Duration of open complaints

The request was partially successful.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Please provide details of the number of open complaints you have about yourselves as of today. Specify the numbers for:

1/ service;
2/ decision;
3/ service and decision; and

Also provide details of the length of time these complaints have been open:

5 working days or less from today;
6-10 working days from today;
11-15 working days from today;
16-20 working days from today;
21-25 working days from today;
26-30 working days from today;
31-40 working days from today;
41-50 working days from today;
50-60 working days from today;
61-80 working days from today;
81-100 working days from today; and
100 working days or more from today.

I would be content with "today" being taken as 31 May 2015 or any day in June 2015 if this would be more convenient, whilst allowing for a reply within the statutory time scale.

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

micky mouse left an annotation ()

My complaint has been going on for over a year, they give you the complete run around without proper explanation, just more & more delays. When my case was reviewed it was not upheld ??. saying they accept my files are destroyed. ( BUT NO PROOF )
I complained & it was reviewed, but under protest.

In speaking to reviewer he was on a different planet, & was not even looking into my complaint, but a part of my file that was NOT contested. He was upholding a section that was never complained about.

My complaint was about the missing, destruction or records docs, cert of destruction, & audit trail of destruction. As defined in NHS Rules & Regs

I asked the Ombudsmans DPA to explain the missing docs from my file, these docs had to be there by NHS law, & kept for 25 years as proof & explanation of destruction.

Ombudsman DPA dept replied, that in my file, the missing legally required files were not there, as they had NEVER been asked for NOR even queeried by the Ombudsman Investigatior, so there was NO request ever made, thus no reply as to why not there !!.
( YET THIS IS WHAT OMBUDSMAN WAS INVESTIGATING )

It then beggars what the investigator was doing, & in answer to open complaints, they are just going round & round, until you give up.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Mickey Mouse...

What you describe is a very common state of affairs for PHSO complaints.

Missing , edited and withheld medical files is the way the complaints against the NHS are stopped from being upheld.

It's illegal, as you point out, to withold files - but, as with all destruction of evidence, it makes it very difficult to obtain justice.

In my case - according to a whistleblower- it was done at ward level. And there us a current police investigation into it.

So Trusts may not always be responsible withholding information.

On the other hand, complainants may state that they cannot make a complaint without access to files but the PHSO never seems to request logically missing files from Trusts. Which is what you have found.

The PHSO knows that some Trusts that do this consistently- as a strategy for covering up negligence.

The Ombudsman knows which ones they are, but apparently still does not take action.

To my knowledge, it has never named and shamed these Trusts.

::::

The courts - via a lawyer- is seemingly the only way to obtain missing files and even then, if they have been destroyed by staff, they may no longer exist.So the outlook is bleak.

micky mouse left an annotation ()

In my case, the writer was not medically qualified, never supervised, & had obtained job by deception.

It was deemed as theft from the NHS by a person pretending to be a qualified person, but to me it also raised question, how they got the job, & why proper checks were not made. 144 others affected, & the

Trust could not allow this to go public, & refused to tell anyone.

The ICO deemed everything the person did & wrote was meaningless, ambiguious, false & missleading.
& MALICIOUS, ICO ordered the entire lot destroyed.

A) The ICO stated, that ICO do NOT work to the same standards of the NHS, & they do not govern the NHS.

B) ICO said It is possible to put a note on a file to say not accurate. This then makes them legal as accurate to be not accurate.
However, this does not apply to NHS medical files, which MUST BE ACCURATE

C) The NHS rules, state that everything must be accurate, meaningfull, truthfull, & balanced.
Mine were deemed that they did not comply with any NHS standard. 14 date & time changes, Tipex, cut & paste, everywhere, pages re-wrote 3 times, as 3 different versions, Legal director of NHS England stated same. The ICO stated same, the Trust stated same. The files had to be destroyed.

My files, that could be destroyed. were all destroyed ?, SO THE TRUST STATED

Another 144 were also affected, & those deemed same. I demanded Police be brought in, & every GP & CCG notified. I demanded proof of destruction.

This the Trust could not allow this to come out, & then did the discrediting of me.

The NHS law states, * THERE IS NO EXECEPTION TO IT *.
that when any file / docs are destroyed, out of its normal retention period, it legally must have 2 docs remain in place of the file for 25 years.

1) An certified audit trail of destruction, stating, who why & when it was destroyed, & also 2 below).

