Procedure for making a service complaint to PHSO

The request was successful.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Can you clarify for me the procedure to follow for making a service delivery complaint to PHSO.

In recent correspondence, Anne Harding from PHSO stated that a service complaint I recently submitted about members of the review team did not constitute as a service complaint because I continued to disagree with PHSO decisions on my case.

1. How do PHSO decide when a complaint, marked as a service complaint, is recognised as a service complaint? Can I see the policy?

2. Is it always the case that if the service complaint also contains disagreement with the decision then it will be dismissed as a service complaint?

3. How should a service delivery complaint be worded to ensure that PHSO recognise it as a service delivery complaint? Do you have a pro-forma?

4. I believe there is now a 'form' to complete if you wish to make a service complaint. Can you provide a link to that form?

I am sure that there is public interest in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds.

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Reynolds

Your information request (FDN-188913)

I write further to your email of 12 April 2014 in which you asked a number of questions about the review or ‘complaints about us’ process.

Please find attached the casework policy and guidance that currently applies to the processing of reviews about PHSO’s service. I hope that this answers all your questions about it.

Forms which allow individuals to make a complaint about either PHSO’s service or the decision that PHSO took on a case are available on our website at the following address:
www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-complaint/un... This page describes the two different types of complaint that can be made.

Beyond this, we hold no recorded information which would answer your second question. If you have concerns about the way in which one of your complaints was dealt with, please let us know by emailing the following address: [email address]

Yours sincerely

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

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

show quoted sections

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you for the information on how to make a service complaint. I have one or two points I wish to clarify and hope that you will be able to provide this additional information at the earliest opportunity.

1. To make a 'complaint' appears to be synonymous with 'asking for a review' according to this policy. Is it possible to make a formal complaint which is not treated the same as a review?

2. It would appear that PHSO offer one opportunity to review the way they handled a case and that would include both the decision and the service delivery. This review would come after initial assessment or after investigation. Once the review is complete the case becomes categorised as a 'Do not acknowledge' case. Can you confirm that all cases, following an unsuccessful review become Do not acknowledge cases?

3. If you wish to make a complaint about the review process, either the decision, the service delivery or both, by default this follows your review and the categorisation of 'Do not acknowledge' case. Given that no acknowledgement is given at this stage does PHSO still carry out all the steps for complaint review as listed in the policy?

4. If it is not possible to have a second review, due to the 'Do not acknowledge' status of your case, then does that make the review team unaccountable as no complaints about them are ever fully investigated and no outcome is ever communicated to the complainant?

5. How does PHSO square a 'Do not acknowledge' policy with openness, transparency and being customer focused?

6. On 'closure type' I see you are still using the definition of 'no probability of worthwhile outcome' why do you use that internally when PHSO have publicly stated that this is no longer a criteria for investigation?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds.

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,

I have been informed by WDTK that this request is now overdue. I would appreciate an answer to my questions at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds.

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

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Re Point #6 "Worthwhile Outcome"
I am concerned re this still being used! As the previous PHSO Ann Abraham told Health Select Committee chair Stephen Dorrell MP (letter dated 12th July 2011) ...under the sub-title of "Reviewing as a matter of urgency the use of "no worthwhile outcome" in correspondence" PHSO said then "Whilst we need to consider the value of carrying out a formal investigation, we accept that this must be expressed in a sensitive and customer-focused way " and "I am aware that it is inappropriate for use in correspondence and I fully accept that complainants find it insensitive and dismissive" Which it seems why it is still being used despite assurances it wasnt! Lessons learnt still in round figures aka O!

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms Reynolds

Your information request (our reference: FDN 191609)

Thank you for your email dated 31 May 2014.

I can confirm we are dealing with your request for information dated 18 May, we will response to you by 16 June.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

show quoted sections

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Reynolds

Your information request (FDN-191609)

I write further to your email of 18 May 2014 in which you ask questions about the review process.

Information about how to make a complaint about the service you have received from PHSO is available on our website at: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-compl...

I will respond to each of your questions in turn.

