Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

It states in the 2016-17 Annual Report: '526 investigations, 12% of the total, took us more than a year to complete.'

(1) Does this figure include all those that were appealed to the Customer Care Team (CCT) after the Final Report?

(2) If not, how many cases in the period 2016-17 as above were appealed to the CCT?

(3) How many cases in the same time period that were appealed to the CCT overturned a not upheld Final Decision to a subsequent Upheld Decision?

Yours faithfully,

M Boyce

informationrights@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.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

M Boyce left an annotation ()

I received my not upheld Draft Decision recently. I then 'appealed' this and specifically asked one main question. The PHSO had said in their Draft Decision that they had seen a particular piece of very important information from HMRC. I asked to see this information. The PHSO then refused to provide me with this information when I phoned them and asked for it in writing. Their Final Decision also refused to provide this information. When I repeatedly asked my case handler and his manager they just kept repeating over and over again that their decision was sound and I could ask the Customer Care Team to look at it. If the PHSO hide information then what chance is there of ever receiving a fair review? No chance at all.

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear M Boyce,

 

FDN-274883 – Your information request

 

Thank you for your email of 31^st October 2017 requesting information held
by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).  Your exact request was:

 

“It states in the 2016-17 Annual Report: '526 investigations, 12% of the
total, took us more than a year to complete.'  (1) Does this figure
include all those that were appealed to the Customer Care Team (CCT) after
the Final Report?  (2) If not, how many cases in the period 2016-17 as
above were appealed to the CCT?  (3) How many cases in the same time
period that were appealed to the CCT overturned a not upheld Final
Decision to a subsequent Upheld Decision?”

 

It will be helpful if I begin by explaining that not all the complaints
that come to the PHSO go through our entire complaints process. Where we
can, we seek to resolve complaints earlier in the process and provide
complainants with answers sooner, without the need for an investigation.
 Cases received within the PHSO are placed in various categories:

 

Step 1: called intake/customer service (CS)/preliminary assessment

The outcome of this stage can be either declined (for a variety of
reasons, but mostly premature) or pass to Step 2.

 

Step 2: called Assessment/Further assessment

This is where the complaint is analysed in further detail, in order to
decide if we should investigate or not.

The outcome of this stage can be either declined or pass to step 3.

 

Step 3: called Investigation.

There are a range of investigation outcomes but we generally report the
“uphelds” and “not uphelds”.

 

There is an additional step that can be started at any time. This is
called Reviews/requests for review/feedback/complaints about us/complaints
about our service/complaints about our decisions.  When the complainant
does not like our decision (at any step/stage of the process), they can
‘request a review’ from the Customer Care Team.

 

I will address your specific questions in turn as they appear in your
request.

 

(1)  Does this figure include all those that were appealed to the Customer
Care Team (CCT) after the Final Report? 

 

The statistics on PHSO’s investigation taking over a year is completely
separate to the work the Customer Care Team does.  The figure relates to
investigations that took longer than twelve months to complete and any
work Customer Care does after a decision is not part of the investigation
timeframe.

(2) If not, how many cases in the period 2016-17 as above were appealed to
the CCT? 

The investigation work is separate from the review cases.  In 2016-17, we
received 3306 requests for review. This is described in the table below.

 

Number of
Type of feedback requests
Compliment 3
Compliment, Decision 3
Compliment, Methodology 1
Compliment, Service 1
Decision 2352
Methodology 4
Methodology, Decision 1
Service 715
Service, Decision 44
Service, Methodology,
Decision 2
Unknown 180
Grand Total 3306

 

(3) How many cases in the same time period that were appealed to the CCT
overturned a not upheld Final Decision to a subsequent Upheld Decision?”

 

In 2016-17, after reviews of our decisions that led to us completing a new
investigation, none have to date changed a not upheld decision to upheld.
However, two did result in a change to “partly upheld” and two
investigations are still ongoing so we do not have the decision on them
yet.

 

I hope the information I have provided is helpful.

