What organisations am I allowed to join?

The request was partially successful.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Following in from ICO Decision FS50529798...

Since the PHSO has stated in internal files that links with phsothefacts pressure group are taken into consideration when answering FoI requests from individuals, could PHSO therefore please provide me with a list of the names of organisations of which it approves?

So that I may avoid joining any unapproved groups - in order so that I might continue to make requests to the PHSO without negative connections to any group being placed on my records ...to be used as evidence in declaring me vexatious.

NB..In fact, I am not a member of the phsothefacts pressure group but fear that membership of say..a political party ...might impact on my ability to continue to make requests on WDTK.

I would add that I am particularly anxious about my membership of a bee preservation group, of which the PHSO might also take unaccountable exception.

And is there any directive in PHSO files about members of the public being allowed to use the WDTK website to make requests - just in case members of the phsothefacts group might 'copy' the information provided - by the PHSO - as stated in the ICO Decision FS50529798?

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

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Just waiting for the annotation heading to be wrong again and like before we swap names and I get banned too:o)bbbbuuuuuuzzzzzzz But unlike you I dont belong to a Beekeepers group! I wonder when Team at WDTK will make contact?

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

Thank you Dee.

I am glad to see that the glitch has been located and that you are now back to being Dee, instead posting as me, on this website.

::::::.:

Sadly I have been declared a vexatious in an ICO Decision:

For asking the PHSO too many times how to contact its senior officers - since my case was ignored by the Review Team.

It's now a tad problematic for the PHSO as the Ombudsman has UPHELD my complaint that the a review team were wrong to block my complaint.

So I am wondering how I was expected to make a complaint to the right officers without being 'vexatiously' inquisitive as to where to send it.

I tried mind reading - but this was spectacularly unproductive.
Highly paid local mediums were a complete washout.

:::::

So I am wondering if I am still considered too vexatious to reply to ...and may not get an answer to this request.

1. Apparently I am vexatious because I 'regularly publish' ( stated on the Decision) on the WDTK site.

( No I don't .....I just write requests. The WDTK are technically the publishers.. Tut)

But the implication is that I am doing something wrong - as it's in public.

2. And because phsothefacts pressure group have copied the PHSO response about its senior officers to its site, this is apparently a reason for declaring ME vexatious.

(I can't think what would have happened if a group of terrorists had picked it up. They would probably have had me arrested.)

3. It is also because I 'contribute' to the phsothefacts website.

(Nb. Invoices on the way for these contributions phsothefacts. My charges are reasonable.)

And this seems to be damning evidence against me.

:::

On this second ground, I am happy to provide a full list of the newspapers and periodicals that have published and reprinted my articles - so that the Phso team can approve them. But it could take some time. And one or two, such as Today, are out of print. (Annoyingly, as it owed me money. ).

And, of course, there is Private Eye (August 2013) in which my PHSO mishandled case is mentioned.

Although, I must say - to be fair, the PHSO did not bring up this article when declaring me vexatious.

So - the conclusion must be that, in the judgement of the PHSO - the phsothefacts pressure group is more of a vexing sort of organisation than Private Eye, despite the relative readership.

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

I think vexatious is used to often and too easily. I am a campaigner. If I wish to ask a million questions, then I have the right to do so. As my last four Court applications regarding the DPA have been settled and costs paid, perhaps I should challenge this vexatious label these organisations are slapping on to us, simply because they don't like the questions we ask. The Home Office FOI Team seem to cruise all my request and have a note of who I request from and how many times. Creepy. One would think they have enough to deal with. I am not a member of the PHSO facts group either, but if they use this kind of discriminatory prejudice against the members, I think its time they were challenged. In an internal memo I received after a SAR request, one staff member of the PHSO - and I quote - said 'You could hardly call them a group'. Seems they have changed their minds.

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

CA..

Was it when it took around 18 PHSO employees to determine whether or not Dame Julie Mellor should grant an audience to the scary phsothefacts pressure 'non-group' , represented by two very scary people?

What a waste of taxpayers' money.

The PHSO seems to becoming absolutely paranoid.

::::::

New requestors.. Beware.

These are the PHSO's tactics for making you vexatious:

1. You send the PHSO the request via WDTK.

2. You get a mangled misinterpretation of the request in response...Answering a question that a FOI employee wishes you had asked instead.

