Will evidence is cases be available to both parties?

The request was partially successful.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

My understanding us that the Legal Ombudsman works by a different criteria to the PHSO in that it allows complainants to view the responses of those complained about, ensuring fairness for both parties.

This new departure clearly stops investigators and reviewers accepting the unchallenged word of those complained about .....and making terrible misjudgements as a result.

Could you please tell me whether the PHSO will be adopting parity for both complainant and the opposing party?

And, if not, is a discussion on this less biased system listed on the agenda of the Unitary Committee on .... as where one enlightened Ombudsman leads, others - which have traditionally not been so concerned with justice - are likely to follow.

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

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

This is the exact text from the Legal ombudsman:

Sharing evidence
As part of the investigation, both you and the lawyer will be asked to provide us with evidence which the investigator will use to reach their conclusions. We will give both you and the lawyer the opportunity to see this evidence. If at any point the investigator refers to evidence you have not seen, then please let them know."

[name removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

So pleased you have raised this point! Will watch with considerable interest! Thanks!

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

I've asked the ICO.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

By email
Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

14 November 2013

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

Your information request (FDN-176232)

Further to your email of 18 October 2013, I am writing in response to your information request.

In your email, you wrote: ‘My understanding us that the Legal Ombudsman works by a different criteria to the PHSO in that it allows complainants to view the responses of those complained about, ensuring fairness for both parties. This new departure clearly stops investigators and reviewers accepting the unchallenged word of those complained about .....and making terrible misjudgements as a result. Could you please tell me whether the PHSO will be adopting parity for both complainant and the opposing party?’ You also emailed about this issue on 21 October 2013.

As you may be aware, in line with our new approach, we are now investigating more complaints. Our new strategy is detailed on our website at:
www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/more-impac...

Before an investigation concludes, the draft investigation report is shared with all parties to the complaint (i.e. the complainant and the organisation or organisations complained about). At this stage, the involved parties are also entitled to see any evidence which influenced our provisional decision on the complaint.

This approach ensures both fairness and transparency and provides parties with evidence which they can use to challenge our decision making should they wish to. The general rule is that a person or body which has to make a decision based on an issue raised by one person against another should normally disclose the material on which it is going to rely to each of the parties involved. This is so that each party can know what material is available, what matters are likely to be held against them and whether it is necessary for that party to itself put forward material or to make representations to deal with such matters. This has been our approach for some time.

I hope that this information is useful.

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,

Thank you Aimee.

That's the best news you've imparted so far.

What date did this transpire?

Does it now apply to complainants before the date?

Can a complainant ask for a case to be reviewed on this basis?

Because it seems that it wasn't being carried out during my case.

::::

Is this change anything to do with the proposed Centralised Combined Ombudsman Service, as conformity in case handling will mean an easier changeover?

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

E. Colville left an annotation ()

Thank you Jan for pursuing this request so relentlessly. This disclosure on the PHSO's alleged "new" modus operandi is invaluable. The acid test now will be whether it will have retroactive effect to cure past injustices.

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 'Will evidence is cases be available to both parties?'.

Dear foiofficer,

Having read this document I see that: 

Over the next five years, we will carry out our role by:
• investigating complaints fairly and without taking sides;

So obviously that is a huge step forward for the PHSO...

But where  EXACTLY does this document give guidance on complainants being able to have access to all the paperwork?

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

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

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

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

Sorry Elaine,

It another ReqestFail.

The documents does not specifically address this particular issue.

On the face of it, it appears to be the sort of thing that you can play Corporate B.....Bingo with..

You know the sort of thing...

Vision
Leading the Way
Listening
Learning
Our customers
Sharing
Efficient
Effective
Resolve
Improve
High Standards
Using complaints
Improve service
Success
System
Raise awareness

R Tozer left an annotation ()

"Before an investigation concludes, the draft investigation report is shared with all parties to the complaint (i.e. the complainant and the organisation or organisations complained about). At this stage, the involved parties are also entitled to see any evidence which influenced our provisional decision on the complaint."