2) A certificate of destruction, a certified statement by the destruction officer, that they destroyed it when & where, & that certificate is then attatched with 1) above, & those 2 certificates, are then kept as if the file.

Anyone then wishing to look at the file, will know exactly when & why it was destroyed. these are Legal docs.

-------

My files do not have these certificates on them, so I persued it, The legal director of NHS England stated the Trust say they have destroyed files but Trust have no legally required proof of destruction, & Trust have not complied with any NHS rules, regs or protocols. . The ICO stated exact same.

So you now have to look at the Ombudsman, & how this legally required certificates have be rectified.

The Trust totally refuses to make a sworn affidavit,
stating they have been destroyed. Yet the NHS law is simple & straight forward, theses certificates have to be made.

WITHOUT ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, OMB agreed the files were destroyed, ( yet no proof ) so I challenged it, it was sent for review, & the review'er agreed with the first one. It was only when I went to the DPA of the OMB, was it disclosed, that the OMB had asked nothing at all from the TRUST, yet these are legally required.

** This is when I found the OMB investigator was not even looking at the destruction of the specified files, those the Trust had stated HAD BEEN DESTROYED WITHOUT KEEPING ANY PROOF OF DESTRUCTION, yet this was my complaint, they had to have legal proof of destruction, as required under the NHS act, destruction of files & documents.

They also had not looked at the term medical file, when the person that wrote it was never reqistered, never qualified, & was never supervised, faked everything, & when this came out they fled ** This should have been a Police matter .

The OMB should have rulled, that these files were not legal to be retained, as they could not be legally classed as medical files, & mine & the 144 others files, & everything destroyed. OMB NEVER LOOKED AT IT.

I then spoke with the OMB highest person, who totally agreed with me, ( THE ONLY PERON I THINK CAPABLE ) & 3 weeks ago, questions were put to the trust, about, legal certification of destruction, & also the electronic destruction, of all emails, memo. notes & files. I was told the Trust had strangely not responded at all, so was now being persued.

IN response to the initial requests as to how long cases go on for, mine is an classic example, my case has been going on for over a year, & they have not even been looking into it properly or what my complaint was about. They never looked at the law, & never looked at the definition of a medical file, which mine were classed as could not be, & had no legal basis for being retained anywhere. When it came to destruction, OMB never looked at the law, & never questioned, the missing legally required papers.

The Trust had stated to the OMB, that there was a file, that they had to retain, & I wanted it destroyed ??,
I proved that this was not the case, I never argued about it being destroyed, nor did I ask the OMB to get it destroyed. I had never brought it up.

Yet this is the sole THING OMB SAID IT LOOKED AT,
& OMB & MYSELF AGREE IT SHOULD BE KEPT.
-----

The sinister side is also that I persued via the Adult Safegaurding, of Social Services, SS wrote me a damming letter to me, stating Trust state OMB had FULLY INVESTIGATED my claims, & they were totally foundless, so Council was doing nothing.

The OMB finally agreed to give me a letter of rebuke to the Council, stating they had never investigated
anything what the Trust or Council had stated.

The Council Solictor & Adult Safety, humbly appologised, stating, that the Trust had lied to them, & Trust had told them I was mentally affected, & to ignore me, & I was being persued by a phyciatrist.
This is also why the Police refused to persue the person.
He said the Trust had gone to great lengths to discredit me, ie: malicious phyciatrist referral, etc.

( The Police never said this to me so I was unaware, the Trust had fabricated this as an excuse )

This was 3 weeks ago, & Trust not responding to Council, nor to the Ombudsman.
------

D. Moore left an annotation ()

Mickey Mouse,

My complaints (4) have been going on since August 2014. Erroneous reasons were given not to investigate in September; I didn't receive any letter telling me my complaints were not being investigated; and the PHSO could not provide me with a copy of my complaint form ('presumed destroyed'). The same complaint form was resubmitted, but I have just learned that one of my complaints (possibly, all?) is not being investigated for a different reason. If you are interested, you can read the latest letter I have received here:

https://phsocomplaint.wordpress.com/

(scroll to bottom)

I have put in a SAR to try and find out some more about what is going on. If you click on my name, you can read FOI requests that I made to the PHSO.

micky mouse left an annotation ()

I understand that exactly, when the PHSO says it will investigate, you want a detailed statement of exctly what they are & are not investigating.

My complaint was on 12 specific detailed matters.

The investigator rang me & said of the 12, which is your most important one, eg: how was person employed, no checks were done, etc, I said the "certified destruction" was my top priority.