3. You state that the request has not been answered.

4. They ask you to clarify it.

5. You point out the original request , ask them to stick to it...and try and help by rewording it so that a five-year-old could not possibly fail to understand it.

6. The PHSO then marks this down as an 'extra new request'.

7. This goes to ' proving' that you are vexatious.

You are asking too many questions.
You are therefore now 'obsessive ' and 'upsetting the staff'.

8. The ICO backs up the request , declaring you vexatious - because it doesn't seemingly doesn't read the requests on WDTK...but believes the PHSO's fiddled 'Buy-one-get-one-free' (BOGOFF) stats.

::::

Example: My vexing case. The request is about the EXECUTIVE OFFICE.

It's even called EXECUTIVE OFFICE.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

It's about contacting the EXECUTIVE OFFICE.

It was presented in an internal email, by the FoI team member to senior officers, as ' asking for 'ALL' telephone numbers of ALL PHSO employees'

Here's the Chinese Whispered RESPONSE:

'In this case, we have concluded that PLACING THE TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF EVERY MEMBER OF STAFF AT [the] PHSO in the public domain could potentially cause significant levels of disruption to the organisation.

We are aware that names of staff members obtained through a previous FOI request have been placed on the website ‘phsothefacts’, where individuals have been encouraged to further their campaign by contacting a range of staff directly. We are concerned that the release of a COMPLETE list of telephone numbers could be used in a similar way'.

:::::

So obviously the PHSO - having put the names of PHSO employees in the public domain, says that I MUST be to BLAME for anyone reading them, or even worse... USING them.

Therefore, according to the PHSO, I am vexatious.

Vexed more like it.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Vexed and I fully understand why!

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

I've had to make a formal complaint.

I really think, it's ridiculous that the PHSO states that it 'knows' to which groups anyone belongs to ...and is using it as a form of repression, via the ICO Decisions.

And this criticism of the WDTK website.. Doesn't the PHSO know that when it provides information..anyone can read it..it's public information... and it can be copied?

Same with Twitter. Goodness knows what they would make of that.

I also find it extraordinary that I should be accused of copying information in these circumstances.

And ... How? Are they hacking my email now? (Edward Snowden, check please).

I really think phsothefacts should be outraged that any public authority can quote making 'contributions' to its website is a reason for turning down a request.

The bottom line is that if the PHSO review team had not been so incompetent as to block justified complaints permanently ( thank you Dame Julie - for your apology) Phsothefacts would not exist.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

Your information request (FDN-189286)

I write further to your email of 17 April 2014, in which you ask a number of questions.

You ask whether PHSO holds listed of ‘approved’ and ‘unapproved’ organisations which would help it to consider the refusal of a request in line with section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. PHSO does not hold such a list.

You also ask whether there is ‘any directive in PHSO files about members of the public being allowed to use the WDTK website to make requests’. I can confirm that we do not hold any information relevant to this part of your request either.

I would like to assure you that PHSO does not prohibit legitimate and lawfully made enquiries from anyone. This remains the same regardless of what form the requests are made in, or which groups the person making the request might belong to.

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

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you.

That is heartening, since the phsothefacts group is mentioned in a such a disapproving fashion on internal files - when the PHSO decided to declare my request on the 'Executive office' vexatious.

It is such a relief to know that this response is evidence that I can present to the following Tribunal and I can now show that any supposed link with the phsothefacts pressure group into consideration, when declaring my request vexatious - as the PHSO fully recognises that there should be no blacklisting of this group and that such a pressure group should be considered to be part of our democratic process.

But I still cannot understand why the PHSO's internal files originally specifically mention the Phsothefacts pressure group in such a negative tone when preparing evidence to the ICO.

So I am interested to know how, without previous reference to any file information on the group - how would the legal advisor be able to cite the phsothefacts pressure group in such a negative way?

Especially as the PHSO states that it is acting in an open, honest and transparent way - and, of course, with due candour.

Because surely the PHSO must have been monitoring the group to come to such a conclusion? Unless it was just a totally uninformed and partisan decision on behalf of the legal advisor, which I'm sure could not be true.

Therefore I would like to read any file information that you have on the Phsothefacts pressure group( up to date) - in order to see exactly why the legal advisor would come to the conclusion that she did when deciding my request to be vexatious.

Obviously it would be redacted - if any of its members names are included.

