Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

The quote below comes from your Annual Report 2013. It demonstrates a high level of customer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction
Our rolling customer satisfaction survey in 2012-13 shows:
73% of customers whose complaints didn’t go forward for a full investigation were satisfied with our service - an increase of 2%; and
92% of customers whose complaints we investigated were satisfied with our service – an increase of 10%.
Customers who disagreed with our decision about their complaint, or who had complained about the service we gave them, were less satisfied than other customers.
30% of customers who complained about us said they were satisfied with our service overall - a decrease of 2%.

Can you tell me how PHSO select customers to complete the customer survey?

Can you give me the total number of survey results collected for each category ie.
1. complaints which were investigated - total number
2. complaints which did not go forward - total number
3. people who complained - total number

Can you provide me with a copy of your survey questionnaire?

Is a customer able to request that they contribute to the customer survey?

Is there a facility on your website for customers to complete a questionnaire if they wish to do so? If not, then why not?

Are the questionnaires completed anonymously?

Is it possible to see the raw data? ie. the completed questionnaires with all names removed?

Many thanks,

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

D. Reynolds.

foiofficer, 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

Rob Bird left an annotation ()

Would like to know who received survey I was service user and didnt receive, its just the I am a member of the Sussex Partnership Trust who just sent out a survey to their members and i didnt receive.

Was just wondering if they are only sent/given to those they think are happy?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I'd like to know the name of the company that ran the opinion survey .....and it's relationship with the PHSO too.

Has the PHSO just employed a company that it normally uses?

Or did the PHSO run the survey itself?

Just out interest.. Did anyone, or anyone who anyone knows, ever receive a form to state their opinion?

C Rock left an annotation ()

I asked and contacted IFF in May 2013 as follows:

I just wondered why I wasn't contacted in relation to the PHSO research. I have an unresolved case waiting four year years... PHSO has told me my sons death [clinical negligence in not providing correct support and intervention] "wasn't worthwhile investigating". My Legal Claim turned out otherwise. How exactly did you select contributors?

IFF Research responded:

Dear Mr Rock,

Thank you for your interest in the Customer Satisfaction Survey that we carry out on behalf of PHSO.

The survey is not done as a census; we only contact a random sample of PHSO customers about the research. Therefore we can't select particular individuals or cases to be included in the research, as this would bias the findings. Although it is possible that your case may be randomly selected in future.

But if you are happy for us to do so, we can pass on your contact details to PHSO; they are currently reviewing their complaints process and will be carrying out some research amongst their customers on the topic.

Kind regards [IFF Research]

My response:

Thank you [IFF Research]

I have no problems with engaging in PHSO research if that is possible. I am aware that the complaints process is being reviewed and have contributed evidence to the appropriate PASC. I have been waiting almost 4 years for an investigation of negligence by the PHSO...

C Rock

No contact to-date...

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

I have not been contacted for an opinion of PHOS service!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The PHSO must be very satisfied with the results of IFF research.

They have used the same company on 'multiple' occasions according to the company website:

.....- Multiple studies for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, to understand the experience of customer complaints about NHS services both from the perspective of the customer and the NHS body being complained about.....

Kathleen Dobson left an annotation ()

I was contacted by the survey company within the first two weeks of my complaint, as I had had no response at that stage from the phso I said I couldn't comment as yet. They said they would ring me back in two weeks and they did as I had just had the acknowledgement by then I couldn't comment on the service. They rang me back further into the complaint although the outcome had not been reached and talked me through the survey that is you are "encouraged" to comment in a certain way by a jolly fellow who gives you "options".

I ended up believing I had had wonderful service!

Della left an annotation ()

So were you satisfied in the end Kathleen? Could you change your responses later? Phoning early in the process is a clever trick. Surely by definition a customer survey surveys the whole process. But not at phso.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I was once offered a fill-in job 'cleaning up' customer survey comments by a reputable pollster.

What you are supposed to do us edit out any 'misleading' comments.
So it usually depends on the editor what you end up being stated as saying. Because you are never likely to know.

It has it's funnier side....You'd be surprised at the erudite technical terms people ended using in a survey on sewage.

It may be more relevant to ask for the actual comments ( redacted ) in the survey.

[name removed] left an annotation ()

I have never been contacted with regards to a customer satisfaction survey although I am well into the second year of the PHSO dealing with my complaint. In effect I have been 'silenced' for all this time as everything is marked 'restricted'. I heartily wish someone would contact me on my views regarding customer satisfaction!

