Complaints upheld in 2019/20 and FOI responses
D. Moore made this Freedom of Information request to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
On page 30 of your Annual Report and Accounts 2019-2020 you disclose "the outcome of all enquiries and complaints in 2019-2020":
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...
Enquiries received 103,965
Complaints handled (some received last year) 30,895
Enquiries with advice provided or redirected 73,070
Decisions made 5,236
Complaints not ready for us or should not be taken forward 25,659
Investigations upheld/partly upheld 650
Investigations not upheld 472
Assessment decisions 3,742
Resolutions 372
1. Please provide the figures for each of the nine categories identified but in relation to parliamentary enquiries/complaints only.
2. With regard to the category 'Investigations upheld/partly upheld', please provide:
(i) a breakdown of the 650 figure i.e. the number fully upheld and the number partly upheld; and
(ii) a similar breakdown of the figure in relation to parliamentary complaints.
Your report on page 45 includes this:
"Data Protection and Freedom of Information
We received 573 Freedom of Information and Data Protection requests compared to 662 in 2018-19 and 577 in 2017-18. We responded to 613 within the statutory time limits. Some of these responses were made to requests received and logged in the previous year."
3. How many of the 573 FOI and DP requests relate solely to FOI?
4. Please provide copies of your most recent twenty FOI responses communicated to requesters outwith 'whatdotheyknow'. Include the date on which each response was sent.
Yours faithfully,
D Moore
Thank you for contacting the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s
(PHSO) Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team. This is to confirm
we have received your request.
If you have made a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 or Environment Information Regulations 2004, we will
respond to your request within 20 working days in accordance with the
statutory time frames set out in both Acts.
If you have made a request for personal information held by the PHSO, your
request will be processed as a Subject Access Request under the provisions
of the Data Protection Act 2018 and will be responded to within one
calendar month in accordance with the statutory time frame set out in the
Act.
We may contact you before this time if we require further clarification or
if we need to extend the time required to complete your request.
For Subject Access Requests, we will send any personal information via
secure email, unless you instruct us differently. To access the
information on the email we send, you will need to sign up to our secure
email service. Details can be found on our website using the link below:
www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/being-open...
If you require us to post your personal information to you instead you
will need to inform us of this and confirm your current address as soon as
possible.
Angharad Jackson
Data Protection Officer & Assistant Director Information Assurance
Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
PHSO CityGate
47-51 Mosley Street
Manchester
M2 3HQ
[email address]
Dear D Moore,
Your Information Request FOI42
Thank you for your email of 20 July 2020. We are writing in response to
your request for information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman (PHSO). Please accept our apologies for the delay in our
response.
You have requested the following information:
‘Complaints not ready for us or should not be taken forward 25,659
Investigations upheld/partly upheld 650
Investigations not upheld 472
Assessment decisions 3,742
Resolutions 372
1. Please provide the figures for each of the nine categories identified
but in relation to parliamentary enquiries/complaints only.
2. With regard to the category 'Investigations upheld/partly upheld',
please provide:
(i) a breakdown of the 650 figure i.e. the number fully upheld and the
number partly upheld; and
(ii) a similar breakdown of the figure in relation to parliamentary
complaints.
Your report on page 45 includes this:
"Data Protection and Freedom of Information
We received 573 Freedom of Information and Data Protection requests
compared to 662 in 2018-19 and 577 in 2017-18. We responded to 613 within
the statutory time limits. Some of these responses were made to requests
received and logged in the previous year."
3. How many of the 573 FOI and DP requests relate solely to FOI?
4. Please provide copies of your most recent twenty FOI responses
communicated to requesters outwith 'whatdotheyknow'. Include the date on
which each response was sent.’
Response
In response to parts 1 and 2 of your request, please see the attached
table.
In response to part 3 we can confirm that out of the 573 information
requests received in the 2019/20 – 218 were FOI requests.
In response to part 4 of your request, we have interpreted this part of
your request as PHSO responses to 20 most recent FOI response communicated
to requestors with ‘whatdotheyknow’. Including the data on which we
responded.
PHSO responses to FOI requests received through ‘whatdotheyknow’ are
reasonably accessible on the ‘whatdotheyknow’ website and therefore exempt
under Section 21 FOIA To assist we have provide a link to where this
information can be found on the website:
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/PH...
We hope you have found this information helpful. If you believe we have
made an error in the way we have processed your information request, you
can request an internal review. To do this please email
[2][PHSO request email] and included details of your
concerns so we can consider them further.
If you remain dissatisfied following the outcome of the internal review,
you would have the option to complain directly to the Information
Commissioner’s Office. Details of how to do this can be found on their
website [3]www.ico.org.uk.
Your sincerely,
Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [4][PHSO request email]
W: [5]www.ombudsman.org.uk
References
Visible links
1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/PH...