 

If you are unhappy with the way I have handled your information request it
is open to you to request an internal review.  You can do this by sending
an email to [1][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email].  You will need to
specify what the nature of the issue is and we can consider the matter
further.  Beyond that, it is open to you to complain to the Information
Commissioner’s Office ([2]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Sarah Otto

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

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

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Now we have definitive proof that the PHSO 'review' process by their Customer Care Team (CCT) is nothing but a complete sham (not that we didn't already know it).
Of the 2352 not upheld Final Decisions that were appealed to the CCT in 2016-17, and then went on to be reviewed by another caseworker, not one, NOT ONE, was changed from not upheld to upheld. This is proof that the new caseworker merely rubber stamps the decision of the previous caseworker. It is statistically very highly improbable that all caseworkers at the PHSO are 100% inerrant in all that they say and do. Conversely, it is statistically very highly probable that the review caseworker is just covering the back of the original caseworker. If you were thinking about appealing your Final Decision and you knew that there was a 100% certainty, a complete stitch-up, that the decision was guaranteed to come back the same, would you waste your time and effort appealing?

J Roberts left an annotation ()

There were 2352 'Decision' review requests plus another 44 ('Service,Decision'). The following statement refers not to review requests but to actual 'reviews of our decisions that led to us completing a new investigation'.

'In 2016-17, after reviews of our decisions that led to us completing a new investigation, none have to date changed a not upheld decision to upheld. However, two did result in a change to “partly upheld” and two investigations are still ongoing so we do not have the decision on them
yet.'

Is the figure for actual reviews of decisions available? Also, I am not clear how many of the 2352 review requests ('Decision' category) refer to the ultimate outcome of a PHSO investigation. Would the figure of 2352 include, say, a person who submits a complaint without having exhausted the NHS complaints process and who subsequently complains (request a review) to the PHSO about its decision not to investigate his complaint?

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Thanks for your post J Roberts. You make an interesting point which the PHSO have failed to address. I will now ask for an internal review to ask that they provide the full information requested.

Dear Information Rights,

Thank you for the information you have supplied.

Can I please ask that you clarify some of the information you have supplied. You state that in the 2016-17 period there were 2352 requests for a review of the decision (presumably Final Decision). You have stated that NONE of the appeal request cases that were subsequently investigated by a new caseworker were changed from a not upheld to an upheld decision. Could you please state how many of the 2352 requests made it through the CCT appeal process to be then assigned to a new caseworker for a new investigation. In other words how many of those 2352 requests (cases) underwent a new investigation by a new caseworker to then have their decision unchanged at the end of that process?

Thanks

Yours sincerely,

M Boyce

Informationrights@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.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

M Boyce left an annotation ()

J Roberts

I decided to ask them for a clarification rather than an internal review. Let's see if they provide the information.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Does anybody know when the application for judicial review clock begins? You have three months in which to apply, but does that 3 month window start on the date you receive your Final Decision, or does it start at the end of the Customer Care Team 'review'? I suspect it is the former. I asked both the PHSO main team and the CCT and both said they had no idea. This is obviously not helpful to me and other complainants, but is very helpful for the PHSO. The PHSO then said they would get back to me after consulting their legal team - presumably in three months time.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

I believe that if phso are doing more work then your case is still open. Three months from final closure. But if phso are making the decision then anything could happen!

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Thanks for your post PHSOthe facts.

I probably agree with you about the final stage being the CCT, but I'm not convinced enough to risk it, especially as the PHSO and the CCT have themselves told they don't know.
I've read your info on judicial review and the near impossibility of winning against the PHSO. Again I agree. Nonetheless, I am at least going to start the process to try and put pressure on the PHSO to look again at my case. I will shortly send them a Letter Before Action as part of the Pre-Action Protocol process. They will then have to respond within 14 days to explain things. I know that judicial review does not look at the Not Upheld Decision'verdict' itself, just at the PROCESSES that were involved in reaching that decision. The PHSO have consistently said that they have seen an important piece of evidence that is central to my case, but they continue to refuse to let me see this information. I believe this would satisfy several of the grounds for judicial review. I will update this site when they respond to the Letter Before Action.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

And I was right to be concerned, because this is what the PHSO legal team have told me today:

'If you wish to appeal the Ombudsman's Final Decision then you have a period of three months in which to issue judicial proceedings FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION. This is the ONLY way in which you can CHALLENGE the Ombudsman's decision.'

