How many people currently work on the Customer Care Team?

M Boyce made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Roedd y cais yn llwyddiannus.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

The PHSO has a commitment to provide a FAIR service to all those who use its service. Below is the 10 week time scale it takes the Customer Care Team to look at 'feedback'/request for a review. A complainant has just 12 weeks from the date of the Final Decision to apply for judicial review. After a complainant has waited 10 weeks for the CCT 'feedback', they then have just 14 days left to apply for judicial review, which is very complex, very time-consuming, and very risky if rushed.
The PHSO should have an adequate number of staff to ensure that there is enough staff on the CCT to deal with 'feedback' in plenty of time to still allow a complainant enough time to make their case for and then apply for judicial review. It is an operational decision by the PHSO to not have enough staff on the CCT to ensure this, and therefore the PHSO is clearly in breach of its commitment to provide a FAIR service.

(1)How many people does the PHSO have working for it at the moment?

(2) How many people does the CCT have working for it at the moment?

Below is confirmation of the 10 week wait.

Thank you for contacting the Customer Care Team. We take all feedback about our service and decisions seriously and will make sure we look carefully into all the issues you raise.

What happens next?

If you are contacting us because you are unhappy with our decision or service, one of our Customer Care Officers will contact you to discuss your concerns. As we are currently working on a high number of cases, it will be approximately six weeks before this happens. We will then look to giving you a full response to the issues you raise within a further four weeks.

If you are contacting us about feedback you have already given, our Customer Care Officer looking after your case will contact you in the next four weeks.

We are sorry for the wait before we respond to your feedback. We appreciate your understanding and will keep you regularly updated.

If you have any questions or would find it helpful to speak with us in the meantime, please call us on 0345 015 4033 (using option 3).

Yours faithfully,

M Boyce, 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.

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email service.
For more information please visit

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear M Boyce.


Freedom of Information Request (FDN-274969)


We are writing to acknowledge your email dated 23^rd December.


Your request has been assigned to an officer and they will provide you
with a response to your enquiry as soon as possible.


The deadline for issuing you with a response is 22^nd January 2018.


Yours sincerely,



Freedom Of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman




dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

You might be interested in this recent organisational change:

The 'Shared Services' team now runs the electronic post room.

Advertised job - Business Support Officer (closing date 5 Jan. '18)

'Our newly formed Shared Services team is an integral part of our organisation, providing high quality support to our clinical advice and casework teams, as well as to the other directorates within PHSO. Shared services are also responsible for the provision of our electronic post room.
Dealing with internal colleagues and organisations within our jurisdiction, we are looking for flexible individuals with excellent customer service skills to join our team.
Ideally, you will be able to successfully manage a varied workload, have excellent organisational and administrative skills, and the ability to communicate effectively and how appropriate empathy. You must be able to write clearly and effectively, and have a good eye for detail.
This is an exciting opportunity to help make a difference to society. Feeding into our casework and wider processes means that the work we do is extremely important in righting individual wrongs, informing public policy and driving improvements in public services.'

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

Thanks for this J Roberts.

My FOI request is to obtain information about the paucity of staff who work on the Customer Care Team (CCT), compared to the number of staff who are employed as caseworkers. I was told on the phone that there are 16 people who work on the CCT, compared with possibly hundreds of caseworkers and associate caseworkers. This heavily skewed organisational decision by Rob Behrens means the PHSO is breaking the law, by effectively not adhering to the EU ADR Directive. If CCT 'reviews' are taking four months or more (mine is not due until next march now), then there is no time to then apply for judicial review, and you are supposed to exhaust the PHSO 'review' process before applying for JR. I am currently writing my grounds for my application for judicial review and the above is included within those. As is the PHSO's failure to engage adequately with the Pre-action Protocol by dismissing my Letter Before Claim without consideration. The proverbial really is going to hit the fan very shortly.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

It's clear the PHSO are not the slightest bit concerned about an individual bringing a judicial review claim against them because they can then at that point simply agree to review the case and the JR will then have to be dropped. What will prove to be a real concern to them will be that their ineptitude has now led them to a very serious situation where THEY are demonstrably failing in their public duty to provide a fair and transparent service for ALL complainants, not just me. The length of time of their Customer Care Team 'review process' (many months) is now effectively precluding subsequent recourse to judicial review. This is EXTREMELY SERIOUS and the PHSO are sleepwalking into a real scandal with this. Watch this space over the coming few weeks.

