Any of
these could be about members of staff, but whether or not a
complaint is made specifically in relation to a member of staff is
not something that we routinely record on our case management
system'

:::::::

My understanding from your statement above is that you have
confirmed that the PHSO has absolutely no idea if whether people
are complaining about the service given to them by particular
employees - or not.

I find this shocking.

Can you therefore confirm that:

1 When a person complains about an employee, that the complaint
does not go on their PHSO employment record.

2. If two or more complainants make complaints about the same
person, still nothing is stated on their personal record.

3 That a complaint is not automatically referred to an employees'
line manager.

4. ....So their line manager may be unaware of the complaint.(as,
according to the records , when A senior officer 'organised' the
complaint against her, without referring it to her line manager. ).

5. That the PHSO has still no ethics officer to monitor serious
compaints about employees.

5. That Dame Julie Mellor is personally content with this system,
in that complaints from the public are:

* Not logged on employees' records,

* Employees can choose who investigates a compaint against them.

* And that, using these criteria, each complaint is investigated
fairly... In a clear and transparent way, with due courtesy to rhe
complainant, and is not processed through a one-sided 'toxic
cocktail' of a complaints system..

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

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

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

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 'FDN-172117... Additional information on special treatment and ethics of PHSO

] ‘3 That a complaint is not automatically referred to an employees'
line manager. 4. ....So their line manager may be unaware of the
complaint.(as, according to the records , when Ms Beazley
'organised' the complaint against her, without referring it to her
line manager. ).’

This is not correct. Complaints about staff are generally referred
to line managers for resolution in the first instance.

Where a complaint is about the Head of the Review Team, an external
reviewer will usually be appointed to conduct the review of that
complaint, who will report back to a senior member of staff
independent to the Review Team. Any learning from such a review
would be shared with the Head of the Review Team’s line manager.

Since this is not true, as the person concerned is the Head of the Review team.... and yet the case is being run by someone under her direction in the Review Team, would you like to modify your answer to state:

'That if a complaint is made about the Head of the Review team, the 'independent' investigator is known to the head if the Review Team. The case is run by a lower graded officer under her control.'

And that whatever the strength of the complaint, for these reasons in system that has no ethics officer to stop this travesty.....it will never be upheld.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

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

Della left an annotation ()

I'm still trying to make a complaint about Ms Beazley's handling of my case, but all my letters are ignored. What kind of a complaint system is it that either ignores complaints or allows the person complained about to deal with the complaint by passing it to a colleague. Open, accountable and transparent - I don't think so.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Think twice...It's a waste of time. And it's a mess.

Because this is how the PHSO treats complaints about staff members.

They have taken my complaint - but the person running it is in her department and she obviously knows the 'independent' complaints advisor - as apparently there are only four of them.

I have asked if she has any say in appointing them.(WDTK enquiry).

I can't see that she wouldn't - as the Review team is the complaints review department.

If she does, then obviously I'm out....And on to a judicial enquiry if the media are uninterested.

As it is ...there is a hold up while I get the DPA files to see what has been sent .Apparently I am not even allowed to know what evidence has been sent to this advisor ...but if I want to , I can 'add to it'.

The logic if this defeats me. If I don't know what has been sent, then how do I know what's missing? Especially as according to the internal files, documents on my file went 'missing'.

The complaint was already being processed when her line manager Anne Harding seemingly got involved.

In any other organisation, the line manager accepts the complaint and it's investigated at armslength. The Ombudsman on my case let me check the files, which was one of the reasons most of my complaint was upheld.... Not so the PHSO.

In other organisations, the subordinate officer of the person complained about does not run the case. The investigator does not have a cosy, or controlling relationship with the investigator. The organisation usually has an ethics officer to sort this stuff out.

I'm just gathering all my evidence towards a judicial review while I while away the time that it will take me to see what files have been sent to the investigator.

I'm told that the investigator will ring me, but I tape calls, and will tell him ( it is a him) that I cannot speak to him without checking that he's got all the relevant files. ....And not just the ones that the PHSO fancies passing on.

Tedious, isn't it. And So the investigation will drag on and on.

But as we all know by now ......of course the result is in no doubt.