In a less than one month old letter I have from the PHSO it states that 'I am not able to see the evidence that I am questioning as it was not used in the decision' (NB although it was referred to in the report)

I asked for this evidence 4 or 5 times and failed to get it. The answer to this FOI request seems to suggest that ANY evidence which influenced the decision can be seen and it does not matter whatever the way the PHSO decision goes. Nor does it seem to matter if the evidence is subject to any statutory bar.

Am I reading this situation correctly?

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

Goodness knows...your guess is as good as mine.

You would have thought simple question simple answer.

But the reply seems to say 'yes', .......complainants can see all the paperwork - yet the 'explanatory' attachment makes no mention of the specifics at all. There appears to be nothing on file to back it up.

It's not the first time this situation has occurred.

There must be a written answer somewhere because caseworkers have to know what to send to complainants to do their job.

Perhaps I'll get a less confusing answer, with caseworker instructions on the matter, at the review stage.

C Rock left an annotation ()

"Before an investigation concludes, the draft investigation report is shared with all parties.... " etc.

This is such rubbish. Their decision on my case just popped out of the blue with no question of drafts and sharing of anything. They didn't even gather all the evidence before going off at half-cock to their paid 'advisers' who 'appeared' (sorry - even I am using PHSO terminology now) to have no current relevant knowledge of Mental Health guidelines, amongst other things.

After my DPA request there is no sign of anything being shared with anybody according to the provided information. There is also no sign of any new revue they said they did, and no professional checks on further evidence.

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

In the letter to me from DJ ( if it was DJ) I am specifically told,
For fairness sake, where we are proposing to be critical of an NHS or public body, we share our draft reports initially with them before we then send the draft to the complainant’.
We anticipate sending out draft report in the next few days……we will share the draft report with you as quickly as we can. It goes on to say, if at that point I think discussion would be helpful they will arranging it….!
I wonder if this breaks the Equality Act 2010

Has anyone ever had a decision changed I wonder, after a discussion I mean! And they wonder why we get so upset!!!!! It has put years on me, but I am not going away….

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

I don't think it breaks the Equality Act, as the PHSO treats both genders with equal and cavalier disdain.

But it may break the Human Rights Act. By adhering to a system where 98.6percent of complainants are wrong. Which is logically an unsustainable statistic....Except in a country with no human rights which can fix the outcomes.

The PHSO states it is not a quasi- judicial body, yet it makes legal judgements on practically every case In favour of government organisations by ignoring the fact that there are legal judgements to be made.

It must do.....By the time the cases reach it they are extremely complicated. They normally involve negligence, especially health negligence, and this can only be proved by referring to the law - via the paperwork.

It's the key issue because once we place our lives in the hands of anyone professional, then there are laws protecting us....normally ranging from assault to manslaughter. Yet the NHS seems to be a law-free zone.

The government is moving towards the right idea by threatening to jail those who have been negligent in health care.

That's because the PHSO, which should be reviewing and nitpicking the correspondence - to see if government organisations have behaved negligently and therefore illegally ( that's where the injustice comes in) doesn't do so.

The unjust bit in its blurb seems to have been scrubbed right out if its criteria.

Probably because it's got 27,000 cases a year to review and only two lawyers regulated with the Law Society.

It's system is also totally one-sided by not allowing complainants to see the other side's case.

Other Ombudsmen have a high lawyer count and are much more efficient in investigating and upholding cases.

For instance, Hong Kong investigates 41 percent of cases.

E. Colville left an annotation ()

Here is a Kafkaesque illustration of the perfidious relationship that exists between the PHSO, the ICO, MPs and 'relevant authorities' who routinely manipulate and suppress evidence. There is no equal treatment of the parties. The system is akin to a protection racket and it's not likely to change any time soon.

The quoted passages below form part of the (unpublished) supplementary submission I provided to the PASC in June 2013 to support statements I made in my written submission to the PASC's Inquiry into the PHSO service (published September 2013).