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

I was contacted. I was asked was the phone answered in so many rings. Were the people who I spoke to polite? Was I put through to the right department and all those sort of questions. There were no question about the satisfaction of the outcome of the complaint.

It was a tick box as I remember, by email, so you could not talk to anyone. It was a while ago so it may have changed or perhaps my memory is fading.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear Della

 

Your information request (FDN-176697)

 

I write further to your email of 26 October 2013.

 

1) Can you tell me how PHSO select customers to complete the customer
survey?

 

Every 2 weeks, PHSO provides IFF Research (the independent market research
company) with details of all of its customers that fall into three
categories.  Customers fall into the different categories in relation to
when their case has been considered at different stages of our casework
process.  The only exceptions are customers who have requested that their
details should not be passed to an external research company, or who have
raised objections about PHSO itself contacting them.

 

The three categories of customers are:

 

a) Complainants: PHSO customers whose complaints were investigated and
concluded in the previous month.  IFF attempts to interview all of these
individuals;

 

b) Enquirers: PHSO customers who made an initial enquiry to PHSO, and our
decision about whether or not to take their complaint forward was made in
the previous month.  IFF interviews a random sample (of 96 of these
individuals) every 2 weeks;

 

c) Review customers: PHSO customers who asked PHSO to review its own
service or decision, and for whom PHSO’s decision about this was made 1
month ago.  IFF attempts to interview all of these individuals.

 

2) Can you give me the total number of survey results collected for each
category i.e.

1.  complaints which were investigated - total number 2.  complaints which
did not go forward - total number 3.  people who complained - total number

 

In this financial year to date (starting April 2013), across the three
customer categories that we use, we have interviewed:

 

a) 204 Complainants (PHSO customers in relation to complaints which were
investigated, at the point at which the investigation had been concluded);

 

b) 1,441 Enquirers (PHSO customers in relation to making an initial
enquiry to PHSO, at the point at which the decision about whether or not
to take their complaint forward had been made. Some of these are
complaints which did not get taken forward, others are to be taken forward
for investigation); and

 

c) 121 Review customers (PHSO customers who asked PHSO to review its own
service or decision).

 

3) Can you provide me with a copy of your survey questionnaire?

 

There are three different versions of the questionnaire to reflect the
three different categories of customers that are interviewed.  I have
attached these to this email.

 

4) Is a customer able to request that they contribute to the customer
survey?

 

No. For the sample to be properly randomised, we are not able to
accommodate requests from specific customers that they take part at a
particular time.  To illustrate why, if we received enough of these
requests, the sample of customers taking part would become biased towards
those who were keenest to give their views.  These would typically be
those individuals with the most extreme positive and negative views about
their experience with PHSO.  The only exception to this is where an
individual customer asks to contribute, and they are already in the sample
of individuals who have been randomly selected to be interviewed at that
point in time.

 

5) Is there a facility on your website for customers to complete a
questionnaire if they wish to do so?  If not, then why not?

 

Our customer feedback is invaluable to us and helps drive our ability to
change and improve our service.  Therefore we agree that having an online
customer satisfaction form is a good idea.  We are in the process of
developing the online survey which will be available for customers to use
in the first quarter of 2014. 

 

6) Are the questionnaires completed anonymously?

 

The interviews are carried out by professional telephone interviewers at
an independent market research company (which operates strictly within the
requirements of the Data Protection Act, the Market Research Society Code
of Conduct and the Interviewer Quality Control Scheme).  The interviewer
is provided with each PHSO customer’s name and telephone number at the
start of the interview, in order to be able to make contact with the
relevant person and ask them to take part in the survey.  The data
reported back to PHSO, however, has all personal details removed from it,
so that we cannot tell who has given specific responses.  The only
exception to this is where the individual customer has given explicit
permission to share their name and their responses with PHSO.

 

7) Is it possible to see the raw data?  i.e. the completed questionnaires
with all names removed?

 

We do not publish our survey data due to the sensitive nature of some of
our cases.  Protecting the privacy of our customers is extremely important
and as we collect a considerable amount of information as part of the
customer survey it may be possible to identify individuals or bodies
despite name and address data being removed.  Moreover, we believe that
one of the reasons why our survey response rate is so high is because we
do not publish our raw data or share it with third parties.  Therefore, I
am unable to provide you this information under section 40(2) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.  We will be reviewing our policy with
regards to the publication of our raw data in March 2014.