Della left an annotation ()

No case to answer ..... of course.

C Rock left an annotation ()

­Ethics=Principles?

We have seen that the Ombudsman's Principles are purely self-promotional doggerel and have established this with many examples of where those Principles have not been applied in serious cases. Unfortunately the Ombudsman's hidden Principle is not to enter into any discussion, defence or explanation of why these Principles are broken on a daily basis to defeat the hearts of victims who dare ask for more: who dare ask for the service expected and paid-for in good faith.

Principles for Remedy “first published in 2007”:

1. Getting it right (yet accepting NHS lying is normal practice)
2. Being customer focused (being offensive and indifferent to victims)
3. Being open and accountable (withholding reasons, reviews and procedures)
4. Acting fairly and proportionately (being indifferent to factual evidence)
5. Putting things right (maybe in token cases when cornered in public arena)
6. Seeking continuous improvement (no need - no response : always right)

I eagerly await implementation.

Della left an annotation ()

You nailed it Colin. When you back them into a corner with evidence of their own maladministration they just go awfully quiet!

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear [Name Removed]

Your information request (FDN-174932)

I write further to your email of 1 October 2013. In your email you ask four questions. I will address these in turn.

'1.....it is interesting to note that the Head if the Review team does not have to report any complaint about him/herself to his/ her line manager and therefore has a special privilege. Is this the only post that does not have to report a complaint, in the first instance, to his/ her line manager?'

Requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are for recorded information held by a public authority. We have previously provided you with lots of explanation and released to you all the information we hold about how we handle complaints about us, including the Complaints about us policy. We have no additional information we can provide that falls within the scope of your request.

'2. If not, what other posts are allowed this special favour?'

The response to question 1 applies.

'3. Since the PHSO ethical system depends on trust - and not supervision, have all members if the PHSO staff always behaved ethically? If not, how many PHSO employees have not done so in the past three years?'

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to recorded information only and we are not obliged to give an opinion where it is not already recorded. As we explained in our previous response to you, complaints about members of staff are not placed on their HR file and therefore we do not hold the information you appear to be asking for. By way of explanation, PHSO employees must act in accordance with all our HR policies and the law. If it was thought that any employee had not complied with these, of course, we would take the appropriate action.

'4. How many PHSO employees have behaved unethically over the past five years on a year by year basis.'

Please see my response above.

Yours sincerely

Claire Helm
Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

show quoted sections

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

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

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 'FDN-172117... Additional information on special treatment and ethics of PHSO employees.'.

To clarify the request, which seems not to have been understood:

I am asking why some staff have to refer complaints about themselves to their line managers, immediately after a complaint has been received.

And which staff are not subject to this process, since the internal files prove this to be the case.

Is it that some grades allowed to bypass the line manager process for instance?

And why?

I would like this explanatory information to enable anyone who makes a complaint to understand the distinction as, if anyone wishes to complain, they can understand that not all complaints are subject to the same process.

A potential complainant can then decide whether or not it is worth complaining - which I'm sure you will agree will save everyone's time.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

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

Dear foiofficer,

This is marked as 'handled by post' on this website.

As I have specifically asked not to be contacted by post, could you please explain why?

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

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

Dear foiofficer,

WDTK registers a delayed response.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

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

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you. I had rather thought that to be the case.

That the PHSO feels no compulsion to monitor any unethical behaviour of it's staff, such as bullying or even theft.

I can now inform the PASC committee members so.

:::::::::

Dear [Name Removed]

I attached my response to your information request of 1 October 2013 (which you have copied below) to my previous email. This confirms that we did respond within the timeframes.

I have copied and pasted the response below in case you have been unable to open the attachment.

Additionally, if you would like to contact me by telephone my number is 0300 061 4320.

Yours sincerely

Claire Helm

‘Dear [Name Removed]

Your information request (FDN-174932)

I write further to your email of 1 October 2013. In your email you ask four questions. I will address these in turn.

'1.....it is interesting to note that the Head if the Review team does not have to report any complaint about him/herself to his/ her line manager and therefore has a special privilege. Is this the only post that does not have to report a complaint, in the first instance, to his/ her line manager?'

Requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are for recorded information held by a public authority. We have previously provided you with lots of explanation and released to you all the information we hold about how we handle complaints about us, including the Complaints about us policy. We have no additional information we can provide that falls within the scope of your request.

'2. If not, what other posts are allowed this special favour?'

The response to question 1 applies.

'3. Since the PHSO ethical system depends on trust - and not supervision, have all members if the PHSO staff always behaved ethically? If not, how many PHSO employees have not done so in the past three years?'

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to recorded information only and we are not obliged to give an opinion where it is not already recorded. As we explained in our previous response to you, complaints about members of staff are not placed on their HR file and therefore we do not hold the information you appear to be asking for. By way of explanation, PHSO employees must act in accordance with all our HR policies and the law. If it was thought that any employee had not complied with these, of course, we would take the appropriate action.

'4. How many PHSO employees have behaved unethically over the past five years on a year by year basis.'

Please see my response above.

Yours sincerely

Claire Helm
Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

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

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

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 'FDN-172117... Additional information on special treatment and ethics of PHSO employees.'.

It is ridiculous not to be able to state how many employees have behaved unethically.

Or are you stating that every PHSO employee has a 100percent wholly ethical record?

Surely HR has records on the number if employees sacked and the reasons for their dismissal for instance. (If it doesn't monitor staff, exactly what does HR People and Talent do?)

And having stated in a previous FoI request that complaints about staff are referred to their line managers....this is transparently not true.

So why be coy about which grades have to undertake this line-management process and which do not?

Surely the public need to know which staff they can complain about to their line managers and which staff are protected from public complaint in this manner?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

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

Brown Steve, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

4 Attachments

 

 

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

 

From: Brown Steve
Sent: 13 December 2013 13:31
To: '[email address]'
Subject: Correspondence from PHSO

 

 

 

Steve Brown

Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [5][email address]

W: [6]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[7]fb  [8]twitter  [9]linkedin

 

show quoted sections

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...
5. mailto:[email address]
6. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
7. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
8. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
9. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

This unjust element of the PHSO administration -self investigation- has been brought up twice in PASC committees.... To my personal knowledge

I see no point in continuing to try get some sense from this ridiculously defensive and self-serving arrogant organisation.

Obviously it has no idea - as the other three UK Ombudsmen do, - that self investigation on whether or not cases have been properly investigated is not fair to complainants.

Della left an annotation ()

Well said Jan. In Scotland when you ask for a 'review' you get a review of your case by the Ombudsman. A review of everything, not just the process of handling. All reviews are seen by the Ombudsman himself. When you make a complaint in Scotland it goes to an external agency to give an impartial view. PHSO cannot differentiate between a 'review' and a 'complaint' and all are handled internally. PHSO always hit target when they get to mark their own homework.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Well it's interesting in that he states that all employees are supposed to behave ethically.... but there is no monitoring on the numbers that don't.

We can conclude that no employee ever behaves unethically.

Or conversely they don't record it when employees behave unethically.

We must hope that the HR Director Of People and Talent will get round to providing some real information by monitoring the situation - rather than chasing the 'Talent'.

C Rock left an annotation ()

A big problem: you might use normal language to try and communicate what you are saying/ requesting/ explaining/ describing/ complaining about, but the Ombudspeople are versed in translating that into their internal language - or Ombudspeak (e.g. as Della annotates PHSO cannot differentiate between a 'review' and a 'complaint').

Or you might ask for a review of factual material and they will dash off to check their 'Process' has been followed, without a reference to Purpose, or a reference-back to the complainant. They can then successfully report 'Review' completed. No part of that Process would stand up to a Quality Review because they didn't check Purpose of Review right at the start, then did not check Outcomes against Purpose.

If we could only have had a look at the definitive PHSO Dictionary of Permitted Meanings at the start.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

FDN-172117...

Referred to the ICO

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

PROTECT

24th January 2014

Case Reference Number FS50525374

Dear Mrs Treharne Oakley,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your FOIA request to the PHSO dated 1 October 2013 about how it handles complaints

Further to our letter of 6 January 2014, I write to inform you that your case has now been allocated to me to investigate. This letter will explain how I intend to do this. It will also provide you with contact details so that you can get in touch with me if you need to.