To begin the 'story' first this information and warning.

Last week, on 11 Nov. 2013, my MP, Sheila Gilmore (Labour) was "selected" to replace a sitting member of the PASC:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

In a letter I received from Sheila Gilmore dated 1 Sept. 2010 this is what she wrote" -
"…You referred the response of the Secretary of State [Douglas Alexander, Labour] to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham. Ms Abraham then issued a decision indicating that she found no evidence of maladministration on the part of the Secretary of State, and no investigation would be launched…Given the complexity of your case I am not in a position to judge conclusively whether any of the aforementioned decisions […] were right or wrong. That is not my role as an MP. What I can do is provide advice and support in cases where there appear doubts over such decisions. However
I have the utmost confidence in the work of both the previous Secretary of State for International Development and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I am thus confident that their decisions were right. I appreciate that you believe the Ombudsman’s decision was based on false evidence submitted by DfID. Again, I am not in a position to make a judgment on this. However, if you have written to the Ombudsman to this effect and she has maintained that her original decision was sound, I will again defer to the Ombudsman due to my confidence in her integrity. [...] Unfortunately I do not anticipate I will be able to assist you any further in this case"

7 Mar 2011 - From the Information Commissioner's Office:

"Thank you for your data protection complaint about the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
What we have done
We have written to the PHSO, to ask:
· what happened in this case;
· what it has done (or intends to do) to put the matter right; and
· what safeguards it has in place to help ensure it handles personal data properly.
Our decision
We wrote to the PHSO about this matter and have now received its response. On the basis of all of the information provided by you and the PHSO, we have decided that it is [UNLIKELY - emphasis mine] that the PHSO has complied with the requirements of the DPA in this case. They [PHSO] explained that they had seen no evidence to question the validity of the information DfID sent to them at the time of their consideration of your complaint. They have now [AGREED - emphasis mine] that they can add a note to the file indicating that [YOU - emphasis mine] dispute the accuracy of the information provided by DfID [It shouldn't just have been me disputing the "accuracy" of DFID's information. I had offered up to the ICO and PHSO prima facie evidence which I had received from the Treasury Solicitors Department, representing DFID, proving the falsity of information the PHSO had processed about my complaint which had resulted in the decision not to conduct an investigation] As the PHSO have now [AGREED - emphasis mine] that they will add a note to the file, it appears that they are taking appropriate remedial action in this case. [This de minimis "remedial action" fell far short of being "appropriate" in the circumstances]. Because of this, the Information Commissioner has decided that further regulatory action is not required at this time. When deciding whether regulatory action is appropriate, we take into account the organisation’s general record of compliance with the DPA (including any previous assessments we have made) and any other information that is in our possession (including information given during the course of those assessments). Having carefully considered all the information that we hold about the PHSO, we are satisfied that it takes its obligations under the DPA seriously and that we need take no further regulatory action at this point…..We will keep a record of your complaint and take this assessment into account if we receive further complaints about the PHSO. The information we gather from complaints may form the basis for action in the future. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention".

On 29 April 2011 I emailed Sheila Gilmore MP writing in relevant part -

"I would like to arrange a meeting with you.
Information newly obtained by me shows that: […..]
3. As conveyed to me in your last letter, your presumption of the inherent integrity of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and agreement with her decision not to investigate DfID's conduct in relation to their handling of my dispute, was grievously misplaced. The Information Commissioner has also recently found against the Ombudsman for a failure under the DPA correctly to process data in relation to my dispute with DfID. The "system" being as it is, however, he will be taking no further regulatory action against the Ombudsman (apart from a latter of admonishment). I have been advised that it would be for me to raise court proceedings against the Ombudsman"

On 20 Jun 2011 I sent Sheila Gilmore this message -
" At our meeting last Friday you questioned a statement I had written in my e-mail to you dated 29 April 2011 to the effect " ...the Information Commissioner has also recently found against the Parliamentary Ombudsman for a failure under the DPA correctly to process data in relation to my dispute with DfID".