This shows just how devious and deceitful the PHSO can be. There is no mention of the possibility of challenging a decision through judicial review when you receive your FD. There is a brief mention of providing 'feedback' to the CCT. The reply above confirms that this feedback will NEVER be a challenge in any way to the decision. It also couples with the information I received through FOI on this site where the PHSO states that no feedback review has ever resulted in a decision being changed from not upheld to upheld, even if it goes for another review.
All of the above proves that the PHSO investigation is nothing more than a sham from start to finish. I will now apply for judicial review and I will be asking Mr Rob Behrens to explain himself.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

If you get a chance take a look or listen to the radio ombudsman podcast with PHSO chief honcho Rob Behrens on the PHSO website. Yes I know, it sounds about as inviting as an evening with Ant and Dec and a box full of spiders. And it doesn't disappoint in that direction. Mr Behrens asks the questions and manages with great adroitness to swerve the issues better than a blind drunk on a unicycle. He tells us in nauseating detail how wonderful the PHSO is. Christmas is not a fairy tale, and the PHSO is not a nightmare, because Mr Behrens have assured us it is so.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

So you wallow at least three months in the Customer Care Team office before your review even gets started and that automatically puts you over the three month limit for judicial review. I knew the CCT had to serve some useful purpose. Good luck with your JR and please keep us all informed.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

M Boyce,

You might be interested in this:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

M Boyce left an annotation ()

PHSOthe facts

Useful is not a word I'd use to describe the CCT. Deceitful is much more appropriate. They exist merely to act as a decoy, to try and distract complainants from what is going on with the PHSO and to lure them away from judicial review until it is too late to seek redress from the courts. They need putting out of our misery, and soon.
I will let you know how the PHSO respond to my letter before claim.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

J Roberts

Thanks for your link above.

It makes for interesting reading, even though I've only had time to skim read it so far.
It goes to show that the PHSO is not unassailable, but you do need a lot of determination and energy to break through their very thick walls.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

PHSOthe facts

I have now received a response to my PAP letter before claim to the PHSO. The solicitors at Millbank Tower in London that deal with PHSO legal matters stated the following:

'In order to obtain permission to judicially review a decision you are required to demonstrate that there is an arguable case that the Ombudsman's decision was unlawful; your email to us does not do this.'

I had briefly laid out the grounds for my appeal to the PHSO in my letter before claim, but they have seen fit to not respond to these grounds in any way other than say the above. Also, it is not up to the PHSO lawyers to say that my grounds do not demonstrate an arguable case (that is for a judge to decide), especially when they cannot be bothered to address these grounds.
I will be phoning the PHSO on Monday to ask to speak to their lawyer who responded to my letter before claim to ask her to explain herself. I will let you know what she says.

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear M Boyce,

 

FDN-274927 - Your information request

 

Thank you for your email of 29^th November 2017 requesting information
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).  Your exact request was:

 

“Can I please ask that you clarify some of the information you have
supplied. You state that in the 2016-17 period there were 2352 requests
for a review of the decision (presumably Final Decision). You have stated
that NONE of the appeal request cases that were subsequently investigated
by a new caseworker were changed from a not upheld to an upheld decision.
Could you please state how many of the 2352 requests made it through the
CCT appeal process to be then assigned to a new caseworker for a new
investigation. In other words how many of those 2352 requests (cases)
underwent a new investigation by a new caseworker to then have their
decision unchanged at the end of that process?”

