Breakdown of costing of submitted cases to PHSO

S Potter made this Freedom of Information request to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

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

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman did not have the information requested.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

I have received a request from PACAC, to advice on PHSO value for money, & good service.

To assist me in this, & given 144 others are still affected, & the 144 are not told anything.

Could PHSO please detail to me,

When someone makes a complaint to the PHSO, exactly how in detail is that investigation / case / case's, cost from start to finish, please explain & show how that investigation / re-investigation's, c/s, legal, C/E, or case has been cost'ed in full & full breakdown, as if you were detail explaining it to the PACAC.

e.g.: is it one costing attributed to the client or case, is it based on hours taken, is it by cost attributed to PHSO individuals or rank eg: price cost £xxx per hour, & or by departments, or parts of the case, as it goes back & forward.

Also as case has been re-opened due to the failure of the PHSO to investigate or comply with NHS Law, & given there are now different case numbers, how are these then cost'ed separated, & combined to give total costing. To give & reflect a true & proper full costing.

e.g. case 1234 = £££ case 1235 = £££ case 1236 = £££ case 1237 = £££ case 1238 = £££
but what if cases 1234 & 1238 were to same client, as case re-opened, the FULL cost is, case 1234 plus case 1238, so if someone was looking at your costings, would it show this case LINK or say they these are related to same case's.

So you could say a case cost £xxx, but in reality, as it was re-opened, at a extra further cost of £xxx, the true total case cost was £xxxxx

Via EXAMPLE, my case, is the failure of the PHSO, to demand Trust comply with NHS Law, That all medical records must comply with NHS Rules on record keeping & standards, & where files are ordered by ICO to be destroyed or deleted, there MUST BE, a certification of destruction, & audit trail of destruction, to comply with NHS record keeping,

NHS law states, where files ordered destroyed out of normal time retention, then WITHOUT EXEMPTION, there must be a certificate of destruction, & audit trail of destruction, & these must be kept for 25 years. The PHSO refuse to adhere to NHS law, & we are seemingly today, on an endless loop of PHSO failure to ask or enforce NHS Law on records.

How does the PHSO breakdown the true full cost of a case, to show & display that these are same client case's, but PHSO have given them different case numbers, for the same case or client. Also full Cost breakdown, where cases go BACKWARDS & FORWARDS. to multiple departments. C/S, legal, C/E, review, investigation, investigation managment, etc, etc.

Does the PHSO have the figures, & costing for the number of cases it has had to re-open, & or re-investigate due to the failure of the PHSO to investigate properly.

The ICO have already ruled on my case, & stated, my files MUST be destroyed, as they do not comply with anything, my files, are meaningless, ambiguous, re-written 3 times, & did not comply with any NHS standard, Rules, Reg’s, or protocols, & they were malicious, full or date & time changes, tippex, & cut & pasted everywhere, the writer was never qualified, not supervised, & never registered, & the files must be destroyed, TRUST AGREED TO DESTROY THEM IN 2013. Clearly this destruction would also apply to the other 144 other person's files, as they were compiled by the same person.

The CONSTANT & REPEAT, problem then became, there is no proof anything was destroyed by the Trust since 2013.
Yet retention is factually proved in July 2015. The Trust LIED, so what are the PHSO to do as from June 2015. To me, lets show the extent of the lies, by obtaining the June 2015 electronic files, Yet the PHSO slam me, we wont be dictated to, dont ask us to ask.

----------

As to BREAK DOWN costing, In the case of me for instance " FOR EXAMPLE ", a brief summary is,

The false basis being is all physical files destroyed "Trust=yes", & are electronic records destroyed, "Trust = yes” here is photo of a blank screen??” There was never a statutory PHSO question to the Trust, to state, why is there no proof, or by whom, when, & where was everything destroyed as you have stated.

"There is a PHSO comment; it’s a pointless question, as I don't believe anything was destroyed" YET INVESTIGATION CLOSED AS EVERY THING DESTROYED ???.