1. We usually call a complaint from an individual about a decision we made or the way they were dealt with by us a ‘review’. The terms ‘review’ and ‘complaint about us’ are interchangeable and there is therefore no difference in the way each would be handled. The criteria that needs to be met for us to consider a complaint about our service is detailed in the complaint forms that are available on our website at the address provided above.

2. As stated on our website, it is open to an individual to complain about either a decision that has been made on their case, or the service that they have received. There is no limit to making complaints of either type.

It is not the case that once a review is complete, a complainant is no longer acknowledged by PHSO. As stated in the policy which we released to you, only a very senior member of staff can authorise a note to be placed on an individual’s file to say that they should no longer be communicated with. This is only done in extreme circumstances, when PHSO has done everything they can to help the individual concerned. On such cases, we will not issue an acknowledgment or any form of substantive reply, unless we see a compelling reason to do so. I have attached a copy of the unreasonable behaviour policy for you so you can understand the circumstances under which it is rarely applied.

3. If an individual submits a complaint about the review process, the new complaint will be considered. If the complaint relates to the decision made, the evidence submitted will be considered to establish whether it is new and would make a difference to the review decision. We would let the complainant know the outcome of that consideration. If the complaint relates to service provided by the Review Team, it will be considered in line with the Review Team complaints policy.

4. As stated above, it is not the case that after a review has been carried out, an individual is no longer acknowledged.

5. We have no recorded information which would enable us to answer this question. However, as stated above, the ‘do not acknowledge’ policy is only used in rare circumstances and with the view to making best use of public resources.

6. ‘No probability of a worthwhile outcome’ is not a closure code we use anymore. The phrase, however, appears in the document used by the Review Team but is not actively used by them either. The guidance is being reviewed and updated currently, so this is a legacy issue which is being addressed.

I hope that this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

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]

show quoted sections

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

2. As stated on our website, it is open to an individual to complain about either a decision that has been made on their case, or the service that they have received. There is no limit to making complaints of either type.

.......And you complaint will go straight back to the Review Team.

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you for your reply of 16th June.

It would appear from what you say that unless a 'do not acknowledge' tag is added to your file under the 'unreasonable behaviour policy' any number of complaints ('there is no limit')about the service and/or decision of PHSO will be acknowledged and a full analysis carried out by someone who has had no previous involvement in the case. (Policy Guidelines)

So if a complaint about service delivery and/or decision does not receive a full analysis communicated by PHSO, this would be in breach of your policy. (Decisions must be communicated in writing to all parties - Annex B, Policy Guidelines)

You state that a 'do not acknowledge' tag is only applied in extreme circumstances and only by a senior member of staff. So if there was a failure to address a complaint about service delivery/decision and the complainant did not have a 'do not acknowledge' tag on their file this would be in breach of your policy.

1.Do you inform complainants that a 'do not acknowledge' tag has been placed on their file under the unreasonable behaviour policy?

2.Is it possible to ask PHSO to reveal whether a 'do not acknowledge tag' has been added to your file under FOI?

3.If it is your policy to address an unlimited number of complaints/reviews then why does it state on the review form for the decision: 'Once you have received our response that is the end of our internal complaints procedure. If you disagree with our response you can challenge it through the courts'

And why does it state on the service delivery form: 'Once you have received our response that is the end of our internal complaints procedure'.

There is a discrepancy in the information being supplied here. It would appear from your complaint forms that after the first review the internal complaint procedure comes to an end, unless you wish to take court action. This would match my experience and that of many others. A single review with no option to make a complaint about the handling of the review, because the internal complaints procedure has come to an end.

If this is the case, then why are you telling me that there is 'no limit' to the amount of complaints/reviews which will be addressed by PHSO?

4. Only one of these options is true. Can you please identify the truth here?

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

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

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

Logically the review team has to make a mistake before any reconsideration of a complaint can be undertaken.

So the two things are not synonymous.

It's just that the review team are asked whether or not they have made a mistake .... And of course, they haven't. So it's rubber stamped by the Legal Advisor.

There is no fear of a judicial review, as the PHSO does not give complainants a reasoned explanation of its Decision on not to investigate a complaint. Therefore it technically can't be wrong.