On 11 July 2011 I wrote to Ann Abraham -
" In my e-mailed letter to you dated 6.9.10 I quoted certain statements in a Treasury Solicitor's [TSol] letter of 2.9.10. At paragraph 2 of page 3 of that letter (attached) Mr [xxx] also wrote: "It is DfID's case that [Minister's] decision was rational and lawful based on DfID officials' assessment of your allegations and that there was no need to take legal advice before taking that decision." That statement directly contradicts the statement you continue to uphold [per] your decision letter of 22.1.09 [and review decision of 22 November 2009] that DfID took legal advice from TSol before issuing the decision of 1.2.08. It was that decision, and all matters relevant thereto, that I asked your office to investigate. Based on your decision, DfID clearly lied to a parliamentary regulator. [Sic - My error. The PHSO isn't a 'regulator' but she'd get the gist]. Is that conduct you are willing to condone with impunity?

On 17 July 2011 I wrote to Sheila Gilmore stating in part -
" On a related matter, please find attached a copy of an email to the PHSO of 11.7.11. Her Office has acknowledged receipt - which signals her intention to add to the file and to take no further action. You may consider it appropriate to bring the matter of her conduct to the attention of Sir Stephen Laws [First Parliamentary Counsel]. She acts as though she is above the law, brazenly confident of never being held to account for abject failures and breach of the responsibilities and obligations vested in her Office. In respect of my issues I believe she should be investigated. Holding her to account should not be (as it currently stands) dependent on a person's financial means to "buy" justice through raising costly judicial review proceedings. I leave this for you to decide"

On 22 November 2011, completely out of the blue, I received a letter from an ICO manager reversing the original DPA decision of March 2011. I had no idea the 'agreed' decision was even subject to a review request by the PHSO. Presenting me with a fait accompli the manager wrote -
"We wrote to you earlier this year with regard to a complaint you made under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) about the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the PHSO). The PHSO [DID NOT AGREE - emphasis mine] with our assessment decision in respect of your complaint and therefore, in line with our case review and service complaints policy, it asked us to review the decision at a more senior level. I conducted the review, as Miss [xxx's] line manager. I am writing to you to explain that I have revised Miss[xxx's] assessment decision, and concluded that it was [LIKELY - emphasis mine] the PHSO complied with the DPA in respect of your complaint...I appreciate that you may be disappointed with my decision to reverse the assessment"

Not until 25 March 2013 did I obtain the following written explanation from the same ICO manager. Anomaly is that, in accordance with PHSO procedures, she or another line manager would have had to signature approve the original DPA 'compliance unlikely' decision before it was communicated to me. She wrote -
"There were two emails sent to the case officer by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) seeking clarification on the [DPA] decision reached [i.e., after the PHSO "AGREED" to correct the misinformation held in my case file]; however, there was nothing I would consider to be a request for a case review. As far as I am aware, the request for a case review was made at a meeting between staff of the ICO and PHSO on 1 June 2011. I did not attend the meeting. Again, as far as I am aware, the PHSO did not submit formal grounds for reassessment in written form. I wrote to the PHSO on 27 September with the outcome of the case review on the basis of what I understood the request to be. I sought clarification from the PHSO that I had correctly understood the scope of the review. [ i.e., after the fact implying that the 'scope' was never properly determined before the dodgy review got underway] I did not send a draft decision to the PHSO for review. I sent my decision on the basis of the review request as I understood it at the time, on 27 September. I asked the PHSO to confirm that I had understood the scope correctly; had I not, I would have extended the review to cover any new points arising. [The banality, inefficiency and partiality of the procedure applied to conduct this review couldn't be clearer]. I received a response from the PHSO prior to writing to you with the reassessment [How many of us have ever received similar accommodation?]. I trust this information is helpful" ["HELPFUL" ??]