1) 1st investigator refused to uphold my complaint, on “false” basis everything was destroyed. (Yet no check done)

2) It was then reviewed, & again refused, again on “false” basis everything was destroyed.

3) PHSO DPA, CONFIRMED, NOTHING WAS ASKED FROM TRUST, & UTTERLY NO PROOF OF DESTRUCTION EVER BEING ASKED OR RECEIVED.

4) Case to PHSO legal, agreed, PHSO should demand answer to when Physical destroyed.
Trust now replied, NO physical files destroyed.

5) Case back to Investigation management, as so called 1st investigation was what???

6) Chief Exec asked to re-open, he refused. On "false" basis, only Physical files remained, not electronic. ??? PHSO never statutory asked about electronic files.

7) Case to PHSO legal, agreed, PHSO should demand answer to when Electronic destroyed.
Trust now replied, no electronic files destroyed.

8) Case back to Investigation management, NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY ANY THING WAS KEPT.

9) PHSO Chief Exec AGREED to re-open case a new, on basis Physical & Electronic, all files remain.

10) Case back to Investigation management, as 1st Investigator, protests, to prevent re-opening.

Trust then fax to PHSO 29/6/2015 2 medical file letters dated 2013 from my June 2015 electronic records, despite Trust letters of 2013 stating that all copies are all destroyed.
Trust then give the butchered July 2015 electronic files, with no content or explanation, where June 2015 contents has gone to, or even these two letters.
PHSO seemingly, refusal to ask Trust for answers of whats going on.

11) Case back to Investigation management, to explain meaning of PHSO emails to & from Trust to, “MANAGE THE FILES " (No explanation stated??)
Factually, records disappeard July 2015, & yet there is NO certification or record of anything.

In summary then, complaint made to PHSO legal, as seemingly there is no request to Trust to hand over the June 2015 electronic files, to see the truth of EXACT CONTENT of what was retained in the June 2015 version, no request to explain where the 2 stated letters disappear to in the July 2015 electronic records, there is no proof or explanation of anything destroyed, but a comment, PAPER VOLUME CREATED FROM ELECTRONIC FILE, BY PERSON, & REASON UNKNOWN. Again, NONE of this complies with NHS Law.
So the matter is seemingly going full circle again.

12) The case then also goes to PHSO legal management to explain,
The Trust now disclose my entire application to PHSO was given to the Trust without my consent. Contrary to section 55 of the DPA.

My FOI thererore, is to establish, the detailed cost, for all events, "as exampled above".
I will also make a DPA request under my own case.

However in conversation with DPA/FOI, they were not instantly aware, how these cases are cost'ed, & asked me, to make a FOI. For the how cases are fully costed in general.
---------

Further, given the costing of the 1st investigation, & failed review, it was deemed, they were never properly investigated, Please also advise, if there is provision to reclaim that costing back from the 1st investigator & review, where it has been shown they failed to properly investigate, yet clearly there was cost to the PHSO from public money.

Given that it is in the Public Interest, please advise of any other rellavent information, & documentation, which show's, & explain's, how these cases are costed, together, with, any statistical breakdown etc. Also the details & documents, files, records, showing the numbers & also cost of re-investigation of cases.

Yours faithfully,

S Potter

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, 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

S Potter left an annotation ()

The reference number for your request made via the whatdotheyknow website is FDC-242965.
The statutory deadline for our response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is 12 January 2016.

Yours sincerely,
Business Support Officer PHSO

E. Colville left an annotation ()

There must be an assumption that since 2000 PHSO have developed a world class time-recording system following initial introduction of time-recording in 1997.

Reliance can be placed statements in the Third supplementary memorandum by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to PASC of 20 January 2000. See:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

Most interesting figures and explanations.

Looking forward to disclosure of more up-to-date data and corresponding explanations.

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

You are not alone S Potter.

It's the standard NHS ploy to edit or withold files.

And it's now on a huge scale, because Trusts know that the Ombudsman and other health organisations turn a blind eye to it.

Simply because, no notes, no case, no maladministration and consequently no justice for the public.