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Atodiad

Dear M Boyce,


Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000


Further to your email dated 23^rd December, in which you request the
disclosure of information under the provisions of the above Act, we are
now in a position to respond.


(1)How many people does the PHSO have working for it at the moment?




(2) How many people does the CCT have working for it at the moment? 




We hope that this information is useful. If you believe we have made an
error in the way we have processed your information request, it is open to
you to request an internal review.  You can do this by writing to us by
post or by email to [1][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]. 


You will need to specify what the nature of the issue is and we can
consider the matter further. Beyond that, it is open to you to complain to
the Information Commissioner’s Office ([2]



Yours sincerely


Freedom Of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [3]


Follow us on

[4]fb  [5]twitter  [6]linkedin


This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email service.
For more information please visit


Visible links
1. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you for this information.

It now confirms what I already knew: the Customer Care Team (CCT) is woefully understaffed compared to the rest of the PHSO team. Why does this really matter? It matters because it means that Rob Behrens is knowingly breaking the law. The CCT is now taking more than 3 months to conduct feedback/reviews. The 3 month judicial review application window begins at the date of the Final Decision. This means that the PHSO is calculatingly and deliberately timing complainants out of the possibility of recourse to judicial review. This is breaking the EU ADR Directive, of which the PHSO is a signatory. It also goes against requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for judicial review.
This now undermines everything the PHSO stands for and does. Are you bothered Mr Behrens? You will be soon enough.

Yours sincerely,

M Boyce, 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.

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email service.
For more information please visit

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

We know that in 2016/17 eight members of the team had a total of 525 days off due to sickness (65 days each on average):

If we assume that there are 260 working days in a year, and take into account:

"Generous holidays

We offer a generous basic holiday entitlement of 30 days and 2.5 days statutory holiday as well as the normal public and bank holidays."

The maximum number of days a PHSO employee could work in a year is around 220.

Unfortunately, we do not know the level of sickness for the remainder of the team.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

Thanks for this J Roberts.
The whole organisation seems to be sick, but not as sick and tired as the general public are of them.
Certainly the high sickness levels do impact substantially on case review/feedback times, but Rob Behrens should be employing more staff and/or moving more staff onto the Customer Care Team to ensure that the PHSO is not breaking the law. Mr Behrens needs sacking so that we can all be less sick and tired of him.

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

M Boyce,

It would be interesting to know what the staff complement should be for a team expected to deal with 3,426 complaint in one year:

I agree with you that the figure of 15 staff (less 3 due to sickness?) seems inadequate. The difficulty for Mr Behrens, I believe, is that if the team was much larger, the public would clearly see that a great deal of the PHSO's work concerned dealing with complaints about itself.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

Not having enough resources or wanting to hide the truth from the public is not a good enough excuse to break the law. Mr Behrens is personally liable because the buck stops with him.

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

Does anyone know if it still the case that reviews are carried out by the Corporate Casework Team?

My understanding of the procedure is that the Customer Care Team can pass a case to their manager that they think should be reviewed. If the manager agrees, she passes it to the CCT. The CCT then pass the case back if they deem it unworthy of a review, or carry out a review. Not many review requests get to the CCT:

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

Apologies for any confusion in my annotation immediately above.