26 Mar 2013 - To Sheila Gilmore -
" I am on record as having raised with you a Complaint about the PHSO that you looked into. As regards that matter…would you please confirm soonest whether you, or any person acting on your behalf, interacted with the PHSO directly or with any other person in the PHSO's office, and if so, provide relevant dates and other details. Thank you in anticipation of a prompt response"

27 Mar 2013 I received an invitation from the PASC to make written submissions on two new inquiries: Complaints: Do they make a Difference? and The Parliamentary Ombudsman's Service

27 Mar 2013 - From Sheila Gilmore -
" Thank you for your recent email….I am afraid it would take me too long to look through all of this… I have instead produced a summary of your case and attach all items for your perusal:….This is the limits of what I am able and willing to do with respect to this specific request. Furthermore I must emphasise, as I did in our last exchange on 11 September last year, that I am unwilling to pursue your case any further"

27 Mar 2013 - My reply to Sheila Gilmore -
" I must respectfully point out that your "Summary" attaching multiple, random selected correspondence from my case file, fails to address the straightforward question I asked you yesterday as regards whether and when you, or any person acting on your behalf, interacted with the PHSO as I requested about issues I raised with you about the PHSO. Attached is subject-specific correspondence with you/your Office which may refresh your memory and assist a more targeted search of my case file. I trust this clarifying information will help you to properly answer my question"

2 Apr 2013 Sheila Gilmore answered back -
"Thank you for your further email. I have over 65,000 constituents. My office deal with between 100 and 200 enquiries every week. I am afraid that in these circumstances I cannot be expected to remember exactly what actions I take on every case and, instead, must rely on my system of record keeping. While this is helpful up to a point, in cases as protracted as yours, it would still take me a long time to examine my records – time which I must dedicate to helping other constituents"

And now Sheila Gilmore MP, who is demonstrably pro-PHSO, no matter how compelling the evidence against her and her service is - is strategically placed to influence the PASC's recommendations and report to Parliament on the future of the PHSO service.

Christmas has arrived early for the PHSO.....

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

>

I expect everyone recognises the familiar pattern above.

Botch up - denial - rehash - close down

From my limited experience, the ICO is not helpful to complainants.

Under FoI I wanted to read two documents in the internal files of a health board, which are written by a private company to a health board.

The reason - to see if a private company had advised the board to withhold any medical files about my father, to which I was legally entitled under the Access to Health Records Act. Or exactly what it had been advising.

( I do not know if this is the same company, but the one document that I obtained written by this company was the subject of two Private Eye articles ...because without the medical files, I could not complain justifiably to the Ombudsman. ...In fact, nobody can).

The ICO decided that I could not know who had written the two withheld documents, why they had written them or what they contained ..as they were 'impossible to redact'...... Impossible?
(They must be very short files.)

From the documentation, the ICO did not apply a 'public interest' test - which it has to do under FoI.

But surely it is in a potential complainants ...and the public interest ...to at least have some vague knowledge that files have been withheld, so that they can ask for them?

The ICO then suddenly switched my request to looking at it via the DPA, as apparently I was 'mentioned' in the documents - but for which the ICO does NOT have to apply a public interest test.

But the request was BOUND to fail under DPA - as private companies can prevent requesters from reading the documents.

So you have to ask...why did the ICO take this route?

As for the PHSO ..it really didn't get my point about the files being in the public interest for, according to the sign-off on the internal file, the PHSO officer thought I was asking for my 'fathers medical files' ......which I got nearly FIVE years ago - after a paperwork struggle and threatening to go via a lawyer.

*sigh*

Ironically, the PHSO is currently wondering why complainants don't go to them.

Simple - They need the files to present the evidence. Lawyers can get them, while potential Ombudsman complainants may not be told that they exist. So complainants go the lawyer route - as they've had to do in almost all the exposed NHS scandals.

But, as you know, the PHSO is always 100percent right, even if it investigates the wrong thing. Asking for a reinvestigation is hopeless because they demand more evidence.

The fact that they didn't understand the evidence ... and botched it as a consequence ... isn't considered a possibility.