And a dangerous NHS ward / doctor/ nurse etc can continue just as before.

So this strategy remains successful, simply because it's unpoliced..

:::::

The PHSO knows which Trusts do this on a consistent basis and, despite having 'the power of a high court judge' to demand files and visit premises , it consistently sides with Trusts against complainants in stating the logically existing files do not exist.

Case closed. PHSO case closed. Target reached.

:::

I've spent over three years with the PHSO trying to get the organisation to accept the fact that the NHS witholds medical files illegally - to cover up negligence ( sometimes serious negligence , involving deaths).

You would think that the Ombudsman been appaulled at this pervasive flouting of its authority ....and do something about it.

However, I have singularly failed to convince it to do so....Despite assurances that it is.

So I have come to the conclusion that it is more important for the PHSO to reach 'case closed' targets, than to act with impartial integrity.

It is particularly disappointing as Dr Gavin McBurnie told me, over a year ago, that the PHSO was preparing to do something about this travesty of justice.

Here's what he said:

::::::.

4/12/2014

Thanks for your email

Regarding your personal case I understand it has now been picked up by the customer care team that has been established and they should be contacting you soon.

As you know I share your concern regarding lost (withheld destroyed etc) records as for me it undermines a complainants ability to get a true understanding of what happened and to have confidence in the system. It is as far as I can see a problem that is widespread. We have started planning a project to investigate cases with missing records which we would hope to start in the New Year and aim to publish early in the new financial year.

I would be happy to keep you informed regarding this investigation.

Gavin

Dr Gavin McBurnie
Director of Complex Health Investigations

::::.

Needless to say Dr McBurnie has not kept me informed. Or even contacted me since.

So I can only surmise that his assurances were false.

NB I would suggest that complainants do not accept any assurances from PHSO employees - and continue to chase their complaint case with the mindset that NO assurance had been given.

If I was trusting - they should not be.

Because PHSO assurances may dissuade complainants from justifiably proceeding any further.

:::

As to Trust files, all complaints should know that even if Datix files are deleted on computers, there will be an audit file, which cannot be deleted, except by the IT personnel, or someone who has the authority to order the IT personnel to do it.
(That's according to Datix ).

And these files are subject to a personal Subject Access Request if they contain their name.

Many organisations, including the PHSO, seem to 'forget' these files exist ....and do not supply them on the first request. And sometimes even on further chasing.

Which, of course - maybe forgetful, but it is also illegal.

::::

More information on audit trails and how surprisingly wide the information covered in SAR's is here:

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

NB Even the case number ( no name but identifiable from the link to one) ascribed to files is included.

:::

As to your costings on cases.... from previous requests, the PHSO seems to be unable to cost even sections of departments - let alone individual cases.

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

In fact, it has breached its Parliamentary budget 2014/15 ( Annual Report), so, overall, it's grasp of things financial seems very weak.

But good luck anyway.

.....I'm sure that many complaints wouid like to know how the PHSO spends its £37m...... even if the PHSO's management doesn't seem to deem it necessary to get a grip, or even have much of a clue.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Dear FOI, My reference, FDC-242965

I will conform, I have made a DPA request 11 DEC 2015, for the exact cost'ings of my OWN cases etc, & up to date info. My DPA request: FDN-242966 You advised, you will consider request and respond in line with statutory time frames of the Data Protection Act 1998. deadline for a response is 19 January 2016.
Thank you.

Concerning my FOI request FDC-242965, I have asked for your advise to how cases are now cost'ed, & accounted. The PHSO reference number for my FOI request made via the whatdotheyknow website is FDC-242965. Statutory deadline for response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is 12 Jan 2016.

As you know I am not always the clearest person to understand, due to the years of frustration with the PHSO for non compliance with the NHS Law,

So to also help clarify, after 15 years 10 months, I feel its something you must have at hand.
COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE IN MY FOI,

the fullest possible generalised information, to produce reliable cost information,
by reference to all developments since the Ombudsman's 2000 memorandum to PASC.