 

To provide you with the requested information, we would need to review the
entire 2,352 requests that made it through the CCT appeal process and
extract the information requested. We estimate that to carry out a manual
search would take us over the appropriate limit of 2.5 working days. The
appropriate limit for the cost of complying with a Freedom of Information
request is set out at section 3 of the Freedom of Information and Data
Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) [1]Regulations 2004, and for the
PHSO the amount is £450 (18 hours x £25). Therefore I have refused your
request in line with section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

I am sorry that I could not be more helpful.

 

If you are unhappy with the way I have handled your information request it
is open to you to request an internal review.  You can do this by sending
an email to [2][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email].  You will need to
specify what the nature of the issue is and we can consider the matter
further.  Beyond that, it is open to you to complain to the Information
Commissioner’s Office ([3]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

S. Otto

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/...
2. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

C Rock left an annotation ()

I’m having the same experience. I repeatedly asked for information regarding an ‘outcome’ dated December 2015 and the PHSO have simply refused to tell me the source of medical ‘knowledge’. It is now looking as if PHSO have kow-towed to external pressures since their function as ‘lay’ investigators could not possibly have engineered the answer such as it was. I now have to contact RCPsych, RCGP, GMC, DOH, NHS England and CQC as somebody is feeding broken information to PHSO. The complaint against Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust regarding the death of my son is unresolved, now nine years in the asking.

PHSO is also aware of service complaints but have refused point blank to deal with them promptly or honestly. When bullet-point complaints were begrudgingly accepted to ‘investigate’ (which took since Dec. 2013 to get round to—almost four years of rejection and grinding-down) they cursorily looked at a few records out-of-context to select parts that allowed them to dismiss each one without even asking for specific evidence. Trying to pursue this failure again, I received a further insulting rejoinder from a ‘customer care’ manager. Not bothered about complaints. This confirmed further the indifference held for complainants and complaints.

The whole process is opaque and clearly weighted against justice for complainants who came to the PHSO in good faith to expose the negligence they had experienced and not receive the unprofessional and antagonistic responses it appears that complainants other than me have to bear.

No straight answers - no resolutions.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

M Boyce,

Here is something that you might like to consider concerning errors of law (starting at para 9):

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/...

M Boyce left an annotation ()

J Roberts

Thanks for highlighting this information. I will be using it when I set out my grounds for JR.

I will also be writing to the PHSO to ask Mr Rob Behrens to explain how not including information at the end of a Final Decision about a complainants right to seek judicial review and time scale required, and the confusion around, and 10 week wait for, 'feedback'/review/whitewash is fair and transparent. The PHSO know that by the time a complainant has waited 10 weeks for the CCT to even consider a review, it is then realistically too late to make and apply for judicial review. The 12 week JR window is already tight enough without the PHSO CCT eating 10 weeks out of it. This is a dangerous situation because preparing for JR takes a lot of time and effort, and is financially very risky. The way the PHSO is behaving in this regard is outrageous and almost certainly illegal and against the duties of public office. The PHSO are clearly breaching the EU ADR Directive, Articles 7, 8 and 9 which they are legally bound to obey, and they are breaching most, if not all, of the Nolan Rules - the 7 principles of public life. It is now time for Mr Behrens to face the music.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Judicial review should only be commenced at the end of an authority's review process. The problem with the PHSO is that no one knows whether the CCT 'feedback'/review is or is not part of the overall review process. On the face of it it appears not be part of the review process. But then what process is it part of? It is clearly just feedback and not a review at all. What about all these cases that are supposedly 'reviewed'? FOI has already proved that not one of these decisions has ever been changed. Complainants are falsely led to believe that it is part of the review process. I believe this to be deliberate deception - firstly to appear to be 'listening' to concerns about a review, ad then sometimes pretending to do another review; and secondly to effectively prevent any chance of JR, by effectively reducing the 12 week window to 2 weeks or maybe even less. I believe that there is a very strong argument that ALL the PHSO's Final Decision's should be declared null and void because the PHSO has broken the law, and it has failed under its public duty to provide a transparent and fair service to all.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