 

I hope the explanation and information I have provided is helpful. 
However, if you are dissatisfied with my decision to withhold information
under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 you can request
an internal review by writing to the Review Team at:
[1][email address]

 

If you remain dissatisfied you can approach the Information Commissioner’s
Office.  Details of how to do so can be found on their website at:
[2]www.ico.org.uk

         

Yours sincerely

 

 

Claire Helm

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer

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

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

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

'To illustrate why, if we received enough of these
requests, the sample of customers taking part would become biased towardsthose who were keenest to give their views. These would typically be those individuals with the most extreme positive and negative views about their experience with PHSO'.

Then they should balance each other out......And what about the ones who put due the phone at the mere mention of the PHSO?

E. Colville left an annotation ()

Yesterday PASC published new evidence to its Inquiry on the results of the PHSO's latest 'Customer Survey'
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...

Enjoy!

Dear Claire Helm,

I apologise for the delay in replying to your response to my FOI regarding the customer survey.

Thank you for the information and I am pleased to see that you are taking action on providing online feedback for all interested parties.

I am a little confused on one point. You state that,

"Every 2 weeks, PHSO provides IFF Research (the independent market research
company) with details of all of its customers that fall into three
categories. Customers fall into the different categories in relation to
when their case has been considered at different stages of our casework
process. The only exceptions are customers who have requested that their
details should not be passed to an external research company, or who have
raised objections about PHSO itself contacting them.

The three categories of customers are:

a) Complainants: PHSO customers whose complaints were investigated and
concluded in the previous month. IFF attempts to interview all of these
individuals;

b) Enquirers: PHSO customers who made an initial enquiry to PHSO, and our
decision about whether or not to take their complaint forward was made in
the previous month. IFF interviews a random sample (of 96 of these
individuals) every 2 weeks;

c) Review customers: PHSO customers who asked PHSO to review its own
service or decision, and for whom PHSO’s decision about this was made 1
month ago. IFF attempts to interview all of these individuals."

If you give details of ALL customers who have asked for a review and IFF interviews All of these individuals, then why haven't I had a customer service call? I asked for a review and I know of a number of people who asked for a review and none of us have been contacted by IFF. Can you explain this?

I see by your data that the satisfaction rate for customers who have asked for a review is very low. At 30% it would be only 36 of the 121 people interviewed. Had IFF contacted ALL review customers this percentage may well be even lower. It is clear that your review process is not providing satisfaction. Can you tell me how PHSO have used this feedback to listen and learn, be responsive and improve the review procedure?

Yours sincerely,

D. Reynolds.

foiofficer, 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

Della left an annotation ()

E.Colville. I enjoyed the customer review link. Thank you very much. Shame there were no names by those very glowing citations at the end. You don't think that someone on the staff had anything to do with that do you?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Our helpful, polite and sympathetic staff?

Hahahahaha.

Who did they ring?

The Head of Reviews mother?

E. Colville left an annotation ()

All a bit suspicious that this late, supplementary 'evidence' from the PHSO should get accepted to the PASC Inquiry and be published on 29th Nov. after the PASC held a private meeting with actual complainants on the 26th at which the PHSO took a thrashing, and, the PASC Chair met Dame Julie for a scheduled meeting on the 27th Nov (that info from a previous disclosure on this site which I don't have to hand).

The poor quality of the PHSO's supplemental suggests it was or may have been cobbled together in haste and in panic !

I also question why it is the PASC can publish supplementary submissions from the PHSO but doesn't appear to extend the same privilege to others? Certainly, my supplementary hasn't seen the light of day. I wonder why?

E. Colville left an annotation ()

I overlooked above the important point that we're seeing the complete opposite of the PHSO's enthusiasm and rush to disclose their ostensibly good Customer Satisfaction Survey by contriving to delay and withhold release of their latest Staff Survey, knowing we've been tipped the wink it's apparently a howler. Such double standards !

The results should be of no less interest to the PASC's Inquiry.

This sets a precedent. It's reasonable therefore to expect the PASC will also publish the results of the Staff Survey.

Della left an annotation ()

I agree E.Colville, let PASC see and publish the staff survey so we can know what the people inside the organisation really feel about the service they offer.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Indeed, you can be assured that Dame Julie is spending time and money to further her case.

By the time she's finished reading our cases to try and work out what PASC committee members will ask her... and dealt with the stuff that came up after her informal conversation with the PASC chairman,
( bet that's not minuted) she will be fully briefed.

Be prepared to be amazed.

Dear Claire Helm,

I wonder if you would be kind enough to respond to my outstanding request of 30th November regarding the customer survey. I realise that we have had the holiday period but this request is now long overdue.

