Code of Conduct for PHSO staff

The request was successful.

Mrs D Havercroft

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

BACKGROUND

According to a 2013 response to an FOI request, Aimee Gasston, Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman said:

"The Ombudsman is appointed by the Queen and is directly accountable to Parliament. She is independent of government and the NHS, and is solely responsible and accountable for the conduct and administration of all work carried out by the Office and for the decision made in each case. However, as an organisation made up of crown servants, PHSO is eligible to operate the Civil Service Pensions Scheme."

Therefore I wish to know whether the PHSO, which can (and I believe has) adopted the Civil Service Pensions Scheme, has also adopted the Civil Service Code of Conduct for its staff.

THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Please provide a copy of the Code(s) of Conduct which applies to staff at all levels within the PHSO - including Dame Julie Mellor and her executive and non executive board members.

If the Civil Service Code of Conduct applies to all PHSO staff, including Dame Julie Mellor and her executive and non executive board members I have already got it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collection...

If the Civil Service Code of Conduct does not apply to all PHSO staff, including Dame Julie Mellor and her executive and non executive board members, please provide the Code(s) of Conduct that does/do.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs D Havercroft

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 Ms Havercroft

 

Thank you for your email of 24 June 2015 in which you requested a copy of
the Code of Conduct at the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. 
Please find a copy of this document attached.

 

If you have any 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/

Mrs D Havercroft

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you for the information provided.

For the avoidance of any doubt, please can you confirm the following:

1. Whether Code of Conduct you have supplied is the only one which applies to PHSO staff. Are they not bound by the Nolan Principles of Public Life?

2. Whether the Code of Conduct you have supplied applies to Dame Julie Mellor
and her executive and non executive board members. If it doesn't please provide a copy of the Code of Conduct which applies to Dame Julie and the board.

3. Whether or not Dame Julie Mellor, the board and PHSO staff are bound by the Civil Service Code of Conduct in addition to PHSO Codes of Conduct.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs D Havercroft

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

Mrs D Havercroft

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Regarding my earlier question about whether the PHSO is bound by the Nolan Standards of Public Life, please refer to this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

Dame Julie Mellor was appointed to public office. The PHSO is a non-departmental public body. Therefore the PHSO is bound by the Nolan Principles is it not?

Yours faithfully,

Mrs D Havercroft

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

Mrs D Havercroft

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 'Code of Conduct for PHSO staff'.

Please confirm when I can expect an answer to the clarifications sought in respect of your original response.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mrs D Havercroft

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

Dear Ms Havercroft

Thank you for your email. I note that I responded to your initial request for information on 10 June 2015, and that you asked additional questions later that day. As such, I can confirm that our initial response was provided to you within the statutory time frame to respond to your request.

I am currently working on a response to your further questions, however I have not yet been able to finalise this. I intend on doing so within 20 working days from the date of your request (8 July 2015).

If you would still like to ask for an internal review relating to the time frame of the initial request please write back to confirm.

Regards

David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
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

Mrs D Havercroft

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you for your reply.

8th July for the clarification is fine. There's no need for a formal internal review

Yours sincerely,

Mrs D Havercroft

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

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Working on a reply......we all know what that means

Mrs D Havercroft left an annotation ()

Yes, "working on a response" sometimes doesn't yield all the information originally requested, but it always yields information about the way in which Her Majesty's public services operate :-)

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

The Game Rules

1 A request is made but misinterpreted by the PA .
2. You clarify it.
3. This is logged as a new request. And given a new number.
4. You protest that it's a clarification...
5. Your point about clarification is ignored.
6. The PA states that you have made double the number of requests that you have.
7. ...And are therefore obsessive.
8 . And with every attempt to sort it out , you are continuing to request the 'same information'.
9. If you eventually try to reframe the request so that you get the original response requested - it is vexed.
10. You appeal to the ICO
11, In the case of the PHSO, the ICO can do nothing - as the PHSO states it's not the ICO's business to investigate its internal business.
12. As the PHSO is the ICO's regulator ......the ICO caseworker is forced to accept this.
13. You end up in court. It takes a great deal of time and work to mount and explain the case.
14. The court members are not stupid... and know what clarifications are.
15 The court criticises the PHSO for being unhelpful. Section 16.
16 And overturns the ' gamed' vex.
17.Estimated court costs to the taxpayer.. Court around £8-10k
18. Cost to the ICO.. Lawyers and admin....About £5k
19. Cost of the grc about £3- 4k..Admin and judge's assessment
20. Cost to the PHSO .. staff time admin etc (part of it's £32m budget)..£2k - £3k.

This game costs around £20k for ignored clarifications - and erroneously vexed request.

Eventual winner? .....No one.

It's just the taxpayer who loses.

Mrs D Havercroft left an annotation ()

Point 16 - they don't overturn the vexatious game if they have a conflict of interest:

https://swwhag.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/...

Point 13a, the respondents refuse to be represented at oral hearing, thereby prejudicing full and proper presentation, questioning and consideration of all the evidence.

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

I disagree with the Wordpress account.... In the link above.

Jacqueline Blake was a member of my Tribunal panel.