If you started your complaint ...uncynical and thinking that the complaints system would be even-handed and investigate your points, you will be utterly convinced that it is just not fit for purpose at the end of it.

Whether by design, incompetence or corruption, I've no idea.

::::

Don't believe crucial evidence is withheld?

Read this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sto...

E. Colville left an annotation ()

Ann Abraham: "Unlike courts, Ombudsman practice has always prized... its common sense approach to evidence, its inquisatorial process and its capacity to do justice to the individual case...."

Nick O'Brien her Policy and Legal Adviser, now Special Adviser to the PASC's inquiry into the PHSO service wrote:

" [..] the ombudsman process is [...] unfettered by complex rules of evidence..."

Both quotes at pg.671 - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OsDAN...

AA: " Released from the constraints of legal precedent and formal rules of evidence, ombudsmen have developed their own jurisprudence which seeks an ethical authority higher than the domestic law"
http://sta.geo.useconnect.co.uk/nosearch...

What utter rubbish as any one of us can attest to.

A fundamental problem with the PHSO service that needs addressing urgently is the complete absence of any "rules of evidence" never mind "complex" or "commonsense" rules. As for the PHSO's "own jurisprudence" it's a complete mystery to those on the outside, case decisions not being published, therefore, the specious claim of the PHSO seeking a "higher ethical authority than the domestic law" can never be tested and found to be the gross misrepresentation (lie) it in fact is.

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

The problem is that it doesn't apply its high ideals to itself.

It's excellent that it's independent from the government that it's supposedly investigating ...but it's also been it's undoing.

Because it has developed an inbuilt arrogance over the years.

No case explanations are perceived as being unfair, even when the decision might not be. How can people judge? It gives back to the old days when people believed the judgement if their 'betters' was absolute. Around 60 years ago, I think.

What other organisation behaves like this? Even a dodgy builder has to present a bill, which can be queried.

It also has some truly arrogant staff who think it's OK to demean the public because they haven't got the constraints of behaving like more-or-less polite civil servants. So officers don't have to bother replying to correspondence.

And no comeback on them because the complaints system is wonderfully bent. And no ethics officer either.

So that reflects on the capable and trustworthy employees. No wonder there is dissension in the ranks.

In the external world it's got almost zero credibility. .. Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay passed it by ...even when it had the information on a plate.

In retrospect, sadly, it's a costly waste of anyone's time. The government can't ditch it because other countries have one. I bet they'd like to.

Lawyers and journalists have rubbish reputations too ..but at least they support the public over NHS scandals, while the PHSO seems quite content to bypass public distress.

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

PROTECT

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

I am writing in response to your email of 14 November 2013. I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your information request titled, ‘Will evidence is cases be available to both parties?’

Under our internal complaints procedure, your complaint has been passed to the 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

Hannah Jones
Review Team Support Manager
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
T: 0300 061 4076
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Brown Steve, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

4 Attachments

 

 

Steve Brown

Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [email address]

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

 

Follow us on

[2]fb  [3]twitter  [4]linkedin

 

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 Mr Brown but the two parts of the response seem to be contradictory.

Either complainants get to see the report to comment.. Complete with the logic of the evidence from the organisation complained about - or they do not.

The Welsh Ombudsman provides a pre-decision report on which complainants can comment, why doesn't the PHSO .. Because in effect, the PHSO is the English NHS Ombudsman.

No wonder the PHSO failed to grasp the Staffordshire and Morecambe scandals if this is the case.

By memory, I had two pre- reports to comment on, so that mistakes could be corrected, plus the Welsh Ombudsman allowed me to add evidence as it became available. So my case was upheld.

As far as I know, this didn't happen with my complaint to the PHSO. And it doesn't seem to be happening with other complainant's cases.

Surely English NHS .. And other....complainants are equal to a Welsh ones? It does seem very unfair.

Are you absolutely sure that, in the wake of these English NHS scandals, that the PHSO isn't now being more even-handed?
.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear PHSO

Please only reply via this website on all FoI requests.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]