He said he would look at all, with special attention to the destruction. This sounded great.

Factually, He never asked any questions, just said not upheld, & instantly notified TRUST I had failed, so the Trust spread that like wildfire. I however got it looked at again, after I proved the Negligence by the PHSO.

It then came out he only looked at the 1 issue, & not the 12, these 11 were all related to how it all had come about, so I complained, it was accepted to review, just only the one issue he looked at, they would not entertain the other 11, as they were not looked at, & they refused to even look afresh at the 11,

SO ALWAYS KEEP A COPY OF YOUR COMPLAINT TO PHSO, ALWAYS DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE & ARE NOT INVESTIGATING FROM YOUR COMPLAINT,

I WAS NOT HAPPY AS TO THE DELAYS, OR FOB OFF, SO I WENT FOR ANSWERS FROM THE DPA OF THE PHSO.

IF A PROBLEM, ALWAYS DEMAND A FULL COPY OF YOUR FILE, INC, MEDICAL FILE's FROM THE DPA section OF THE PHSO. To see if what is being said to them is the same to you.

Ask for a full copy of everything held, BOTH, electronically & manually, files, notes, emails, etc, etc.

When you DONT see the questions or answers, WARN THE DPA Section, you will report the DPA of the PHSO for not providing a full copy of docs that should be there, & state exactly why they should be there. In my case was the request why there was nothing of destruction request from the PHSO to the trust, no answers, or replys, , etc, etc, etc.

The DPA ( WITH MY ETERNAL GRATITUDE, WROTE HONESTLY ) said they were not in breach of non-compliance, although the DESTRUCTION DOCS were legally required, the Trust had not provided them or anything about them not being there, & the PHSO investigator had never asked for any thing & never persued or queeried anything, so the DPA of the PHSO could not produce them.

THIS PUT THE PHSO ON THE SPOT OF BEING GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

For all the good it did, PHSO refused to bring in their legal to explain, but said, we will send it back for review, but refused to state, why they had not even asked about these legally required papers.

This starts back to the original concern, how long are these PHSO cases taking. Fore ever.

micky mouse left an annotation ()

J Roberts asks good questions about timeline, but the problem is a lot longer than 100 days, & mine continues.

but as stated, mine is well over 1 year with the PHSO.

Factually, & only after I proved gross negligence by PHSO, & I traced & I spoke to their senior manager, question were for the 1st time put to the Trust, this was some 3 weeks ago. Prior to that just the run around.

PHSO never prior disclosed anything about not asking any important questions from the Trust. It was only when I obtained proof of negligence from the PHSO DPA team, to explain why there was not questions & answers from & to the PHSO & the Trust in my DPA request to the PHSO. ( Because the PHSO never asked, despite being my complaint to the PHSO, about the Trust not complying with NHS Law.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

I would like to add something to my request, and apologize for any inconvenience caused:

101-150 working days from today;
151-200 working days from today;
201-250 working days from today;
251-300 working days from today;
301-350 working days from today; and
351 or more working days from today.

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Mickey Mouse,

Thank you for your very informative comments, which show a side of the PHSO not found on their website.

I have added something to my request to take account of the length of time your complaint has remained unresolved.

It is a common complaint about the PHSO that their investigators fail to give appropriate consideration to key facts made clear by complainants. I hope that matters are resolved to your satisfaction, but from what I have read on this website and elsewhere victims of PHSO botches have virtually no means of redress. You may wish to look this informative website, if you have not done so already:

http://phsothefacts.com/

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

'The Council Solictor & Adult Safety, humbly appologised, stating, that the Trust had lied to them, & Trust had told them I was mentally affected, & to ignore me, & I was being persued by a phyciatrist.
This is also why the Police refused to persue the person.
He said the Trust had gone to great lengths to discredit me, ie: malicious phyciatrist referral, etc. '

::::::::

If that's true, they have libelled you.

Deliberately demeaning your reputation, in order to cover up the Trust's negligence.

It's now become the standard NHS accusations against anyone who points out something wrong.

Eminent surgeons, whistleblowers, bereaved families..apparently we are all mad.

.....You are obsessional, after compensation, complaining, whinging, vexatious, psychiatrically disturbed....all the usual, unfounded accusations or anyone that won't shut up when the NHS has botched something.

Anyone who has not found themselves in this position can't believe it to be true,.....It's scary how much the NHS is prepared to defend itself. And the underhand ways that it does so.

It happens to a lesser degree with the PHSO. If you are unhappy with the amateur caseworker's verdict ...on a complex case - which only professionals are likely can understand - such as yours, it's very difficult to get the PHSO to reinvestigate it.

Because as the PA's has said...You are obsessional, after compensation, complaining, whinging.....Etc etc. and it just seems that once any persons in authority has says so..according to the PHSO, it must be true.

Therefore your case can be closed.

If I were you..... I'd try and find a no win- no fee lawyer.

Because it's devastating having a barrage of this sort of defensive rubbish thrown at you..sometimes over years.

micky mouse left an annotation ()

My FOI request was accepted directly.

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxx
Thank you for your email of 21 June 2015 in which you have requested information about members of staff and the qualifications required to perform particular roles.

I am writing to confirm that your request has been received and logged under the above reference number. We will process your information request and respond to you via this email address by 17 July 2015 in line with the statutory deadline.

Yours sincerely
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

2 Attachments

Dear J Roberts

 

Your information request – our reference: FDN-226027

 

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information requests dated 19
and 21 June 2015 in which you asked for the number of complaints about
PHSO we have open.

 

Please find attached at annex A the number of complaints we had open at
the time of your first information request. The data has been broken down
by the number of working days the complaints have been open.

 

Complaints about PHSO are handled under two categories: complaints about
our service and complaints about our decision. A complaint about our
service can be on an ongoing or completed case, and is where a customer
expresses dissatisfaction about our contact and relationship with them.
This covers areas such as delay, rudeness and not returning contact when
asked. Complaints about the decision we have reached can relate to our
decision to investigate, whether we upheld a case or the amount/type of
redress we decided on. Further details can found on our website at
[1]www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-complaint/feedback-about-us and in our
Customer Care Guidance (please find attached).

 

I hope the information is helpful.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Sohifa Kadir

FOI/DP Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

 

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. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-compl...

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Grand total of open complaints about PHSO - 596

I made a similar request some months ago:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...

The total figure provided then for open complaints about PHSO was 65.

An increase of over 900 per cent in a matter of months!

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you for the information. There is something that I would like you to confirm.

You have disclosed that as of 19 June 2015 the grand total of open complaints about PHSO was 596.

In a previous request I wrote:

'Please provide:

i) the number of current complaints outstanding about PHSO service delivery as of today  (29 November 2014)

ii)  the number of current complaints outstanding about  PHSO decisions as of today (29 November 2014)'
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

The total figure you provided for open complaints about PHSO then was 65:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...

Can you confirm that the figures you provided in both instances (596 and 65) are both correct? If correct, please provide any information that exists to explain the increase in the figures of over 900 per cent within a matter of months.

Yours sincerely,

J Roberts

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

They make the figures up as they go along. Think of a number, half it, that kind of thing. Looks like you've caught them out though.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear J Roberts

 

Your information request – our reference: FDN 229172

 

I write in response to your recent information request in which you asked
for the following information:

 

“You have disclosed that as of 19 June 2015 the grand total of open
complaints about PHSO was 596.

In a previous request I wrote: 'Please provide:

i) the number of current complaints outstanding about PHSO service
delivery as of today  (29 November 2014)

ii)  the number of current complaints outstanding about  PHSO decisions as
of today (29 November 2014)'
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

The total figure you provided for open complaints about PHSO then was 65:

[2]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...

Can you confirm that the figures you provided in both instances (596 and
65) are both correct?  If correct, please provide any information that
exists to explain the increase in the figures of over 900 per cent within
a matter of months.”  

 

We do not hold any recorded information that would answer your questions. 
However, as you may be aware from our responses to your previous
information requests (see links below), with the creation of the Customer
Care team we have changed the way in which we manage and record contact
from individuals who want to complain about our decision and/or service,
or provide general feedback on our service. The data provided to you in
June 2015 reflects this change and was correct at the time of responding
to you.

 

By way of additional explanation, the figures above (65 and 596) are not
like for like. The figure of 65 relates to the number of complaints the
Review Team had formally accepted to consider as a review at that point in
time. It did not include other work they may have had in hand in
considering whether or not to accept a case for a review.

 

However, the figure of 596 reflects the number of contacts that the
Customer Care team currently have in hand. Upon allocation to a Customer
Care officer they will decide whether it is a request for us to review the
decision, a complaint about our service, or just general feedback on our
service.

 

Responses relating to the Customer Care team:

 

1:
[3]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

2:
[4]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

3:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

 

I hope the explanation is helpful.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Sohifa Kadir

FOI/DP Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

 

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/d...
2. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
3. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...
4. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
5. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'Duration of open complaints'.