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

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Don't you love it when there is anything vaguely contentious, the answer comes from 'The FOI Officer' - otherwise its from the named officer.
The Home Office (hello to the Home Office FOI Team, who read all my annotations) regularly leave names off absolutely anything contentious, but put names in capital letters on other correspondence.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Ladies, you are both amazing! Thank you for seeking answers and recognizing perception doesn't always match reality!

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

Capital letters CA? Indicative and worryingly self-important.

The worst case of Crazy Capitalisation that I've ever seen was on a Wimbledon Tory party leaflet. Presumably the Home Office is now being influenced by its political masters into this sort of capital punishment.

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

Phsothefacts...

You might like to know that, according to internal FoI department files, you are a 'mouthpiece'.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

Your information request (FDN-191707)

I write further to your email of 20 May 2014, in which you asked to ‘read any file information that you have on Phsothefacts pressure group (up to date)’.

Please find attached the information which we hold about PHSOthefacts the pressure group. For your information, the article which is referred to in the email we are releasing to you was never written and so we hold no further information in relation to it.

I would like to assure you that PHSO takes the decision to apply section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 very seriously. The attached information was not relevant to PHSO’s decision to apply this exemption to the request to which you refer. The Information Tribunal is the appropriate place to challenge our application of this exemption.

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 ()

But nevertheless Anne Harding asked Aimee Gasston if she could 'beef up' my links with the phsothefacts pressure group before declaring my request on the Execuitve Office vexatious.

If my supposed links were of no account..why was the group mentioned at all in the evidence to the ICO?

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you. But I have read more on my SAR files.

Please provide it... Redacted.

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

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

And you want an explanation about the 'beefing up' comment. They neatly slip and slide their way out of everything. You need an explanation. Full stop!

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

The extraordinary logic is that if you make a request on WDTK, and the PHSO replies, you are therefore responsible for other people reading it. And, even more shockingly, USING the information.

Incidentally, the PHSO thinks that requestors are 'publishing' the information that it provides as answers.

The fact that the PHSO legally has had to provide an answer to your request just isn't in it. And requestors can give WDTK as their address seems to be some new-fangled thing that the PHSO just can't contemplate.. without a bit of blame-throwing towards requestors.

So.. requestors its all your fault......

And information requested via WDTK can be used as evidence towards your vexatiousness.

The slight problem in that view is that answers to FoI requests are supposed to be for PUBLIC consumption.

(That's why SAR's are separate and private).

Frankly, the PHSO just cannot get its head round the new 'transparent, open' era that it trumpets about to PASC et al.

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

I am informed that this request has now 'gone viral' via Twitter.

http://paper.li/nursefriendly/1355368836

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

Here's the PHSO statement:

21. The complainant regularly publishes information she is provided with onto the ‘whatdotheyknow’ website and when she was provided with the names of the PHSO managers in response to another FOIA request, these were placed on the campaign website that the complainant contributes to. The PHSO therefore considers it is reasonable to conclude that if disclosed, the complainant will place the email address and telephone number of the Ombudsman on the internet.

22. The PHSO has argued that it is reasonable to conclude that its staff (the Ombudsman included) would have to divert a disproportionate amount of time and resource to deal with the correspondence that would follow from the release of the Ombudsman’s email address and telephone number. These are resources which would be diverted from other work and other cases.

This would not be a constructive use of public money.
23. Although the complainant feels that everyone should have access to the Ombudsman when they want, the PHSO has argued that an organisation like the PHSO would not be able to function if that were the case.

:::::

On the Internet!

..... That Tool of the Devil!

::::

And apparently the PHSO is assuming that I have requested 24 -hour access to Dame Julie Mellor - for all complainants.

(....My, my...she would be busy) .

It has come to this conclusion because it knows what I 'feel' - even though I have not stated no such thing.

::::

Its not only farcical - it's frighteningly how the PHSO views having to answer requests on WDTK.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

Your information request (FDN-191707)

In your original request, you specifically stated that you required information about PHSOthefacts 'the group'. Accordingly, we processed your request as one for information held about the group. If you would like to request personal information, you are entitled to do so, but third party personal data would be exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Alternatively, if you would like an internal review to be carried out of our handling of this request, please let us know.

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

Dear foiofficer,

I requested all mentions of the Phsothefacts group in PHSO files, as due under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was not a SAR request.

Please confirm that you have supplied all files ( including those redacted) due under the FoI Act.

That would INCLUDE any redacted briefings to senior officers,
including your external and internal communications officers files,
and mentions of the group in the legal and FoI department files.