If a service complaint is made about the review team's performance it should NEVER be in the hands of the review team to make the decision in whether or not that complaint should be investigated.

In addition, it's simply not fair in any employee to make a decision about their own work.

It leads to misuse of power and a certain arrogance in an organisation.

Which is what the PHSO represents to many complainants.

In order to be really clear and transparent, it needs to have a proper service complaint system - all outside the review team - and give complainants sensible explanations of why their case doesn't merit investigation.

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 'Procedure for making a service complaint to PHSO'.

I do not believe the answer I have been given is truthful. It contradicts other PHSO statements made to the public on your website and contradicts my own personal experience and that of many others. I would like a truthful response to this question. The reality is that it is impossible to make a service complaint about the review team because any further complaints at post-review stage are not acknowledged.

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

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

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

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms Reynolds

We are writing in response to your email of 29 June 2014. We are sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your information request entitled ‘Procedure for making a service complaint to PHSO’.

Under our internal complaints procedure, your complaint has been passed to our Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office, Mr Steve Brown.

Mr Steve 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

Review Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

show quoted sections

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms Reynolds

 

Your information request (FDN-194699)

 

I am writing in response to your email of 19 June 2014, in which you ask a
number of questions.  I will respond to each of your questions in turn.

 

‘Do you inform complainants that a 'do not acknowledge' tag has been
placed on their file under the unreasonable behaviour policy?’

 

I am sorry if our previous response was confusing on this point. A ‘do not
acknowledge’ decision would not necessarily be taken under our
unreasonable behaviour policy though the decision making process would be
similar.

 

If we subsequently decided to take formal action of this kind then the
decision would be approved by a senior manager (which would be recorded on
the case file) and we would tell the complainant of our decision. However,
as you will have seen from the figures we previously provided, the
decision not to acknowledge correspondence on a case is taken rarely. 

 

‘Is it possible to ask PHSO to reveal whether a 'do not acknowledge tag'
has been added to your file under FOI?’

 

A subject access request made under the Data Protection Act 1998 would
provide an individual with personal information including information
relating to any ‘do not acknowledge’ instruction on their file if a
decision of this kind had been taken. 

‘If it is your policy to address an unlimited number of complaints/reviews
then why does it state on the review form for the decision:  'Once you
have received our response that is the end of our internal complaints
procedure. If you disagree with our response you can challenge it through
the courts’

 

PHSO does not generally accept an unlimited number of complaints and
reviews about the same issue.  Once a specific issue has been reviewed, we
would not normally look at that same issue again.  However, our review
policy is currently changing and it is possible that we will no longer
consider complaints about our service (whether it be about the service
received from the Review Team or the wider office) once we have completed
and closed a review of our decision on an individual case.  This is
because the complainant would have had a chance to raise these issues at
an earlier stage, while the review was ongoing.

Previously, we said that there was no limit to the number of service or
decision complaints that an individual could make.  This is still the
case, but we will be careful to protect public resources by avoiding a
continuing dialogue about a complaint which has already been carefully
considered twice.  We do not hold a written policy about this as yet, but
one will be developed in due course.

 

I hope that this information is helpful.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][email address]

 

 

From: Della [mailto:[FOI #206930 email]]
Sent: 19 June 2014 16:12
To: foiofficer
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Procedure for making a
service complaint to PHSO

 

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you for your reply of 16th June.

It would appear from what you say that unless a 'do not acknowledge' tag
is added to your file under the 'unreasonable behaviour policy' any number
of complaints ('there is no limit')about the service and/or decision of
PHSO will be acknowledged and a full analysis carried out by someone who
has had no previous involvement in the case.  (Policy Guidelines)

So if a complaint about service delivery and/or decision does not receive
a full analysis communicated by PHSO, this would be in breach of your
policy.    (Decisions must be communicated in writing to all parties -
Annex B, Policy Guidelines)

You state that a 'do not acknowledge' tag is only applied in extreme
circumstances and only by a senior member of staff.  So if there was a
failure to address a complaint about service delivery/decision and the
complainant did not have a 'do not acknowledge' tag on their file this
would be in breach of your policy.