I attatch this link to you,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

I also remind you of the last paragraph, wrote 15 years 10 months ago.

11. As noted above we are working to develop our systems to provide better information to measure and increase our efficiency. We shall take this forward ** in the coming year ** with the aim of being able to produce reliable cost information that is relevant to and meets the needs of internal and external users.
26 January 2000

If you want me to put in a seperate, FOI, or also have others ask, please advise.

As a lay person, are you still runing the 2000 computer systems, or have you changed them, if so to what & when if there has been multiple changes, & approx cost of those systems. that produce this reliable costing for you.

Yours faithfully,
S Potter

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, 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 ()

The PHSO should be able to supply the figures - having spent out £600k towards producing them - 2014/15

:::

Optevia,£500,000.00Case Management System - Dynamics,15/10/2014,2 years
,,IT -based solutions,,

Touchstone,£100,000.00",Sun Finance System,01/10/2014,2 years
,,Internal invoicing system and finance support,,

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

E. Colville left an annotation ()

According to the PACAC inquiry website the date PACAC "ordered to be published" PHSO's evidence dated "December 2015" to PACAC's 2015 scrutiny of PHSO was 16 December 2015.

The evidence was not in fact published by PACAC until 6th January 2016 - that is, after the date of your request S. Potter.

At paragraph 11 of PHSO's evidence submission they have written:

".... More efficient working and operational improvements in productivity saw our cost per case investigated reduce by 6% in 2014-15."

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...

That is to say, PHSO cannot now deny holding information on cost per case investigated, per your FOI request S. Potter.

It is to be hoped PACAC will ask probing questions on this important subject at the upcoming evidence session on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 with the Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman (starts 09:40 AM).

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear S Potter

 

Your information request: FDC-242965

 

I write further to your email of 10 December 2015 requesting information
about the cost of different aspects of an investigation and giving the
circumstances of your case as an example of the constituent parts you want
a schedule of costs for.

 

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides a right of access to recorded
information held by public authorities. It does not provide a right of
access to opinions where they are not already recorded and public
authorities are not obliged to create information they do not hold in
order to respond to an information request. Having considered your email,
I have identified the questions below as requests for information as
understood by the Freedom of Information Act. I respond to each one in
turn. 

 

1)      “When someone makes a complaint to the PHSO, exactly how in detail
is that investigation / case / case's, cost from start to finish, please
explain & show how that investigation / re-investigation's,
c/s, legal, C/E, or case has been cost'ed in full & full breakdown, as if
you were detail explaining it to the PACAC.

e.g.: is it one costing attributed to the client or case, is it
based on hours taken, is it by cost attributed to PHSO individuals
or rank eg: price cost £xxx per hour, & or by departments, or parts
of the case, as it goes back & forward.”

 

 

2) “Also as case has been re-opened due to the failure of the PHSO to
investigate or comply with NHS Law, & given there are now different case
numbers, how are these then cost'ed separated, & combined to give total
costing. To give & reflect a true & proper full costing.”

 

 

3) “How does the PHSO breakdown the true full cost of a case, to show &
display that these are same client case's, but PHSO have given them
different case numbers, for the same case or client. Also full Cost
breakdown, where cases go BACKWARDS & FORWARDS. to multiple departments.
C/S, legal, C/E, review, investigation, investigation managment, etc, etc.

4) “Does the PHSO have the figures, & costing for the number of cases it
has had to re-open, & or re-investigate due to the failure of the PHSO to
investigate properly.”

 

 

5) “Given that it is in the Public Interest, please advise of any other
rellavent information, & documentation, which show's, & explain's, how
these cases are costed, together, with, any statistical breakdown etc.
Also the details & documents, files, records, showing the numbers & also
cost of re-investigation of cases.

 

I have considered what recorded information we hold that would answer your
requests and have concluded we do not hold the specific information you
have asked for. This is because PHSO does not record the ‘cost from start
to finish of a case’. So for example, while the numbers of complaints
about decisions upheld at internal review are available in PHSO’s annual
report (link below) the costs associated with this work or with
reinvestigating these cases are not recorded. Our staff in different areas
of the office do not record the time they have spent on a case and we do
not record the costs of the different elements of a case that would enable
us to provide you with a ‘costing’ of our cases in the level of detail you
have asked for.  Nor does such a breakdown currently feature in our
corporate performance reporting.