Yours sincerely,

D. Reynolds.

foiofficer, 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 Della

I have responded to your email of 30 November 2012 to your personal email address.

Yours sincerely

Claire Helm
Freedom of Information/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

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

IFF Surveys

NHS trusts

165 structured interviews were undertaken with 94 unique Trusts. This represents a 38 per cent response rate. Fieldwork was undertaken between 29th April and 13th May. 150 interviews were conducted online, 15 by telephone.

There may be a reason why hardly anyone seems to have been contacted by IFF.

When the company surveys other bodies, they seem to do more by email.

Yet PHSO complainants seem to be interviewed and give complimentary reviews of the PHSO - by phone. Maybe there would be a different response if complainants were able to give their views online.

:::::::.

IFF Surveys

NHS trusts

165 structured interviews were undertaken with 94 unique Trusts. This represents a 38 per cent response rate. Fieldwork was undertaken between 29th April and 13th May. 150 interviews were conducted online, 15 by telephone.

:::::::.

PHSO customer survey
Our Customer Experience

During the year, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman carries out research to find out what our customers think about our service.

This includes telephone calls by the independent market research company IFF Research with all of our customers whose complaints have been investigated, and with a random sample of those customers who have made an initial enquiry to us. Since 2010, we have received feedback from over 8,000 people this way. This financial year alone we have sought the opinions of over 1,700 of those who have used our service.

C Rock left an annotation ()

Is it possible to establish why, in the linked document http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc..., the survey group 'Review requesters' graph isn't shown. Has it been withheld as unfavourable 'evidence'? It is evident that further comments in that Customer Experience report that the writer has been very selective with favourable comments.

This is a farce. I asked in 2013 for a review of new evidence (procedure established in previous FOI) yet I have never been contacted by a survey company. Random chance? Or could that have been a selective survey?

The new evidence from PHSO (via Data Access request) indicates that no review was ever formally carried out. It certainly was never recorded to file according to the Data Access officer. It's possible that the PHSO did not want to have to forward my details to a survey company. How then is the 'list' compiled?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

A complainant cannot evaluate how satisfied they are until they have read how the case was handled. And received a proper explanation if the decision....which they don't get.

What the survey seems to suggest is if complainants thought that the case handler was 'smiley' enough.

Rob Bird left an annotation ()

The whole thing is one disgraceful game with peoples lives that have already suffered so much due to negligence etc, these people who perpetuate this pain have no souls and they do all this on our money :( They are surely going to hell.

C Rock left an annotation ()

I was just wondering if the PHSO have done any survey or research into the knock-on effects of their dismissal and general abuse of complainants. From the level of complaints it appears that many cases which could have been dealt with effectively, sensitively and dare I say more intelligently, through listening and communication at an early stage, were closed unresolved through inaction and officiousness.

A failed complainant is abandoned unsupported, to seek alternative remedy. This might be through civil or police action for the unrecognised wrongdoing; but possibly also needing some sort of victim support and even medical assistance to cope with the additional harm. I expect that many surrender -bite their lips; pop a pill- not wanting the second injustice perpetrated by the PHSO to take over the life already changed by the original wrongs. This is what the PHSO hope, I imagine; but there is an add-on cost.

No customer survey will be complete without it first being independent of PHSO selection of participants -with criteria which pretty much ensures controllable responses- then secondly having comprehensive and relevant questions on the overall process and outcomes from the customer’s perspective. The PHSO service apparently holds no independent survey at present which properly represents their performance.

Kathleen Dobson left an annotation ()

Times when the phrase...nil desperandum carberundum...apologies to those who are latin lovers.
My interpretation, never give up when you have their tails between your teeth!
There are so many of us out there.....

Dear Claire Helm,

A week ago I wrote to you in response to the private email you sent to my personal account regarding the customer survey. I have yet to receive a reply, so thought that I would request again here, in the public domain, in the hope of getting a speedy response.

In your correspondence you informed me that IFF had tried to contact me 8 times using my mobile phone number (evidently my preferred choice)and failed each time. They did not send me a text or try my landline number at any time during the three month period I was eligible to take part in the customer survey. This information was sent to you from IFF by email.

You also informed me that at the start of the 2014 business year it will be possible for all customers to contact IFF through the PHSO website.

You then referred to the action taken by PHSO to improve the low 30% customer satisfaction rate for the review process.

Dear Claire Helm,

Can you send me a copy of the email from IFF as mentioned below? It is obviously about me and will contain my name so I should be allowed access via DPA.