Where I wrote 'CCT' I was referring to the Corporate Casework Team.

i. Customer Care Team worker thinks case should be reviewed.
ii. Fills in form with thoughts and passes it to Customer Care Team manager.
iii. Customer Care Team managers say yes or no.
iv. If no, Customer Care Team gets the case back to prepare a rejection letter.
v. If yes, Cutomer Care Team manger passes case to Corporate Casework Team to review.
vi. Corporate Casework Team decides whether or not to review case.
vii. If not, case passed back to Customer Care Team to prepare rejection letter.
viii. If yes, case is reviewed . If review unsuccessful case passed back to Customer Care Team to prepare rejection letter (or maybe the Corporate Casework Team does this itself I'm not certain).

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

J Roberts
This is interesting stuff. Is this complex process you describe actually written down and publically available? Where did you find out about it?


Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

The process has changed. It seems everything is done by the Customer Care Team now; but in practice it might reflect something similar, only with changed staff labels:

'The process of review of complaints was transferred from the Casework team the Customer Care Team...and has been fully operational since January 2017.'

'We have performed an inflight review of the design and operation of controls with the Review process'.

Here is the 'advisory audit on review processes and complaints':

My thinking was informed by this:

'24. The review request form should be completed and submitted to the Customer Care Manager, who will decide whether to pass this to OCWT for a review.

25. OCWT will then decide whether to review the case. If they do not feel a review is needed then they will explain why and the Customer Care Team will explain this to the service user. If they decide to carry out a review, the case will remain with OCWT who will complete the review and inform the service user of the outcome.'

And this:

'I can confirm that the Corporate Casework team was established on 5 January 2015.'

The 'Corporate Casework team' replaced the 'OCWT' – just to make things easier to follow!

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

J Roberts

Thanks for this information,

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

I thought you might be interested in some figures concerning customer service that show an almost five-fold increase in the number of complaints received by telephone (these figures exclude those calls that were made direct to those responsible for dealing with complaints).

In May 2014 there were 23; in April 2015 there were 109:

'Review' means 'complaint'. This was confirmed by:

'Please accept my apologies as my response to you on 24 July 2015 (our case reference: FDC 226955) regarding your information request about the wrap-up reason 'review' should have been clearer. The wrap-up reason 'review' is used by our customer service officers when calls are transferred to the Customer Care team, which is responsible for handling complaints about our service and decisions on complaints.'

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

J Roberts

Thanks for this information.

It proves that the CCT have been struggling to cope with an increasing number of complaints/requests for a review of a Final Decision for a long time. Mr Behrens has known about this serious matter for years, and has done very little or nothing to solve it. As I have said in my previous posts, it is an operational decision by Mr Behrens to under-staff the CCT. Unlike the caseworker department of the PHSO the CCT are under a duty to deal with requests for a Final Decision review in time to not preclude recourse to judicial review. They have been failing in this duty for years, with the serious consequence of either pushing people unnecessarily into litigation, or denying them access to litigation. Either way, the game will soon be up for the PHSO on this matter.
The PHSO do like to use confusingly nebulous terminology, like 'feedback', which can mean whatever they want it to mean - a request for a review, a criticism, a compliment, a bowl of spaghetti, a banana, or whatever they want it to mean according to the weather. The PHSO, like all ADR bodies, have a public duty under the Nolan Rules to be clear and fair. When I last mentioned the Nolan Rules to the them they thought that there was only one of the sisters left! We must remember that the PHSO are not only grotesquely unfair, but they are also irredeemably stupid as well.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

It is difficult to work out who is the most clueless: Mr Behrens or Mr Bernard Jenkin, MP. Both are fully aware that CCT reviews are taking so long (average of 228 days in 2016-17) that it puts complainants in a nightmare position - wait for a CCT review and be timed-out of recourse to judicial review, or go for judicial review when you receive your Final Decision and have your application refused permission to proceed and then be landed with huge costs imposed by the High Court because you failed to wait for the outcome a CCT review ( exhaust the ADR process). Catch-22 and bingo to Rob and Bernard on their stellar work. The bonus cheques are in the post boys.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

The above is actually even more protracted. It takes 16 weeks for the CCT to decide whether they are going to even conduct a review of a Final Decision. Then if they do decide to conduct a review then this review takes an average another 228 days. The initial 16 week wait is alone obviously more than the 3 month judicial review application window , let alone the further 228 days.
In the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) annual scrutiny inquiry on 12 December 2017 (available on the PACAC site) the PHSO state that they believe they are doing just fine and have enough money to do their job. Not having enough staff on the CCT means that the PHSO have no need to worry about complainants seeking and winning a judicial review, because the timing out game is a complete stitch-up as the PHSO have put an impregnable brick wall in the way of judicial review.