1.Do you inform complainants that a 'do not acknowledge' tag has been
placed on their file under the unreasonable behaviour policy? 

2.Is it possible to ask PHSO to reveal whether a 'do not acknowledge tag'
has been added to your file under FOI?

3.If it is your policy to address an unlimited number of
complaints/reviews then why does it state on the review form for the
decision:  'Once you have received our response that is the end of our
internal complaints procedure. If you disagree with our response you can
challenge it through the courts' 

And why does it state on the service delivery form: 'Once you have
received our response that is the end of our internal complaints
procedure'.

There is a discrepancy in the information being supplied here.  It would
appear from your complaint forms that after the first review the internal
complaint procedure comes to an end, unless you wish to take court
action.  This would match my experience and that of many others.  A single
review with no option to make a complaint about the handling of the
review, because the internal complaints procedure has come to an end. 

If this is the case, then why are you telling me that there is 'no limit'
to the amount of complaints/reviews which will be addressed by PHSO? 

4. Only one of these options is true.  Can you please identify the truth
here?

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

show quoted sections

Dear anonymous foiofficer,

I notice that more often no name is given at the end of your replies, yet you always ask for our names before responding. Interesting.

Firstly, why have I not received the internal review as requested? Is this still on-going?

Secondly, you appear to be backtracking on your earlier statements and your changes to policy are an attempt to bring your policy in line with current practice ie. one review and case closed. Given that this new policy has yet to be formulated any limit to a single review would be in breach of current guidelines.

It would therefore be possible to complain to PHSO that your guidelines have been breached, but as all complaints are handled internally this complaint is unlikely to yield a successful outcome. And there we have it, the total unaccountability of the Ombudsman service. You breach your own guidelines by closing down valid complaints about decisions and service delivery of the review team and there is nothing the public can do.

Your new policy guidelines will validate the fact that the review team are totally unaccountable for service delivery or decisions for it will be impossible to have a review of their work. Lack of accountability leads to complacency, arrogance and contempt for the public. We have all had experience of this from the review team already. Now PHSO, in listening to its customers decides to formalise the fact that you can only make a single complaint which by default means that it cannot be about the work of the review team. This will do nothing to restore public confidence or improve customer satisfaction, but this seems to be of little concern to PHSO.

Please inform me as to whether, as stated, this request will be internally reviewed by Steve Brown and his rubber stamp inevitability of finding no fault. If he has decided not to bother (and let's face it, it is a waste of time and money) then I shall take the matter straight to ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

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

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

As you have pointed out Della - this is a classic PHSO backtracking reply. We have seen many others. Some blatant misrepresentations, which we have to push for truthful replies. I was recently informed by the Head of the Review Team that I couldn't complain about my caseworker - which I have been attempting to do since I first spoke with her, because I had run out of time?
That's a new one to me.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms Reynolds

Your internal review is being processed as requested, under case reference FDN-191609. We answered your additional questions in order to be helpful and to provide you with the most recent information.

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]

show quoted sections

Dear foiofficer,

Is Steve Brown every going to decide whether the information given in this FOI request was truthful and accurate?

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear Ms Reynolds

 

Steve Brown will respond to you in due course with the outcome of your
review.

Yours sincerely

 

Aimee Gasston

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][email address]

 

Follow us on

[3]fb  [4]twitter  [5]linkedin

 

From: Della [mailto:[FOI #206930 email]]
Sent: 17 August 2014 14:48
To: foiofficer
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Procedure for making a
service complaint to PHSO

 

Dear foiofficer,

Is Steve Brown every going to decide whether the information given in this
FOI request was truthful and accurate?

Yours sincerely,

Della  Reynolds

show quoted sections

Brown Steve, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

4 Attachments

 

 

Steve Brown

Head of Risk and Assurance

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [email address]

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[2]fb  [3]twitter  [4]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...

C Rock left an annotation ()

I feel I must comment here with the hope that it will help the questioner or other respondents.

The response you received is inaccurate and untruthful. My evidence is that the procedure is simply not followed. Serious questions must be posed on this topic—essentially on quality of service (QOS)—since it is a constant source of irritation that complaints are not addressed and the PHSO have no quality system for assuring redress.