2. mailto:[PHSO request email]
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. mailto:[PHSO request email]
5. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
J Roberts left an annotation ()
'Enquiries with advice provided or redirected - 73,070'
Why combine two distinct issues into one category? Given that the figure of 73,070 represents about 70% of all 'enquiries received', clarity would be much preferred. Does a telephone conversation in which the call handler says, for example: 'You need to contact X about that' generate a 'redirected' statistic? Or what if someone who was expecting a response by a certain date phones several times to find out why he hasn't received it. Would: 'It'll be with you soon' generate an 'advice provided' statistic?
'Complaints not ready for us or should not be taken forward - 25,659'
Again, two distinct issues combined. Given that the figure of 25,659 represents more than 80% of all 'complaints handled', clarity would be much preferred.
And only 46 parliamentary complaints either 'upheld' or 'partly upheld' in 2019/20. Given the millions of interactions people have with government departments each year, and given the number of problems reported in the media that people have with government departments, the figure of 46 seems remarkably low.
Dear InformationRights,
Thank you for your response to my information request. I have one query. You wrote:
"In response to part 4 of your request, we have interpreted this part of your request as PHSO responses to 20 most recent FOI response communicated to requestors with ‘whatdotheyknow’. Including the data on which we responded."
I must apologize for my lack of clarity. I meant responses that were not connected to 'whatdotheyknow': responses to requests made by means other than 'whatdotheyknow'. Many organisations routinely publish their responses in the form of a disclosure log.
Yours sincerely,
D. Moore
Thank you for contacting the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s
(PHSO) Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team. This is to confirm
we have received your request.
If you have made a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 or Environment Information Regulations 2004, we will
respond to your request within 20 working days in accordance with the
statutory time frames set out in both Acts.
If you have made a request for personal information held by the PHSO, your
request will be processed as a Subject Access Request under the provisions
of the Data Protection Act 2018 and will be responded to within one
calendar month in accordance with the statutory time frame set out in the
Act.
We may contact you before this time if we require further clarification or
if we need to extend the time required to complete your request.
For Subject Access Requests, we will send any personal information via
secure email, unless you instruct us differently. To access the
information on the email we send, you will need to sign up to our secure
email service. Details can be found on our website using the link below:
www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/being-open...
If you require us to post your personal information to you instead you
will need to inform us of this and confirm your current address as soon as
possible.
Angharad Jackson
Data Protection Officer & Assistant Director Information Assurance
Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
PHSO CityGate
47-51 Mosley Street
Manchester
M2 3HQ
[email address]
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
You recently responded to a WDTK request of mine not through WDTK but to an email account of mine:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...
(see my comment dated 25/9/20)
I would like you to respond to this request, and all of my other information requests, via WDTK.
I refer you to the Commissioner's guidance:
“46. This can be ANY (italicised in original) address where the requester may be contacted (including postal or email addresses) and does not have to be their normal residential or business address.
47. It follows that a requester can use a “care of” or PO Box address, or even provide another individual’s email account as their contact address.”
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
It may be that you interpret 'any' to mean any address of your choosing. I, however, would contest such an interpretation. Paragraph 47 clearly indicates that the choice of address to which a response should be sent rests with the requester and not the public authority.
If, however, you have a reason for not responding through WDTK, please first provide me with it via WDTK. Should I accept your reason as valid, then you can send your response to my email account.
(I have sent you this message with regard to more than one of my requests because it may be that messages are passed direct to different individuals each unable to action my preference that you to respond via WDTK to all of my information requests.)
Yours faithfully,
D. Moore
Dear D Moore,
RE: Your Information Request – FOI160
Thank you for your email of 17 September 2020 in which you requested
information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
Your request has been processed in accordance with Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA).
You requested the following information:
"In response to part 4 of your request, we have interpreted this part of
your request as PHSO responses to 20 most recent FOI response communicated
to requestors with ‘whatdotheyknow’. Including the data on which we
responded."
I must apologize for my lack of clarity. I meant responses that were not
connected to 'whatdotheyknow': responses to requests made by means other
than 'whatdotheyknow'. Many organisations routinely publish their
responses in the form of a disclosure log.’
Response
We can confirm the PHSO is currently working on disclosing previous and
ongoing responses to FOI’s, on its website through its publications
scheme. This is due to begin in approximately one month’s time, as such
Section (2) 22 of the FOIA applies as this information is held with a view
to its publication.
We have considered if it would be in the public interest to provide you
with the information ahead of publication. In that its disclosure may
improve transparency, however, based upon the information you requested
and the short timeframe to publication, we do not believe there is an
overriding public interest requirement to provide this information to you
before its intended publication date.
Therefore, we conclude it is reasonable to withhold the information from
disclosure until its publication date.
We hope you have found this email helpful. If you believe we have made an
error in the way we have processed your information request, you can
request an internal review. To do this please email
[1][PHSO request email] and included details of your
concerns so we can consider them further.