Gadawodd phsothefacts Pressure Group anodiad ()

PHSOtheFACTS did a fact check on the letter from Mr Behrens to PACAC. You will see that smoothing over issues with responding to feedback is only one of the spin points enacted by our new Ombudsman. Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

Thanks for this information PHSOthefacts. It's interesting stuff.

My application for judicial review was lodged with the High Court on 18 January, so the Defendant and Interested Party will be responding to myself and the Court by around 8 February or before. I'll let you know what they say as soon as I know.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

I have just been in touch with Bernard Jenkin, MP's office this morning by phone and email to ask him to look into this increasingly serious matter. They have assured me this will happen.
I also phoned the PHSO CCT line this morning to ask if they had now been informed about my application for judicial review. A recorded message informed me that the entire team was in a meeting. I wonder what that meeting might be about?

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

The fact check is very illuminating.

I wish to pick up on one thing from Rob Behren's letter:

"I should note that our caseworkers do also regularly receive positive feedback from complainants about their work, even where we have not upheld a complaint."

This reminded me of a comment made by Russell Barr (former Director of Investigations):

"Every week I receive emails and phone calls from managers here with thank you notes from people who have used our service and felt that difference. This is in cases that we don’t uphold as well as the ones that we do."

Still spinning.

And they don't just wait for for people to contact them with positive feedback. No, they target individuals who are likely to provide them with it.

Consider this comment taken from their file on positive feedback:

"Do you remember the names of the individuals from last night who said that they had a positive experience of PHSO? I am keen to ensure that we keep their details as further down the line PHSO may want to ask them if they would like to be involved in another activity going forward.' (p.65)"

Here are two examples of what they record as positive feedback:

"Thank you for your assistance in this matter." (p162); and (from a hesitant member of staff)

"Does it count if we get thanked during a phone call? We could write down anything in our note of the call and most people thank us for talking to them. However, I’ve just dealt with a follow up email from a complainant ...At the end of the call she said Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to phone me (honestly!)." (183)

If you read the document containing the positive feedback you may well be puzzled by this statement:

"The PHSO does not have a written policy for handling positive feedback. In general though, where a member of our staff receives a compliment/positive feedback, they may choose to notify their manager or supervisor.  They may also choose to pass a record of this feedback to our review team who keep a log of it." (December '14)

The evidence points less to "may choose to notify" and more to "make sure to notify".

Gadawodd phsothefacts Pressure Group anodiad ()

This is great stuff J. Roberts. Can I add it to the blog piece as a comment?

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

Of course you can add it. The more that know the truth the better!

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

There has been an interesting new development today.

I spoke to the Court office dealing with my application to the High Court this afternoon to ask if someone could clarify when the 3 month clock for application for judicial review starts ticking. One of the their office lawyers told me that the clock starts at the END of the ADR process - after ALL internal review processes have been completed (CCT review). He said this was the understanding of section 54.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules of judicial review:

54.5 (1) 'The claim form must be filed-

(b) in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.'

The Court lawyer was adamant that this meant after the completion of any CCT review, and NOT at the issuance of the PHSO Final Decision.

Contrast this with what the legal team at the PHSO told me on 15/12/17:

'If you wish to appeal the Ombudsman's decision then you have a period of three months in which to issue Judicial Review proceedings, this is from the date of the final decision in your case which is the date of the final report. This is not extended if you request that the decision is reviewed.'
So, who is giving the correct advice: lawyers working for the High Court, or the legal team at the PHSO?

We will find out shortly when the judge looks at my application for judicial review lodged with the Court on 19/01/18.

