Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Please provide details of closure codes and any amendments you used for 2014/15. For each code, please provide the corresponding number of cases. You have provided similar information for previous years:

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

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear J Roberts

 

Thank you for your email of 28 August 2015 in which you requested the
following information:

 

Please provide details of closure codes and any amendments you used for
2014/15.   For each code, please provide the corresponding number of
cases.  You have provided similar information for previous years:

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

 

Please find the requested information attached.

 

If you have any further queries or would like to ask for a review of my
decision you can write to [1][email address].

 

Regards

 

David Thomas

FOI/Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [2][email address]

W: [3]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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

J Roberts left an annotation ()

A quarter of all cases were closed because they were 'not properly made - not in writing'. Does this mean that someone who simply phones up to complain about a particular body has their call classified as a complaint 'not properly made - not in writing'? If so, presumably some of these complainants would then submit a complaint in the proper way which would result in another closure statistic. The total figure of 27,657 cases, then, may not refer to unique cases. The same could be true for the large number of cases closed because of' No MP referral' (3,967). Presumably, many of these complainants would then approach their MP to get the necessary referral.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

There is a problem with MP referral and indeed the for at the PHSO gives you to describe your complaint.

....When I asked my MP to refer my case, his assistant asked me to limit the complaint - to a few paragraphs.

I stated..it's impossible ! It's so complex. It's taken me two years of paperwork so far.

In the end he sent the lot..and good job he agreed, as if I'd tried to limit the complaint, it wouldn't have got anywhere.

As it was, the review team missed , or misread- the page next to the MP's letter.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

JT Oakley,

If you had written only a couple of paragraphs, what your MP might have considered a useful summary, this would have been to your obvious disadvantage. Your case would likely have been swiftly dismissed because of a lack of evidence. I think any subsequent claim that 'there is a lot of evidence I didn't include' would have fallen on deaf ears. A 'looking for a second bite of the cherry', sort of response, perhaps?

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

What an utter farce! What a joke!

The remit of MP's referring unresolved NHS complaints up to The Ombudsman is the joke of the NHS complaints process.

As demonstrated by the PHSO's repeated evasiveness and failure to protect that data relating to MP's getting in touch with the PHSO. FACT!

Proof? These links;

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

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

The Ombudsman is supposed to oversee that the MP's do their "job" and visa versa. But both agencies let each other OFF THE HOOK!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Yes. Your right about 'adding information' at a later stage.

I kept stating ' but you haven't considered the original complaint..I'm not attempting to add any'.

But was met with 'Case Closed ..Push off ....and we are not responding to your point'.

I expect you've read the external investigator's judgement before...( below)

But he backs up everything that complainants are saying about the PHSO and it seems to be getting worse.
It is a now a consistent pattern ....

:::

'The review team failed to provide Mrs TO with a reasonable or acceptable level of service. The service actually provided was, in my view, well below the level you would consider adequate. Some of the decisions at particular points were unreasonable; there was a failure to co ordinate the review team's work with the efforts being made by the FoI team; and the review team seems to have become 'locked' into a negative bureaucratic process, which it treated as unalterable, of refusing to consider the points made for review.

It is also clear that a substantial avoidable delay resulted. I can it say what the result would gave been if one had been launched in November 2012, as it should have been, but whatever it's outcome a good deal of delay would have been avoided.....

...It is not evident from the papers that I have seen that the PHSO has a robust system to dealing quickly where complaints are made about the review team itself'.

External investigator.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Here's what the PHSO admitted that it got wrong on the specific issues:

* It was wrong to decline a request for a review through the response dated 28 September 2012 Instead a letter explaining the review process should have been sent.

* It was wrong to have sent a closure letter on 8 October 2012 in response to a further request for a review.

* It was unreasonable to decide to take no further action, in November 2012,after the FoI team had forwarded a considered explanation of Mrs TO's case for a review. At that point the review team should if taken a fresh look at the case for review and - if it had - it would have concluded that there was enough information to justify a review.

* As a result, the further closure letter of February 1, 2013, was also unreasonable.

* The team failed to pick up the service complaint inherent in the MP's letter of April 9, 2013.

* It was unreasonable to take on Mrs TO's email of April 29, 2013, bearing in mind her question about the complaints process.

:::

It's hard to see what it got right.

I would say 'getting my name right' ...But the PHSO didn't even manage to do that all the time.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org