She had done her research and could back up the points I was making - by reference to the fine detail of page numbers.
That's excellent 'homework'.

I was impressed by her and the rest of the panel who were fair and gave me a sensible hearing ...which is what all a vexed request person requires.

So I don't recognise the uninterested and dismissive attitude that the Wordpress account describes.

I also found the ICO lawyers to be very helpful and reasonable.

There are many good officers within PA's ..it's just the few , particularly the 'gamers' and incompetent back-coverers that let the process down.

Mrs D Havercroft left an annotation ()

I'm not sure how one can disagree with an account of a process to which they were not party.

The blog account is an fair and accurate record of what took place during one Information Tribunal and how the panel members behaved.

Similarly it would be inappropriate for me to disagree with someone else's experience of a Tribunal and the conduct of one of its members when I was not witness to or party to any of the proceedings.

I am pleased that an appellant has been able to get a vexatious refusal by the PHSO overturned by the Information Tribunal, but this does not diminish the validity of the accounts of appellants who have experienced a Tribunal panel which they regard as dismissive of the facts and evidence.

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

It's in the writing.. A viewpoint - that doesn't ring true.

People with a one-sided opinion just complain about everything ....and very participant in an action.

They don't give a distanced evaluation of an event. With pluses and minuses.

Basically it gets down to: 'They've all got it in for me'.

Which comes over as obsessional.

Axe grinding demeans a sound case.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Havercroft

 

Thank you for your two emails of 10 June 2015 in which you asked 4
questions regarding the PHSO Code of Conduct, the 7 principles of public
life (the Nolan principles) and the Civil Service Code of Conduct.  We do
not hold information relating to all of your questions, however where this
is the case I have tried to explain where the position of the PHSO.

 

I have responded to each of your queries below.

 

1.      ‘Whether Code of Conduct you have supplied is the only one which
applies to PHSO staff.  Are they not bound by the Nolan Principles of
Public Life?’

 

Senior staff within the PHSO are subject to the Nolan principles, in
addition to the PHSO Code of Conduct. All other staff are subject only to
the PHSO Code of Conduct, itself an embodiment of the Nolan principles.

 

2.      ‘Whether the Code of Conduct you have supplied applies to Dame
Julie Mellor and her executive and non-executive board members.  If it
doesn't please provide a copy of the Code of Conduct which applies to Dame
Julie and the board.’

 

The Code of Conduct applies to both executive and non-executive board
members. The Cabinet Office Code of Conduct also applies to non-executive
board members.

 

3.      ‘Whether or not Dame Julie Mellor, the board and PHSO staff are
bound by the Civil Service Code of Conduct in addition to PHSO Codes of
Conduct.’

 

Dame Julie Mellor, the PHSO Board and PHSO staff are not bound by the
Civil Service Code of Conduct in addition to the PHSO Code of Conduct. 
This is because the PHSO is not part of the Civil Service.  Further
details can be found in the document attached to this email, however in
summary, the PHSO and her staff are Crown Servants are not subject to
requirements set out for Home civil servants.

 

4.      ‘Dame Julie Mellor was appointed to public office. The PHSO is a
non-departmental public body. Therefore the PHSO is bound by the Nolan
Principles is it not?’

 

The PHSO is not a non-departmental public body, as reflected in the
attached document.  However, executive and non-executive PHSO Board
members are bound by the Nolan principles, all board members are bound by
the PHSO Code of Conduct, and non-executive board members are further
bound by the Cabinet Office Code of Conduct.

 

I hope you find this information helpful.  Should you have any queries, or
if you 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/

C Rock left an annotation ()

I saw scant if any references to Code of Conduct relating to PHSO Customers i.e. the reason the PHSO exist.

Assuming that customers might expect best treatment, may I be allowed to consider some of these statements given in the above referenced code:

o Deliberate falsification of PHSO’s records (and does this apply to negligent falsification? e.g. the denial of patient experience? Changing what people said? Adding PHSO own assumptions?)
o Failure to comply with relevant statutory or regulatory requirements (sufficient evidence has been provided of this to warrant some serious interest, I would have thought)
o Violent, abusive or intimidating conduct (Covert threats to customers? Negligent use of a victims' disabled situation?)
o Serious or wilful (/negligent?) breach of the Code of Conduct (This will not be acknowledged)

and

o Leadership – lead by example and believe our work should have... impact (the key word here)
o Integrity – open, honest and straightforward (I really have had difficulty with this)
• being... TRANSPARENT in ALL actions
• holding OURSELVES accountable
• treating people FAIRLY.
• RESPECTING others (and the evidence they freely gave)
• listening to people to UNDERSTAND their needs and thus tailor our services...
• promoting equal access... (unless your new disability works against this)

I'm sorry but this has al to be pointed out, and I could go on. When do customers and service quality come before an employee? Which requirement came first?

People come to the PHSO because THEY HAVE HAD A PROBLEM and had no wish for it to be exacerbated with abuse, twisting and turning every which way to avoid accepting their evidence of what happened: that just extends the trauma for the victim and for those others yet to suffer similar negligence.