If you remain dissatisfied following the outcome of the internal review,
you would have the option to complain directly to the Information
Commissioner’s Office. Details of how to do this can be found on their
website [2]www.ico.org.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [3][PHSO request email]
W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[PHSO request email]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. mailto:[PHSO request email]
4. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
J Roberts left an annotation ()
"We can confirm the PHSO is currently working on disclosing previous and ongoing responses to FOI’s, on its website through its publications
scheme. This is due to begin in approximately one month’s time..."
The stopped doing it, I think, about 5 years ago. Good that it is to restart.
Nicholas Wheatley left an annotation ()
I don't share your confidence that moving FOI requests away from WDTK and onto the PHSO website is a good thing. PHSO will then control all the data and can do with it what they will. Will they still allow comments like this? We know that PHSO never does anything in the public interest and I doubt that this move will be in the public interest either.
Nicholas Wheatley left an annotation ()
I may have misinterpreted this move though. If it is publishing the FOI information on the website as well as replying to WDTK then that is fine. The ICO guidance indicates that the PHSO must send responses to the destination requested as D.Moore's request points out.
J Roberts left an annotation ()
You have every right to be concerned by anything the PHSO proposes concerning information rights, but this move on their part seems to be a return to previous good practice. Here is what the ICO says on publication schemes:
"The Freedom of Information Act requires every public authority to have a publication scheme, approved by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and to publish information covered by the scheme."
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...
The PHSO's scheme currently does not include responses to information rquests, unlike the schemes of other public authorities. Here it is:
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/co...
Perhaps it stopped publishing responses because they showed the organisation in a bad light?
The publication of responses will not remove the right of a person to request information via WDTK; it will, however, allow the public to view additional PHSO responses made by requesters who do not use WDTK (well, those which the PHSO choose to publish). Of course, a request could always be made for responses not added to their publication scheme.
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
PHSO continually conflate data in their annual reports and use variable terminology from year to year making comparisons difficult. They have conflated 'enquiries' with 'complaints' for some time making it difficult to know just how many complaints are rejected each year. In the 2018/19 report they put up a table of terminology following a direct question on this issue from PACAC. See page 26. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...
"The helpline manages all enquiries into the organisation whether by telephone, digitally or post.
We describe an enquiry as a complaint when we have looked at it in more detail and think it may be something we can help with. We receive complaints about UK government departments, the NHS in England, and some other UK public organisations. We also receive ‘out of jurisdiction’ complaints."
They describe an enquiry as a complaint when it may be something they can help with which indicates that the complaint is within their remit. i.e a body they monitor, within the time scale, and completed the first stage complaint process. It wouldn't take long to check on these three things. However, they then muddy the waters by including in this definition that they also determine 'complaints' to include those out of jurisdiction, meaning they can't help with it.
Riddle: Q. When is a complaint not a complaint?
A. When PHSO says so.
J Roberts left an annotation ()
"Q. When is a complaint not a complaint? A. When PHSO says so."
Spot on! I have been trying for years to understand PHSO figures, with little success.
I queried this statement by the PHSO:
“An ‘enquiry’ relates an individual contacting us, in relation to anything.”
And I received this response:
“An ‘enquiry’ refers solely to a request for PHSO to look at a complaint".
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
As you point out:
'We describe an enquiry as a complaint when we have looked at it in more detail and think it may be something we can help with. We receive complaints about UK Government departments, the NHS in England, and some other UK public organisations. We also receive ‘out of jurisdiction’ complaints.'
Consistency and clarity are what is needed.
J Roberts left an annotation ()
'PHSO continually conflate data in their annual reports and use variable terminology from year to year making comparisons difficult.'
PACAC recommendations:
'12. The information provided in the PHSO’s annual report on the outcome of enquiries and complaints should be made more transparent. The grouping of cases that “are not ready to be taken forward” and “should not be taken forward” should be ended. Presumably the former could still lead to investigations being conducted while the latter would not. The PHSO should also separately report on complaints partially and fully upheld.
22.The PHSO should report in its annual report and accounts the number of new enquiries and complaints that have been received in that financial year. This number is separate from the number of enquiries and complaints that the PHSO has “handled” in that same financial year.'
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Scrutiny 2019–20
HC 843 Published on 25 January 2021
https://committees.parliament.uk/publica...
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
J Roberts left an annotation ()
Dr Bruce Newsome writes:
'According to heart-breaking testimonials, most complainants are treated by PHSO staff as time-wasters, liars, idiots, fantasists, egotists, and objects of ridicule. The victims have nowhere else to go. Parliament’s Select Committee on Public Administration has complained since 2015 that the PHSO is unaccountable to Parliament except through annual reports. The PHSO’s only practical accountability is to the executive, which controls its funding and appoints its person, but every executive has said that the PHSO is “independent.” Its own solution to criticism is to demand more powers.'
https://thecritic.co.uk/democracys-accou...