Can you confirm whether you gave IFF all my contact details, including my landline number and email address? I do not recall ever specifying that my mobile number was my 'preferred' number, can you send me the paperwork which confirms this is the case? It seems odd that IFF spent the entire 3 months trying to contact me using a method which was clearly unsuccessful. PHSO have always contacted me via my landline and left a message if I was unavailable. Why is it that IFF did not do the same?

Can you tell me the number IFF used to contact me so that I can check my phone records?

When exactly is the beginning of the 2014 -15 business year? We are now in 2014. Will I be able to complete a questionnaire on-line retrospectively once this system is up and running?

In reference to your statement that, "The Review Team have listened to the feedback from customers and as a result of the survey began making telephone contact with all complainants during the review unless this was inappropriate."

I doubt that a 'phone call' will make any significant difference to the low 30% satisfaction rate with the review process. People are dissatisfied with this process because it shows bias towards the public bodies and manipulates or denies the evidence to find no case to answer. This is the issue that PHSO needs to address.

I hope to hear from you in the near future.

Many thanks

Della Reynolds.

P.S. I wondered if anyone else had been as unfortunate as myself. I carried out a quick straw poll among other members of the Pressure Group. Between us we had requested 12 reviews yet had received only 2 calls from IFF. That gives an 84% failure rate.

Two people tried to contact IFF themselves following review but were told they could not take part in the survey because PHSO had not passed on their information. The fact that PHSO is the starting point of the process, calls into question the independence of the whole customer survey procedure. It could allow for a 'pre-selection' screening which would of course invalidate the data and damage public confidence in PHSO service delivery.

foiofficer, 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

Rob Bird left an annotation ()

So obvious that all OMBDUSMAN do is nothing but avoid, manipulate truth, cover up and lie. Really think its time the public stopped paying for any of these bodies and did it themselves.

C Rock left an annotation ()

This is interesting. I gave new evidence in May 2013, which the Ombudsman did not see, or request or follow up in my first application to PHSO (2009).

I have never been contacted by any research group nor has the PHSO come back to me "making telephone contact with all complainants during the review".

It appears to me that 'PHSO discretion' was used to determine that my new request was invalid for some reason as no justified Review of it was ever carried-out and documented, according to my previous FOI request.

A question must be: when is a new request or new evidence actually included in 'all requests'. It appears to be another matter of PHSO discretion.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Still awaiting a response here too!
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
If its wonderful.......shout about it!
If its awful ......WHY?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

It's very odd that the PHSO's own survey doesn't seem to mirror the independent a which magazine public survey.....

'Of those who did complain, 39% were not satisfied with the outcome, half (49%) felt their complaint was ignored and 86% of those who were dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint did not take it any further'

Although it must be said that around a half of would- be complainants didn't have a clue as to what the PHSO is or does.

Public urged to make complaints

A third of people who experienced a problem with public services in the last year did not complain, with the most common reason given that it *"would not be worth the effort", according to a Which?

( NB * .. And how right they are....)

The watchdog has launched a campaign to "make complaints count in public services" after finding that consumers are confused about which ombudsman to turn to in the event of a problem.

The poll for the consumer group found that 34% of people who experienced a problem with public services in the past year did not complain, with 35% of them not knowing who to complain to and 39% reasoning that it would not be worth the effort.

Of those who did complain, 39% were not satisfied with the outcome, half (49%) felt their complaint was ignored and 86% of those who were dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint did not take it any further.

More than four in 10 (43%) of those who had not complained about a public service in the past year wrongly thought they would go to the Department of Health if a problem with a GP was not resolved, instead of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

Just half (52%) were even aware that the PHSO exists, compared with 94% who had heard of Trading Standards and 86% who knew of the Financial Services Ombudsman.

Which? said that while the Government had announced new measures to strengthen patient feedback in the NHS in the last year, it believed there was still work to be done across all public services, including care homes and schools, to encourage people to share their experiences and help improve services.

The campaign calls on the Government to commit to giving the public a role in triggering inspections by regulators through their complaints, setting up a unified public services ombudsman to swiftly deal with unresolved problems and allow representative groups to make "super-complaints" about public services as they do in private markets.

Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said: "Public services are vital to everyone and if something goes wrong it's crucial that people feel it's worth speaking up to help stop the same thing happening again.

"Barriers to giving feedback must be removed if public services are to deliver the high standards that we all expect.

"We want to see a shake up of the way complaints are handled, to give people the confidence that their complaints count and will trigger action."

:: Populus surveyed 4,132 UK adults online between February 19-23.

http://news.uk.msn.com/public-urged-to-m...

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org