What happens now

Where possible the Information Commissioner prefers complaints to be resolved informally and we ask both parties to be open to compromise. With this in mind, I will write to the public authority and ask it to revisit your request. It may wish to reverse or amend its position. If it does, it will contact you again directly about this.

In any event, it must provide us with its full and final arguments in support of its position. Once I receive its arguments, I will consider its reply before either contacting you to discuss the matter further or preparing a decision notice. Further information is available on the Information Commissioner’s website:
http://www.ico.org.uk/complaints/~/media...

The request

On 1 October 2013 you requested information of the following description:

"1.....it is interesting to note that the Head if the Review team
does not have to report any complaint about him/herself to his/ her
line manager and therefore has a special privilege.

Is this the only post that does not have to report a complaint, in
the first instance, to his/ her line manager?

::::::

2. If not, what other posts are allowed this special favour?

::::::::

3. Since the PHSO ethical system depends on trust - and not
supervision, have all members if the PHSO staff always behaved
ethically?

If not, how many PHSO employees have not done so in the past three
years?

::::::
4. How many PHSO employees gave behaved unethically over the past
five years on a year by year basis."

On 29 October 2013 the PHSO responded. It said that it had already provided you with all of the information it holds on its complaints procedures, it clarified that it is not obliged to provide you with opinions where this is not recorded information.

You requested an internal review on 29 October 2013. The PHSO sent you the outcome of its internal review on 13 December 2013. It upheld its original position.

My investigation will look at whether the PHSO is correct when it says that it does not hold any further information, other than that which has already been provided to you.

The scope of the case

The focus of my investigation will be to determine whether the PHSO handled your request in accordance with the FOIA. Specifically, I will look at whether PHSO is correct when it says that it does not hold the information you requested.

Please contact me within the next 10 working days, that is, by 6 February 2014 if there are matters other than these that you believe should be addressed. This will help avoid any unnecessary delay in investigating your complaint. If I do not hear from you by this date, my investigation will focus only upon the matters identified above.

If you have any queries at any time you are welcome to write to me at the above address, at casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk (please ensure that you quote the above case reference) or by telephoning me on 01625 545539.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Garvey
Senior Case Officer

_________________________

Dear Brown Steve,

Please only reply via this website on all FoI requests.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The information that I was seeking above had a direct bearing on my complaint.

And this poor FoI response to my request nearly meant that I could not appeal it.

Because it made no distinction as to any 'special privileges' that a single employee was demonstrating - according to the internal files - that she had.

Either she had them ...and therefore my complaint was erroneous, or she didn't.

Therefore I needed to know which it was before complaining.

::::

The background
The Head of Review had not processed my case in a satisfactory manner and my FoI request was aimed at finding out why she had misread my complaint and had turned down my appeal to her decision - by deciding who was to review her work.

Therefore the request was reasonable in that I wished to find out if a single employee could 'mark her own homework', or whether other employees were granted this privilege. In other words, was she acting correctly within the PHSO constraints put upon her or not?

Despite this frankly deceptive reply above, I argued that she did not in fact have these 'special powers' .

::::

The Ombudsman subsequently upheld my complaint and I have received an apology for the 'poor service and resulting delay'.

The adjudication, from Dame Julie Mellor, for which I needed the FoI information stated:

'I am sorry that this level of service us well below that which I consider adequate.....

Had the team got this right a review would probably have been undertaken in November 2012,instead if September 2013.

I am extremely sorry for the avoidable and additional inconvenience and distress you have experienced as a result of this poor service and resulting delay.

I fully uphold your complaint and have set action in hand to make sure we can all learn the valuable lessons that we can in order to avoid this poor level of service in future.

Dame Julie Mellor.

::::::

As to not knowing whether or not any employees behave unethically, it's not really a surprise in an organisation in which it is normally assumed that all employees decisions are 100 percent right.

And won't answer reasonable FoI requests, such as the one above - to protect them.

This surely must be a concern to the taxpayer of the PHSO does not monitor unethical behaviour. Because it leaves this organisation open to accusations of corruption.

Therefore either the statistics exist - or the PHSO is falling down in its public duty.