From the above response and its included attachments:

(1) There is much included on reopening/reconsidering investigations, which is irrelevant in the context “complaints about the ombudsman”. This FOI is quite clearly about making a service complaint. The examples given were not of service complaints.

(2) “The terms ‘review’ and ‘complaint about us’ are interchangeable”. This statement clearly demonstrates PHSO lack of awareness in this matter; except that I believe it to be an intentional manoeuvre—demonstrated by changes made this year (2014) to the referenced web page wording—designed to deny the possibility of PHSO ineptitude.

(3) “4.2.25 Reviewers must also prepare a draft response to the complaint about us”. Clearly unheeded since is practice to file a “NFA” response and no response or record as to why. And NFA (synonymous in effect with Do Not Acknowledge) is a tool used by any reviewer and does not require “Ombudsman, Chief Operating Officer, Interim Directors” etc., as stated at 4.2.32.

(4) I made a service complaint following the information and service complaint form as per http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-compl...). I notice that the referenced web page on complaints has since been modified to remove or obfuscate reference to “service” complaints about the PHSO QOS as opposed to complaints about decisions. My complaint has been waiting a response since early December 2013. The PHSO do not even log service complaints (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...) or have an accurate measure of success in processing them (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...).

(5) “4.2.13 There is a general presumption of the Reviewer making contact with the complainant at the outset of the review process (preferably by telephone) in order to give the complainant the opportunity to explain their complaint and the reasons for it”. This would be nice, but is incorrect. The reviewer of the complaint (which may well be against themselves) has the option to (a) reject any complaint (b) not advise or contact the complainant – as evidenced in my case and, I suspect, in others judging by this FOI enquiry.

(6) “4.2.18 Reviewers must prepare an analysis of the complaint about us.” Again incorrect. DPA requests of such have been returned as nil response to specific SAR request.

(7) “4.2.11 Circumstances in which we might prioritise a review include the complainant being ill or vulnerable or there being some specific time-sensitive issue”. Both these situations can be demonstrated to be unknown to the PHSO and routinely ignored since the PHSO never enquired of such: the result perhaps of minimum communication or, maybe, not broaching further ‘difficulties’ in achieving Closure.

(8) I saw no reference to QOS or how any independent assessment of reviewers’ abilities (to follow procedures?), skills (in researching or absorbing facts?), language (in appropriate communication), or attitudes would be addressed, for instance.

I have tried to pursue a similar question to enquirer Della, and would really like to see it answered honestly. Why not just add (reinstate) procedures to deal with complaints ABOUT the ombudsman? Imagine what could be learnt!

I appreciate it’s a lengthy comment but justified I think.

Dear Brown Steve,

Well that was a very long wait for a very short answer. Let us hope that you used the time to fully investigate the procedure and policy for handling a service complaint.

Your conclusion that the information given in response to this request was accurate and appropriate flies in the face of my personal experience. It was confirmed by your data protection officer that there was 'no limit' to the number of complaints which would be handled through your review process. (Review and complaint was confirmed to be interchangeable. ) All would be processed according to your policy with an investigation undertaken by someone with no prior experience of the case and a review report compiled. You have agreed that this is correct.

However, when I made a service delivery complaint regarding the review team it was rejected by Anne Harding, legal advisor and Julie Mellor, Ombudsman on the grounds that I had already had a review and could not, therefore receive another one. I quote Anne Harding from 1.4.14, "Julie [Dame Julie Mellor] noted that the review process was not a two tier process and that both complainants had had a full review already." On these grounds the service delivery complaint was rejected. So either your legal advisor and the Ombudsman herself are not aware of your policy or the information given in this request was inaccurate.

It is my belief that PHSO have always delivered a single-tier review process and that the information given here was disingenuous. I do however realise how difficult it is for you to find fault with FOI decisions for then you would have to take some action and put things right. You default position is to approve and find no fault. In this instance by agreeing with your data protection officer you are confirming that the legal advisor and Ombudsman were at fault.

A most interesting dilemma. No wonder it took you so long to respond.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds