phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Following the release of all data held on phsothefacts to a previous FOI request can I ask to see all data held on phsothefacts myself? I would like to see all data previously released and any new data collected.

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds.

phsothefacts Pressure Group

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

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Dear PHSO the facts,

Good luck with this task. My experience of the PHSO sharing data goes as follows;

First SARs report was a shock to read. I had not realised that I had been discussed in such a shoddy manner by such poorly trained staff.

Then I read how the PHSO "investigator" of my complaint took all feedback from the Surgery and Suffolk NHS at face value! There is a bizarre "gentleman's word" arrangement between the NHS and the PHSO. Whereas I (the victim of malfeasance) was expected to provide evidence to support my case.

The farce of this was that the Surgery had refused to fully comply with my Subject Access Request and withheld my data. The PHSO knew this, this was part of my complaint.

My second request for access to my personal data arrived in a very edited state.

In fact it had been edited to the point that other people's witness statements and their criticism on the farce of the PHSO complaints structure were missing from my file!

Over a year later and the PHSO has failed to acknowledge the missing data and feedback sent in by other witnesses.

We wait ..... and we wait. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

It's typical Fiona.

The organisation concerned withholds the notes and the PHSO rolls over, pats them on the back for doing so and dismisses the complaint for lack of evidence.

Thus the NHS gets more dangerous for patients thanks to the PHSO's ostrich mentality in limiting investigations to 'edited' evidence supplied by the organisations.

The PHSO has totally failed to grasp that this now a very common strategy, especially within the NHS - but the PHSO is the only organisation which has the powers of a high court judge to demand further information.

If it steadfastly refuses to use these essential powers - given to protect the public - then then more people will be treated badly, or even die.

Perhaps the power should be removed and given to a new effective body that takes them seriously?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamen...

'The Ombudsman possesses wide powers of investigation and is able to determine the procedure for the investigation and to obtain information from such people as required. In respect of the gathering of evidence and the examination of witnesses, the Ombudsman has the same authority as the High Court. Defiance of these powers can be treated as contempt of court'.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

The Ombudsman has not used the powers to compel organisations to release data for the last three years and possibly never. Why the reluctance?

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

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

It's either because the PHSO is not adequately financed..which doesn't seem to be the case as its handing money back to the government, like the government-compliant organisation it is.

Or it doesn't consider that the NHS and other bodies to be worth investigating closely as it is presumed- even with great piles of missing files ( over 100 in one case - eventually 'found' by the authority concened ) , that the body would not withhold evidence of maladministration from the complainant. Or the ombudsman .

It's unfortunate that the 'amateur' PHSO doesn't employ caseworkers that are technically and professionally competent enough to understand which files are missing.

For instance, in the NHS there are the drug dispensing files and the separate medical treatment files..temperatures, food given etc..

In my case, the drug files 'went missing' for nine months and I wouldn't have known they existed if I had not spotted anomalies in the treatment. Therefore I couldn't previously have provided all the evidence to the Ombudsnan, which is a state that many complainants find themselves in....Having to chase up missing files and hope that they can be added to the case.

My ombudsman caseworker didn't question where the missing drug files were. Even the 'nurse advisor' on the case didn't.

Authorities may have handed over the files to the complainant 50 or so years ago, but times gave changed and the Ombudsman has failed to apply the powers given to it to ensure parity between the complainant and any negligent, file- retaining authority.

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

In my case the nurse adviser gave wrong in formation which covered the back of a colleague. I challenged it and the nurse adviser ‘changed’ her report. I complained to the Nurse and Midwifery Council about one of their members giving wrong information, but they defended their member, said she had done nothing wrong.

N & M council said if you are unhappy take it to the employer, PHSO!

I’m still waiting to see her witness statement….it's with ICO now.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear PHSOthefacts

 

Thank you for your email of 14 December 2014 in which you requested
information held by the PHSO about PHSOthefacts.  Please find attached the
material relevant to your request that I am able to release to you. 
Information that was released in response to a previous, similar request
can be found at
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2....

 

To further explain, I have interpreted your request to be for information
held by the PHSO where PHSOthefacts is the subject, or at least related in
some way to the subject.

 

However, some information falling within the scope of your request relates
to other individuals and complaints lodged with the PHSO, while other
information relates to the names and contact details of non-senior
executive staff of the PHSO.  As this constitutes personal data, I am
unable to release this information in accordance with section 40(2) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).   

 

There are also four documents which contain the request or provision of
legal advice.  As these documents are protected from disclosure by the
principle of legal professional privilege, they are exempt under section
42 of the FOIA. The public interest in maintaining the principle of legal
professional privilege outweighs the general public interest in
disclosure, therefore I am unable to release this information to you.

 

Finally, some of the material is exempt in line with section 36. It is the
opinion of Mick Martin, the qualified person under section 36(5)(o)(iii)
of the FOIA, that material subject to your request would be likely to
inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views for
the purposes of deliberation (section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)) or would
otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section
36(2)(c)).  I have concluded that both of these subsections apply to some
of the material you have requested.

 

In considering whether this information should be released I have weighed
up the following public interest factors favouring disclosure:

 

1.       There is a public interest in the transparency and openness of
public authorities.  This enables the public to hold them to account for
the decisions they take and how they spend public money.  Here this
translates in the public being able to see that our private messages and
deeds match our public promises.

2.       More specifically in this instance, there is a public interest in
the methods and approaches used by public authorities.  The desire for our
customers to engage in debate about our service and how that is shaped.

3.       There is a minor argument that there is a public interest in
organisations being able to view all publicly held data about them.

 

In addition, I have considered the following public interest factors in
favour of maintaining the section 36 exemption:

 

4.       There is a strong public interest in protecting the safe space
for discussion of live and sensitive issues between staff providing advice
to senior staff as well as between senior staff exchanging views in
deliberative manner.  There is a strong public interest in protecting that
space for ideas to be fully developed without fear or favour.

5.       There is another strong public interest in maintaining an
environment that encourages the free and frank provision of advice and
exchange of views for a deliberative purpose.  There is a strong public
interest in reducing the possibility of a ‘chilling effect’ which would
dampen the quality of the decision- and policy-making processes of public
authorities.

6.       Finally there is a strong public interest in allowing major
projects to be developed and implemented without undue influence or
scrutiny.  While the sensitivity of these issues will reduce over time,
the risk of premature interference in the implementation of major projects
is very real and contrary to the public interest in good public
administration.

 

Overall, the factors favouring disclosure do not outweigh the factors
favouring maintaining the section 36 exemptions.  We place particular
weight on the general principles of protecting the ‘safe space’ for staff
to explore ideas and deliver advice and opinion, and maintaining an
environment for staff to provide free and frank advice and exchange
views.  We also recognise that the remaining arguments in favour of
disclosure are narrowed by the fact that much of the final versions of
information the subject of this request have already been released
publicly, or will be in the future.  In addition, the public interest in
promoting good public administration would be severely damaged by the
disclosure of this information.  Finally, we place less weight on the
public interest in an organisation having a right to view all information
held about itself by a public authority.  This right is not recognised by
either the Freedom of Information Act or the Data Protection Act and
should not be considered to carry any significant weight in these
circumstances.   

 

I hope you find this information helpful.  Should you have any further
queries, or would like to ask for a review of my decision, you can write
to me at [2][email address].

 

Sincerely

 

David Thomas

FOI/Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [3][email address]

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. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear David Thomas,

Well what a lot you hold on our group. Now everyone can see what we've been up to. Hope I didn't swear in any of them.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds.

phsothefacts Pressure Group

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

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Every single office at Millbank used.. Or in earshot of building work?

So the venue had to be switched?

Or did the PHSO fear disruption?

And apart from endless talk shops, focus groups, report, surveys.... what exactly has the PHSO done to deal with the basic problem of the poor understanding of cases?

Employed more people that can actually read, comprehend and process?

A review team that just doesn't depend entirely on the caseworker's notes and take on the case?

Until the PHSO takes this bold step, face to face interviews cannot be comprehended, simply because what goes in the notes is not what was said. As anyone who has read their SAR realises.

And if the PHSO started face-to-face, this would mean that those complained about would have parity in face-to- face too. It seems they do already in some cases.

So because complainants are kept entirely in the dark about what the organisation is stating, this would mean that even more incorrect information would be added to the file.

And have all the cases that were 'revisited' by the PHSO,after phsothefacts brought them to the attention of Mick Martin et al been properly investigated now?

Any of them?

Half of one?

gordon left an annotation ()

I am also astonished that lying does not qualify fosr fitness to practice.i would suggest filing foi request on the gp practice.do the partners own the surgery ,how many conplaints have there been against a particular doctor,how much they are paid etc.finally why hasent any one writen to the health secreatary .Iknow that doctors are often economical with the truth and that they often cover up for one another.shipman got away for so long beacause the gmc is disfunctionall. i spoke to some one from the gmc and found that they are very challenged Intellectually

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org