It is not good enough to say that they are 'unpublished'.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The ICO - of course,- could find nothing wrong.

Does it ever?

http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/deci...

Thank goodness for the Ombudsman - Dame Julie Mellor.

Della left an annotation ()

Suzannah Beasley - head of review team handled the formal complaint I made about her entirely on her own. She found she had done nothing wrong and that there was no further need to communicate with me. Complaint filed under 'no action required' - next...

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Think yourself honoured..personal service.

The Head of Review didn't even bother to read my complaint before she signed it off. She thought I was complaining about something completely different.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Tribunal result:

It was not allowed to go to an oral hearing.

The Tribunal judge has stated that my review took place in September 2013, and therefore the implication was that couldn't make any more requests for information after this date - and add to evidence before the external investigator first contacted me in December.

The judge, like many other people, thinks that once a review starts you have to present the evidence on the day that it starts and that's it......because that is what presumably happens in a Tribunal court of law.

Although my understanding is that in other British courts that evidence can be produced as a case proceeds - if it relevant.

I was still adding evidence from December 2013 when the external investigator first contacted me to check the premises of my complaint, right up to February 2014. ( Before he made his decision was made.

.....Every complainant, will know - with a heavy heart- that evidence is not always available at first 'ask'. And crucial documents are often withheld.

Therefore this was a justified request to understand exactly why a complaint could appear go no further than the HOR ( Head of a Review), after receiving one of the PHSO's standard 'Case Closed - No Reason' letters.

Will I appeal? Hardly worth it, since Dame Julie Mellor upheld my complaint about the sub-standard way the HOR handled my case.

So I consider I was right to know how far her powers extended to control a complaint against her decision in that she appeared to be consistently busy in ignoring the premise of my case.

Because without finding out about the correct information and procedures, ( such as her job description... Not just the usual outline of the complaints system - as provided in this response) my case would have failed.

But it may be interesting for other complainants appealing any ICO decisions to note that a Tribunal judge has no idea that the PHSO external complaints system doesn't shut with a bang on the day that a review starts and spell this out in their summary of why their case should be upheld.

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER Information Rights
Tribunal Reference:

EA/2014/0092

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

And here is what really happens:

30/05/2013

Mrs TO called in response to our review acknowledgement letter. Mrs
TO said that she would like all correspondence via email to save on
postal costs.

She added me if I wanted that in writing. I said that it was
unnecessary and advised that I would make a note of her request.

Mrs TO referred to her public interest issue and asked if we would
be reviewing this, I explained that the review would be looking at
her concerns about and SB about SF

Mrs TO said that her public interest issue was never answered by
the * Welsh Ombudsman ..or SB

( Nb *Incorrect . My case was upheld by the Welsh Ombudsman.
This case involved the ICO , which determines 'public interest' on FoI requests).

I explained that the review would look at her concerns about
S's correspondence.

Mrs TO asked who will be looking into her complaint and whether
S would be dealing with it. I informed Mrs TO that her case
will be looked into by an external reviewer. Initially Mrs TO was
happy with this.

Mrs TO asked how many external reviewers we have. I confirmed that
we have 4. Mrs TO asked if SB knows the external
reviewer. Confirmed that she does as they are employees of the
PHSO. Mrs TO began to laugh. She said that there is no point in
having review then.

She asked if SB had any dealings with her request for
a review. I explained that S arranged to have her concerns
under our internal complaints procedure. I explained
that S is head of the review team. I also explained that she
asked us to investigate her concerns about
S and SF which is what we are doing at the moment.

( Nb ....Her own team investigates 'her concerns' about herself? )

Mrs TO repeated 'yeah, right, over and over and laughed. I
explained that if she remains unhappy with our decision or handling
after we have issued our response she could file for a judicial
review. Mrs TO continued to laugh and say ' yeah, right'.

The call ended.

LLP

..........
30/05/2013
Note to external reviewer

I have decided that we need to review this complaint about myself
and SF externally because it would not be appropriate for my
team to be involved in the reviewing a complaint about me. The
signatory for the complaint is GH

SB

::::

So phone and say 'yeah right ' ....and SB will suddenly decide that it
should not be her own team which should be reviewing 'her concerns' on a complaint about herself.