Because if any files in which the group is mentioned have been
withheld without mention, or reasoning, then clearly it would be
breaking the law.

::::

My aim is to see how the PHSO reached the negative conclusions about the group that it did - some of which I have already read on internal files under my SAR , but were excluded from your reply.

And since the PHSO is linking me with the group in a negative way on its internal files then clearly this opinion must be based on other negative factual evidence within other files that the PHSO holds on the group, as clearly at least one PHSO employee has been reading the group's website and noting what it contained.....

'The complainant regularly publishes information she is provided with onto the ‘whatdotheyknow’ website and when she was provided with the names of the PHSO managers in response to another FOIA request, these were placed on the campaign website that the complainant contributes to. The PHSO therefore considers it is reasonable to conclude that if disclosed, the complainant will place the email address and telephone number of the Ombudsman on the Internet'.

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

(Obviously, the PHSO would wish to retract the statement that I 'publish' answers to my own requests, as it is technically incorrect) .

But if the PHSO has provided all files due under FOI, then it leads me to the conclusion that the PHSO linked me negatively with this group, in its statement given to the ICO, on no factual evidence whatsoever.

Thus the FOI department statement to the ICO must have be based it's summary on what a member of the FOI department 'feels' might be the case.

Otherwise the negative ( and positive, if any) factual evidence of
the PHSO's research into this group- phsothefacts - would have been provided in answer to this request.

If the previous answer above is complete, then the presumption must be that there are is no factual evidence on any research done on how this group conducts itself on file and that the FoI team statement to the ICO is therefore incorrect.

Therefore please either provide me with the information on file on this group, or confirm that the FoI statement to the ICO was mistaken.

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

Your email has been passed to the Review Team.

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

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

We are writing in response to your email of 23 June 2014. We are sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your information request entitled ‘What organisations am I allowed to join?’

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

D Rapp left an annotation ()

Having read through the information sent by the Ombudsman, I feel I must make one point.

The Ombudsman claim that defining maladministration would limit it's scope and fetter discretion. This is hogwash. They can openly define maladministration by saying simply that it "includes, but is not limited to".

It would only limit scope and fetter discretion if the list was given as definitive, when it should not be, but some consistency and some information should be given to complainants so that the process employed by the Ombudsman can be shown to be less of a random game of chance.

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

The New South Wales Ombudsman doesn't seem to have any difficulty in providing a comprehensive definition:

http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets...

......But the the NSW Ombudsman upholds 28 percent of cases brought to it.

Which is what the PHSO should be doing.

More info in this request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...

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

Apparently, from the internal files, it appears that the PHSO is keeping files back in response to this request on the grounds that permission has not been given by phsothefacts to release them.

Would anyone from phsothefacts like to write and state that the group does not minds any references to phsothefacts in file beng rekeased under this request?

I would I resume that since the request is under review,Mr Steve Brown would be the person who would release the files.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

phsothefacts has not been approached regarding permission which would explain why no permission has been given. Last time documents were released as part of a FOI request an email was sent to inform phsothefacts that information was due to be released. No permission was asked for on that occasion, just a notification and copies of the information to be released. This was not all of the data incidentally, as I am aware of other material which relates to phsothefacts which was not released at this time. No permission has been sought, but permission is given freely as we would all like to know what is being held about the Pressure Group. I hope this helps to clarify the situation.

Dear Complaintsphso,

For the attention of the Review Officer: Steve Brown

Please nite that the phsothefacts group have no objection to the PHSO providing all files in which the group are mentioned to this request.

You will note that I am still not asking for individual names of group members.

[Name Removed] left an annotation (14 July 2014)

Apparently, from the internal files, it appears that the PHSO is keeping files back in response to this request on the grounds that permission has not been given by phsothefacts to release them.

Would anyone from phsothefacts like to write and state that the group does not minds any references to phsothefacts in file beng rekeased under this request?

I would I resume that since the request is under review,Mr Steve Brown would be the person who would release the files.

Link to this

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation (14 July 2014)

phsothefacts has not been approached regarding permission which would explain why no permission has been given. Last time documents were released as part of a FOI request an email was sent to inform phsothefacts that information was due to be released. No permission was asked for on that occasion, just a notification and copies of the information to be released. This was not all of the data incidentally, as I am aware of other material which relates to phsothefacts which was not released at this time. No permission has been sought, but permission is given freely as we would all like to know what is being held about the Pressure Group. I hope this helps to clarify the situation.

Link to this

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Complaintsphso, 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 ()

22. The PHSO has argued that it is reasonable to conclude that its staff (the Ombudsman included) would have to divert a disproportionate amount of time and resource to deal with the correspondence that would follow from the release of the Ombudsman’s email address and telephone number. These are resources which would be diverted from other work and other cases.

Dame Julie is too important to sift through her fan mail. We know this - it's on Wikipedia. She only signed off on 14 (?) cases last year.

We wouldn't want to overwhelm her with too much work after all.

They should spend less time attempting to cover up their clear discrimination against the handful of campaigners who have never let up, and who never will, and spend more time learning HOW to deal with them. The sheer arrogance of the caseworkers and Review Team members is what spurs us on.
But you know what they say - The fish rots from the head down!
I hope I'm not being too nasty - I wouldn't want to offend anyone at the PHSO.

Della left an annotation ()

Just for the record, the information which was published by PHSO on a public site, WDTK consisted of the names of staff members and their job titles. This list which conatined no email addresses and no phone numbers, was then posted onto the phsothefacts.com website in order to assist members of the public who were trying to communicate with PHSO. Most transparent, open and accountable organisations supply the names and jobs titles freely on their websites in order to guide people to the right location. Why is PHSO so secretive?

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

Here's the killer.. From the ICO.

....Apparently because a complainant can use the normal phone lines to the case officers who you wish to complain about. That's all that is available to complainants.

They are not allowed to ask for other way of contacting senior officers.

And if you do.. You are judged to have made a vexatious request.

And this is always the reason that the PHSO supplies to the ICO..and the ICO backs up the PHSO.

( of course..when does it not?)

Catch 222..

The ICO believes that you should contact the case officers of whom you are complaining. The bizarre complaints system must be the only organisation in the UK where a complainant has to do so.

So you can't complain to a line manager - as per PHSO policy -because you are not allowed to know their contact information.

Letters are not answered - so that is out.

And if you continue to ask for information, you get vexed....because you are 'harrasing and annoying a public authority' just by asking.

Here's how it works:

30. It could be argued there is a legitimate public interest in publishing contact details for the Ombudsman. Disclosing information of this nature often promotes transparency and accountability. However, the Commissioner considers that this legitimate interest in transparency is met by the information already published on the Ombudsman’s website. The contact details routinely provided by the PHSO allow members of the public to contact the office and case officers when this is necessary.

31. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the legitimate interest in transparency is outweighed by the right of the individual in this case to perform her role without the disruption of calls and emails from the public.

32. The Commissioner has considered the purpose of the request in the context of the other correspondence and finds that the effect is to harass and annoy the public authority.

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

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

'21. The complainant regularly publishes information she is provided with onto the ‘whatdotheyknow’ website and when she was provided with the names of the PHSO managers in response to another FOIA request, these were placed on the campaign website that the complainant contributes to.

The PHSO therefore considers it is reasonable to conclude that if disclosed, the complainant will place the email address and telephone number of the Ombudsman on the internet'

:::::.

....So, because the PHSO has to answer requests on WDTK and places the information on this website...the requestor ( who, according to the PHSO has presumably answered their own request to have 'published it in the WDTK website') is to blame if anyone uses the publicly available FoI information.

In addition, the ICO deems that the requestor is therefore 'contributing to the phsothefacts website' as a result of making the request ...and is therefore behaving inappropriately - so it is used as 'evidence' against the requestor.

You really couldn't make it up.

....Other WDTK requestors should be aware of the fact that the ICO puzzlingly believes that requestors 'place information' on this site by answering their own requests.

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

Della left an annotation ()

So you contact the person you are making the complaint about. In my case it was Andy Comber. I asked him to explain his reasoning on the review of my case and he promptly informed me that he couldn't speak to me and then hung up. Is that the effective system they provide?

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

Yes, it's a circular system which ends at the review team... Because you cannot contact senior officers to say that your case has been mishandled.

Even though the ICO's sensible judgement basically says that if officers are senior enough to be in contact -ie they write letters to complainants- then logically their phone numbers ought to be available too.

As for email addresses, if they are featuring them on the public site of LinkedIn, or have given them out in the Internet, then they have put themselves into the public area and are therefore subject to giving them out to the public too.