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

I think you got sound advice.

In this case the clock started ticking from the date of the review refusal decision:

'54. I must first resolve two threshold questions. Firstly, I must decide whether the judicial review claim was started promptly and within three months of the relevant decision. On behalf of the Ombudsman, it is contended that the relevant decision being challenged is the review refusal decision..'

Keep us informed!

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

J Roberts

Thank you very much for providing the link to the above JR case. On the face of it it looks like very valuable information. It certainly seems to support the idea that the 3 month JR window should begin at the end of all the PHSO's investigations. This appears entirely logical and entirely fair. BUT, as we all know the PHSO is neither logical or fair. If it now turns out that I have made a premature application for judicial review because I was given inaccurate and seriously misleading information by the PHSO legal team then I am going to go ballistic with them. How many other people have the PHSO legal team similarly seriously mislead? A costs order in judicial review cases can average many tens of thousands of pounds.
I will keep you informed of proceedings. The PHSO have to serve their response to my JR application to the Court by 11 February 2018. I would also hope to hear from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee before then.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

This to me today from Bernard Jenkin MP and Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee:

''...I have contacted the PHSO and they have assured me that their general policy is that: 'where the complainant or body in jurisdiction requests a review of that decision [Final Decision], we would not seek to challenge a late issue of [Judicial Review] proceedings where either; PHSO has looked at the adjudication and decided there are not grounds for a review, or PHSO agrees to a review and the review is brought to a conclusion.'
The PHSO have said that to make their practice clearer, they are preparing a revised guidance note to be placed on their website and are amending their decision letters to both complainants and bodies in jurisdiction.'
Well there we have it: proof positive that the PHSO has been misleading people, and for a long time.
It doesn't help me at the moment because my application for judicial review was lodged nearly two weeks ago and in direct consequence to their misleading guidance.
The PHSO also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Civil Procedure Rules as they relate to judicial review. The fact that the PHSO will not seek to challenge a late application for judicial review (as a result of their CCT reviews taking more than 3 months) is almost entirely academic. Judges almost never grant permission for a time extension, and why would you risk it?
As predicted earlier, the proverbial is now starting to hit the fan.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

I forgot to add the last paragraph of that letter:

'Ultimately only the courts have the discretion to allow 'out of time' applications for judicial review so the PHSO cannot give any definitive assurances that permission would be granted in such circumstances.'

Exactly. And the PHSO is here tacitly admitting that a judge would almost never grant a time extension. All this is the most extraordinary admission by the PHSO that they are deliberately timing-out complainants from recourse to judicial review. The only thing a complainant can hope for is that they will be very very lucky and get a sympathetic judge, and one that is as capricious as the wind.
Don't you now feel assured that the PHSO is behaving fairly, transparently and with integrity, and is not playing very fast and loose with people's lives. No, me neither. Application for judicial can be ruinously expensive, and the PHSO think this is just a big game. For them it is, for a complainant it can be literally bankrupting.

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

'The PHSO have said that to make their practice clearer, they are preparing a revised guidance note to be placed on their website and are amending their decision letters to both complainants and bodies in jurisdiction.'

Isn't it surprising that with so many experienced complaint handlers they accept only now that things could be made clearer. Little wonder that many people seem wary of getting involved with the PHSO.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

So despite the legal advice I have received recently from a lawyer at court saying that the 3 month clock for application for judicial review should only begin at the end of the ADR process, the PHSO are clearly saying that for them it begins at the issuance of their Final Decision (and not any CCT review). This appears to be not only contrary to law, but also clearly contrary to fair behaviour. Timing complainants out of judicial review is not fair , and alternatively forcing them to apply before the end of the ADR process risks the complainant being landed with a huge costs order bill.
Would there be any right-minded and fair-minded person that would agree with what the PHSO are saying and doing?