 

That said, the Ombudsman’s resource accounts are available on our website
here:  [1]http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/ar2015. The respective costs of
different departments, including operations are provided in those
accounts. By dividing PHSO’s total budget by the number of investigations
completed, it is also possible to work out from the information available
there the cost per investigation.

 

If PHSO were asked about its cost per case then this is the basic
calculation it would currently use. For example, in its submission to
PACAC, PHSO referred to a 6% reduction in the cost per case for the
business year 2014/15. For business year 2013/14 PHSO’s net operating
costs were £34,793,00 and the number of investigations completed were
3,900. For the business year, 2014/15 the net operating costs were
£35,986,00 but the number of investigations completed increased to 4,280.
As I have said above, this information is available on our website.

 

Please note though that this type of basic calculation makes no allowances
for the case complexity and differences in approach. Nor does it
distinguish between direct, indirect, and overhead cost. By this I mean,
that net operating costs do not equate solely to the cost of PHSO’s
operations directorate. It is the budget for corporate (infrastructure,
accommodation etc) as well as operational (i.e. casework) activity.

 

6) “ Please also advise, if there is provision to reclaim that costing
back from the 1st investigator & review, where it has been shown they
failed to properly investigate, yet clearly there was cost to the PHSO
from public money.”

 

I can confirm we do not hold any information about this. It is not PHSO’s
policy to reclaim money from the investigator if their case is reopened
following internal review.

Finally, in your email of 19 December 2015 you asked:

 

7) “are you still running the 2000 computer systems, or have you changed
them, if so to what & when if there has been multiple changes, & approx
cost of those systems. that produce this reliable costing for you.”

 

So that we can respond appropriately, I would be grateful if you could
clarify the information you are asking for. It appears you are asking for
information we hold about changes to our IT infrastructure since 2000 and
the cost of those IT systems? Do you want to know more about the computers
we had then and the computers we have now? What changes were made and
when? Thank you in advance for your help.

         

Yours sincerely

 

Luke Whiting

Head of FOI/DP

 

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/ar2015

E. Colville left an annotation ()

S. Potter

This information may be of assistance:

Touchstone Finance System - Case Study PHSO - https://touchstonefms.co.uk/wp-content/u...

This is Google's cache of https://touchstonefms.co.uk/resource-cen.... It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Dec 26, 2015 02:16:55 GMT.

Dear foiofficer, clarifying

Luke you wrote,
So that we can respond appropriately, I would be grateful if you could
clarify the information you are asking for. It appears you are asking for
information we hold about changes to our IT infrastructure since 2000 and
the cost of those IT systems? Do you want to know more about the computers
we had then and the computers we have now? What changes were made and
when? Thank you in advance for your help.

I REPLY, I'd like to make it simple and answer "Yes. That's the information I'm looking for."

We can also add this new touchstone computer syetem to the costing please, & why you have spent so much on a new computer system, that cannot tell you how much a case has cost / ing, or how many hours have been taken on a case. If it will not do that can you explain why it was not asked to do such.

Further given you cannot work out the cost, could you replace the price value of my complaint,
to say the man hours spent. Clearly your new system costing xxxxxxxxx should be able to keep tabs.

What I am a loss to, is the PHSO 2000 statement I prior refered to, the PHSO was to have a world leading system in place, later in the year. Well 16 years later, it still cannot cost a case, or record the man hours in that case, it can monitor cost of tea bage, pens & pencils, rent, ect,

but not that of covering the upto date running cost, or number of hours taken of individual complaint,
which I thought complaints was the a major basis behind the PHSO. It was not to count your tea bags.

Yours sincerely,

S Potter

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, 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

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

This could be a very relevant quote for future FOI requests.