Here's the case:

22. As to whether there is any legitimate public interest in this information, whilst the exemption provided by section 40(2) is not qualified by the public interest, in relation to any disclosure of personal data it is necessary for a condition from Schedule 2 of the DPA to be fulfilled in order to comply with the first data protection principle. The Commissioner has considered here the sixth condition, which is satisfied if the disclosure is necessary in the public interest.
23. The Commissioner believes that there is a public interest in favour of disclosure as this would facilitate ease of contact with a public authority and, in particular, with an official whose role involves responding to correspondence from the public. The DfT has argued that this public interest is met through generic contact details, not relating to any individual, that were disclosed to the complainant. In response to this point the Commissioner would note that it is a standard approach for an organisation to provide both generic contact details, such as a telephone helpline number and a departmental email address, but also to provide the contact details of individuals in order to simplify the process of communicating with the correct individual. There is, therefore, public interest in disclosure of the information in question, even if there is also disclosure of generic contact details.

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

::::

As for the PHSO withholding phsothefacts file information above ... The group is mentioned in answer to another request, so this request was not fully answered.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

( the internal reports)

Whether or not phsothefacts is - or is not - a 'group' ( as mysteriously argued above) now just looks like a tactic.

(.....Or, at least, as I don't understand the distinction, since I made it clear that it was the mention of the group - and not the individuals in it, I think that it might contain an argument that I have missed.)

To Mr Brown,

Please note that phsothefacts is also mentioned in your internal reports on another request.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

The information was not disclosed in answer to this request.

Therefore please check that more files are not being withheld.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Complaintsphso, 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 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...

Dear Brown Steve,

Thank you for your apology ... but could you now disclose all the information that the PHSO holds on phsothefacts?

Obviously if the FoI team is linking me with the group - as it has stated in evidence to the ICO - there must be more on file to substantiate such an allegation.....Especially the negative tone used.

Otherwise I may have to call a witness from the PHSO to the tribunal to explain how the PHSO has come to this conclusion....without file evidence to do so. Which, on advice, is my legal right.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Brown Steve,

The second part of your letter... Are you sure that you are answering the right request?

It seems to be in answer to another request.

It would also help if you would use my references - the title of the request - as well as your own, as a basic courtesy.

Please note - once again : I do not have access to your numbered filing system. Neither does WDTK.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Perhaps PHSO the facts can now see all the information you hold on our group?

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

This is the PHSO evidence given to the ICO:

21. The complainant regularly publishes information she is provided with onto the ‘whatdotheyknow’ website and when she was provided with the names of the PHSO managers in response to another FOIA request, these were placed on the campaign website that the complainant contributes to. The PHSO therefore considers it is reasonable to conclude that if disclosed, the complainant will place the email address and telephone number of the Ombudsman on the internet.

::::

As it can be seen, I am to blame for anyone reading the answers to my requests for public information on the publically available website WDTK, as I am 'publishing' the PHSO's answers to my requests.

I would suggest that phsothefacts make the request again to correct any incorrect information on file.

Unfortunately I was unable to present the background to this opinion above in court as apparently there is nothing on file that lead the PHSO to make this bizarre statement.

But there the PHSO must be keeping a file of information in the phsothefacts group as apparently it is writing to its members.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

AND??????

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

It's the reputational hold the PHSO was hellbent on defending the PHSO's public face.

Health Minister Jeremy Hunt had a public go at the Ombudsman ..twice:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/n...

So why the PHSO is worried about phsothefacts reading my requests ....which are Freedom of Information requests which the public is entitled to read.....to the extent of quoting my 'misbehaviour' for making a public request - as vex-worthy' , I really don't know.

Phsothefacts is entitled to read my requests.

And also use parts of the PHSO reponses to help the public understabd the the PHSO.

http://phsothefacts.com

The PHSO cannot fling false vexations at requesters ( the Vanity Vexing, overuled at a Tribunal) and think that the courts will automatically support its bullying .....of both requesters and complainants.

Minister Jeremy Hunt and the Patients Association both say so.

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

And yet another breach of the DPA - where the PHSO uses my full name so as to make me a knowable individual.

That's two in a week.

With its usual arrogance, the PHSO assumes it can divulge information that I have deliberately avoided by putting my whole legal name in a public place.

What's next.. Home address, details of my case?

........Details of the court judgement that was upheld in my favour against the PHSO?

On second thoughts ..scrap the last one.