Gadawodd C Rock anodiad ()

Add it to the list of incompetence and confusion:

• A process engineered to favour failing service providers by cherry-picking from already dishonest or ‘commissioned’ responses
• Clear intent to discredit complainants’ experience dismissed as mere “views” (yet claimed superficially as “so valued” in repeated defence of PHSO’s incredible value)
• A clear practice to process claims from both sides on uninformed assumptions rather than gathering all the evidence
• i.e. a total lack of rigour and diligence in pursuing any serious line of contention because they are out of their depth and have an ‘outcome’ to deliver.
• Clear intent to wear down complainants through bullying practice and oblique insinuations on their integrity of experience and evidence
• Clear discrimination shown towards complainants and previous injury, adding harm on harm
• Outright refusal to consider PHSO service complaints against contextual evidence
• Continual extension of response times to such an extent that learning and corrective action, if any is understood at all, will be many years down the line, whilst negligence and maladministration in services continue, with further victims requiring further action

Yes this is 2018 and is happening now. The concept that complex or Just ‘resolutions’ can be reached by an average ‘Joe’ recruited off the street as a ‘caseworker’ with no experience in any field that even specialists have difficulty with (as quoted by a specialist), is entirely counter-intuitive, as is indicated by the level of rising public discontent. In my View.

My standpoint (and not my “viewpoint”, as one caseworker actually said) is that of a father whose son was lost because ‘professionals’ could not communicate or follow specific medical guidelines, professional policies, employers’ policies, training, or even their professional bodies’ instructions.

It was harmful to see them perjure themselves whilst excusing their negligence and it was additionally harmful for the PHSO to leave the issues unaddressed, now for 9 years after the event, and knowingly under growing pressure to come clean and fix a broken system.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

I agree C Rock.

My case is not about the NHS, but about HMRC. It is not about life and death, or even medical injury. I'll be the first to admit my case is not the most serious case the PHSO deals with, but it is still serious enough to deserve fair investigation by the PHSO. If the PHSO cannot even manage a relatively simple case like mine, then what chance of them dealing adequately and fairly with complex medical cases? We all know the answer to that.
Sooner or later the PHSO will be fully exposed for the really bad joke of an organisation it is, and how it only adds insult to injury.

Gadawodd phsothefacts Pressure Group anodiad ()

Colin, a great summary of the PHSO experience. Can I put this on the PHSOtheFACTS website on the 'Things people say' page?

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

Rob Behrens has been in charge of the PHSO for less than a year, so you might be forgiven for wanting to cut him a bit of slack for his appearing to not know how to do his job as an ombudsman fairly, competently and transparently at the moment. But bear this in mind, he was in charge of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), the education ombudsman, for eight years, between 2008 -16. Like the PHSO, the OIA's decisions can be subject to judicial review. This means Mr Behrens should be expertly familiar with judicial review and precisely how it intimately relates to the ombudsman process. So why is he now amending the PHSO's guidance in this area in an attempt to make it 'clearer'? Does he really know what he is doing, or did he know exactly what he was doing, but has now been found out?

Gadawodd C Rock anodiad ()

Thank you phsothefacts Pressure Group and use my public comment as you wish. PHSO are aware of failings and know where to ask for assistance in their difficulties. Ask those who have had to take the derision and insults just for asking for some sort of intelligence through their terrible experience.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

The PHSO have now asked the judge to stay proceedings in my application for judicial review until they have decided whether to conduct a CCT review. I'll let you know what happens.

Gadawodd phsothefacts Pressure Group anodiad ()

They can take many months to decide whether to conduct a review which must be a review in itself. Someone told me the other day that PHSO were considering (since October 2017) whether to conduct a 'formal review'. Whatever is a formal review and does that make all the others informal?
More questions than answers with PHSO.

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()


Yes, good points.

Significantly, the PHSO has asked the Court for it to stay proceedings without first requesting consent to such a request from myself or the Interested Party. Consent of all parties is required. This constitutes an abuse of court process. They didn't ask me for consent because they knew I would refuse to grant it. I will be asking the PHSO legal team and their fancy legal counsel (barristers) if they would like me to send them a spade, so they can dig their hole even deeper.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site . Find out more .