The legal team at the PHSO have now failed to adequately respond to my letter before claim within the 14 days required. They emailed me to say that, astonishingly, they were not going to respond to my judicial review grounds for appeal. I emailed and phoned them again to impress on them the legal necessity of fully engaging with the Pre-Action Protocol process. They just said that was the end of the matter and they would not discuss it further. BINGO! I can now proceed with my application for JR with less worry about costs if I were to have my application rejected by the judge. It states quite clearly that either party who does not engage in the PAP risks having any costs refused. I have done everything possible to avoid legal action, but the PHSO have now made it inevitable. They have failed to provide transparent and fair advice about their 'feedback'/review process and time scales, and now they have failed to adequately engage in the PAP process. JR here we come.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Just goes to show how confident they are of having your case dismissed by the judge. Between 2010 and 2015 PHSO received 72 pre-action protocol letters. Only two cases made it to court and both were dismissed. It is all rigged in their favour. You can see details here: http://phsothefacts.com/judicial-review/
Good luck though and if you get to court can you let me know as I want to cheer you on from the gallery!

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear M Boyce,

 

FDN-274927 - Your information request – THIS EMAIL IS A REVISED RESPONSE
TO MY EMAIL OF 18 DECEMBER 2017.

 

Thank you for your email of 29^th November 2017 requesting information
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).  Your exact request was:

 

“Can I please ask that you clarify some of the information you have
supplied. You state that in the 2016-17 period there were 2352 requests
for a review of the decision (presumably Final Decision). You have stated
that NONE of the appeal request cases that were subsequently investigated
by a new caseworker were changed from a not upheld to an upheld decision.
Could you please state how many of the 2352 requests made it through the
CCT appeal process to be then assigned to a new caseworker for a new
investigation. In other words how many of those 2352 requests (cases)
underwent a new investigation by a new caseworker to then have their
decision unchanged at the end of that process?”

 

In 2016 -17, eight reviews of investigation decisions resulted in new
investigations.

 

If you are unhappy with the way I have handled your information request it
is open to you to request an internal review.  You can do this by sending
an email to [1][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email].  You will need to
specify what the nature of the issue is and we can consider the matter
further.  Beyond that, it is open to you to complain to the Information
Commissioner’s Office ([2]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

S. Otto

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [3][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
4. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Thanks PHSOthefacts.

You're right that the PHSO are not taking this seriously, and this is partly because of the following:

'Where the defendant agrees to reconsider, the judicial review should generally be withdrawn.'

This is the PHSO's get out of jail free card. It's still not going to stop me applying for JR. Public law is only really accessible for the very rich or sometimes the very poor. I fall into the latter category. Because I have little income and no assets I will be eligible for application fee remission. Then if my application were refused by the judge I would not have to pay the defendants costs under the Section 26 of The Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. All this is coupled with the PHSO not giving transparent and fair advice about its 'review' process, and its not engaging properly with the PAP process.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Where the defendant agrees to reconsider means that PHSO gives you a new investigation rather than have all the evidence out in court. Which is why no-one ever 'wins'. But a new investigation can come to the same sorry conclusion perhaps with a token bone thrown in for all your time and effort. I'm looking forward to attending your judicial review hearing. Gonna get me a hat!

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Yes I largely agree. But I think we both know you won't need to buy a new hat because the PHSO are malicious and devious, but not completely stupid - they would almost always agree to reconsider than risk a full hearing. It's all a big game and for which they get paid rather handsomely. It's also very annoying that complainants are forced to apply for judicial review before the PHSO will agree to reconsider, but this is how the establishment works. Having any dealings with the PHSO whatsoever is only ever a good idea if you like fighting - and I do.
I'll let you know what happens with my JR application and the PHSO's subsequent response.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

PHSOthefacts

Yesterday I lodged my application for judicial review against the PHSO with one of the courts in the north. I will be sending the defendant and the Interested Party a court sealed copy of my application form, and a copy of the associated bundle of documents today.
I will let you know what happens next.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Please keep me in the loop and if you manage to get your day in court I will do all I can to be there. Good luck.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