It also means the system contains a copy of
documents allowing for easier query resolution.
Query and Analysis now provides PHSO with a
powerful reporting tool to analyse and understand all
its finance and purchasing data. Users in the business
can now gain insight at any time, drilling down to the
level of detail required.

'Gain access at any time' should mean no need to go manually through files, so they will have to come up with a different excuse.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Potter

 

Your information request (FDN-243725)

 

I am writing in response to your initial request of 19 December 2015 which
was subsequently clarified on 15 January 2016.  In your further email, you
confirmed that you were interested in receiving ‘information we hold about
changes to our IT infrastructure since 2000 and the cost of those IT
systems’, as well as information ‘about the computers we had then and the
computers we have now and what changes were made and when’.

 

Your request as currently framed is very broad, requesting information on
a wide topic and spanning a period of 15 years.  Since the year 2000, many
changes will have been made to the information technology used by the
organisation and any relevant information that we do hold will not all be
documented in the same place. As such, section 12 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 prevents us from fully meeting the terms of your
request.  This exemption means that public authorities do not need to
comply with a request where it would be unreasonably costly to do so.  For
PHSO, the limit is set at £450, which equates to 18 hours of work to
extract all the information requested.  As it would take too long to
comply fully with the terms of your request, we are not able to meet it.

 

However, in order to offer you aid and assistance, we are able to provide
you with information obtained from PHSO’s annual and resource accounts. 
Some of this information is already available in the public domain at the
following link:

[1]www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/publications/annual-reports.  You might
find it easiest to find the information you require by using the search
term ‘technology’ on each individual report.

 

I have searched through older annual reports and resource accounts for
information relevant to your request, and have included the information I
located in the attached document. 

 

I hope that this information is helpful.  If you are unhappy with my
handling of your information request, you can ask for a review by replying
to this email.

 

If you still have concerns after that, you can ask the Information
Commissioner’s Office to look into your case.  Their contact details are
available on their website at: [2]www.ico.org.uk

 

Yours sincerely

 

Aimee Gasston

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [4][email address]

 

From: S Potter [mailto:[FOI #306768 email]]
Sent: 19 December 2015 12:56
To: foiofficer
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Breakdown of costing of
submitted cases to PHSO

 

     Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
    
     Dear FOI, My reference, FDC-242965
    
     I will conform, I have made a DPA request 11 DEC 2015, for the
     exact cost'ings of my OWN cases etc, & up to date info. My DPA
     request: FDN-242966 You advised, you will consider request and
     respond in line with statutory time frames of the Data Protection
     Act 1998. deadline for a response is 19 January 2016.
     Thank you.
    
     Concerning my FOI request FDC-242965, I have asked for your advise
     to how cases are now cost'ed, & accounted. The PHSO reference
     number for my FOI request made via the whatdotheyknow website is
     FDC-242965. Statutory deadline for response under the Freedom of
     Information Act 2000 is 12 Jan 2016.
    
     As you know I am not always the clearest person to understand, due
     to the years of frustration with the PHSO for non compliance with
     the NHS Law,
    
     So to also help clarify, after 15 years 10 months, I feel its
     something you must have at hand.
     COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE IN MY FOI,
    
     the fullest possible generalised information, to produce reliable
     cost information,
     by reference to all developments since the Ombudsman's 2000
     memorandum to PASC.
    
     I attatch this link to you,
    
[5]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...
    
     I also remind you of the last paragraph, wrote 15 years 10 months
     ago.
    
     11. As noted above we are working to develop our systems to provide
     better information to measure and increase our efficiency. We shall
     take this forward ** in the coming year ** with the aim of being
     able to produce reliable cost information that is relevant to and
     meets the needs of internal and external users.
     26 January 2000
    
     If you want me to put in a seperate, FOI, or also have others ask,
     please advise.
    
     As a lay person, are you still runing the 2000 computer systems, or
     have you changed them, if so to what & when if there has been
     multiple changes, & approx cost of those systems. that produce this
     reliable costing for you.
    
     Yours faithfully,
     S Potter
    
    

show quoted sections