I phoned the CCT again yesterday to ask how long they were now taking on average to even BEGIN looking at a request to review a PHSO Final Decision. I was told this had now risen to SIX MONTHS! At this stage in the conversation I told the person I was speaking to that I had now lodged an application for judicial review with the High Court. The CCT person just said that they were very busy and that was that. I asked her if she had even the slightest idea just how serious this was going to get for the PHSO, because they were breaking EU ADR law, and not adhering to the tents of natural justice embedded within the 2017 Ministry of Justice Judicial Review Guide . She just said urgh! There will be hundreds, if not thousands, of complainants to the PHSO CCT team who will have now been denied justice (recourse to judicial review) because of Mr Rob Behrens not allocating sufficient resources to the CCT to enable them, and him, to comply with the law. Don't be surprised if Mr Behrens receives a knighthood and medal shortly - alongside his much anticipated resignation.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Denying access to justice is a speciality of PHSO. Would be great if for once they could be held to account for it. I'll not only buy a hat but eat it too!

M Boyce left an annotation ()

PHSOthefacts

Please let me know what you think about Article 12 of the EU ADR Directive:
Effect of ADR procedures on limitation and prescription periods -

'1. Member States shall ensure that parties who, in an attempt to settle a dispute, have recourse to ADR procedures the outcome of which is not binding, are not subsequently prevented from initiating judicial proceedings in relation to that dispute as a result of the expiry of limitation [3 month judicial review application window] or prescription periods during the ADR procedure.'

I have asked the judge in my application for judicial review to take regard of the above, particularly should he/she deny permission to proceed to substantive hearing, and then allow the defendant to claim costs.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

The wording of the EU directive seems clear enough but in my experience 'they' can find all kinds of exceptions when they want to side-step such rulings. Then presumably you would have to take the case to the EU for clarification?

M Boyce left an annotation ()

PHSOthefacts

I'm glad that you agree that the EU ADR Directive seems clear. In terms of the PHSO trying to side-step this legislation and their duty to abide by the law, let them try it. I defeated the Government, the Department for Transport, several years ago when I took my case to the European Parliament and the EU Commission. The Government were forced to finally abide by EU law. If I can defeat the Government, then the PHSO will be a walk in the park.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Looking forward to it. Keep me informed. PHSO act with impunity and it's high time someone held them to account.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

PHSOthefacts

It seems that the EU ADR Directive is not as clear as it first appears. According to the document 'A step forward for EU consumers: Questions & answers on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution', health and education are NOT covered by the ADR Directive. It doesn't say why not.
In the document 'PHSO: stuck in time', it states that:
'The EU ADR Directive, although not applicable to the PHSO, nevertheless sets a benchmark....'
A further issue is that the PHSO deals with much more than just health, so why are its other areas of remit excluded from the EU ADR Directive?
Then the waters become even more muddied. Mr Rob Behrens was Independent Adjudicator of the OIA (education ombudsman), back in 2015 when the OIA became a signatory to the EU ADR Directive. What is going on here? I need to do some more digging. In any case, if the PHSO thinks it can avoid its duty to be a fair and transparent ADR provider just because it manages to avoid falling within the legal ambit of the EU ADR Directive, it can think again.

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Even if the PHSO is exempt from the EU ADR Directive, it does not alter the fact that they are supposed to behave fairly and transparently. Timing complainants out of recourse to judicial review, or forcing them prematurely into applying for judicial review because the CCT is taking 3 months plus to consider a review is a continuing scandal. Since the CCT was set up in late 2014 there will have been many thousands of people who have been failed by this lack of fairness and lack of transparency. The PHSO are breaching their own Charter. Those many complainants who have been failed by the CCT would be within their rights to demand answers, and compensation. The media would also probably be very interested in this shameful behaviour of the PHSO.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org