I am puzzled by your response of 19 August 2015. I quite specifically requested information on 'open complaints' and was provided with the grand total figure of 596. Here is the key part of my request:

'Please provide details of the number of open complaints you have about yourselves as of today. Specify the numbers for:

1/ service;
2/ decision;
3/ service and decision; and

Also provide details of the length of time these complaints have been open:'

In the Annex you sent me on 16 July 2015 you responded:

'Grand Total of Open Complaints about PHSO: 596'

You now inform me (19 August 2015) that the figure of 596 relates not to the grand total number of open complaints about yourselves but to the number of 'contacts' the Customer Care Team had in hand on the particular day in question.

If your most recent email to me is truthful, then it is obvious you have failed to deal properly with my initial request.

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

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

++Feedbackaboutus@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear J Roberts

 

We are sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your
information request regarding the duration of open complaints.

 

Under our internal complaints procedure, your complaint has been passed to
our Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office, Mr Steve
Brown.

 

Mr Brown will consider your concerns and will send you a full reply once
his review is complete. This review of your complaint is the only review
that we will undertake.

 

We aim to reply to such complaints within 40 working days.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Customer Care Team

 

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

Brown Steve, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

4 Attachments

 

 

Steve Brown

Head of Risk and Assurance

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [email address]

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[2]fb  [3]twitter  [4]linkedin

 

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. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
2. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
3. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
4. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

According to the data provided there were 596 open (unresolved) complaints about PHSO in June 2015. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...

Yet in the 2013/14 Annual Report it was stated that "We received 108 complaints about our service and upheld 48 of these" 108 for the entire year. Yet PHSO have no explanation for why the increase in complaints?

micky mouse left an annotation ()

Your information request: FDN-234650

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request dated 18 September 2015 in which you asked:

“Will you please state, including my case, how many other cases have been ordered by the Chief Exec or Senior Management, to be re-opened, or started afresh,

Covering the periods,

1) in 2015 This is MINE !!!

2) in 2014

3) in 2013

4) in 2012

5) in 2011

6) in 2010

What was the general reasons why these cases were ordered to be a) re-opened

What was the general reasons why these cases were ordered to be b) started afresh

Also when a case has been ordered to be re-investigated, & or re-started afresh, what are the amounts guide of financial compensation paid.

Also what is he highest amount of compensation paid in compensation or damages, where a case has had to be re-opened

Any other further details you feel relevant to advise or help explain the above”

I have interpreted your request as for data about the number of complaints we re-investigated following a review, why that was; and any compensation paid by PHSO.

Please find below a table of data showing the number of investigations that were re-opened between 2010 and 2015. Please note our reviewers are responsible for conducting an independent review of the original decision. Any recommendations arising from that review, including whether or not to re-open an investigation are referred the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Dame Julie Mellor) or the Deputy Ombudsman (Mick Martin) for a decision.

When viewing the data, please note in 2013 we changed the way we handle complaints to undertake more investigations, this is a factor in why there was an increase in the number of cases opened for re-investigation in 2014 and 2015 (to date).

Please also note that from the data we hold, I was unable to locate any complaints re-opened for investigation in 2012 and 2010. This may be because no cases were recommended for the re-opening of the investigation, or the re-investigation was carried out as part of the review (by the Reviewer) and resolved by that process.

Number of investigations re-opened following a review:

Case
Date of Review Decision
Review Decision & Reason
Compensation by PHSO

1
01/03/2011
Information not held as case has been destroyed in line with our casework policy

2
26/03/2013
Complaint upheld - error in decision
Yes - £200 for service failure by PHSO

3
14/02/2013
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

4
15/05/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

5
26/09/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

6
14/07/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

7
04/06/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

8
07/11/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

9
23/03/2015
Partially upheld - Investigation partly upheld because we did not adequately investigate every aspect of the complaint
No

10
18/08/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

11
23/01/2015
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

12
24/10/2014
Partially upheld - Investigation partly upheld because we did not adequately investigate every aspect of the complaint
No

13
22/12/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

14
07/08/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

15
30/09/2014
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

16
24/02/2015
Complaint upheld - error in decision
No

18
09/03/2015
Partially upheld - Investigation partly upheld because we did not adequately investigate every aspect of the complaint
No

19
12/01/2015
Complaint upheld - service failure
No

Total number of complaints re-opened for investigation: 19

======

My case relied on some 12 parts, of which C/S identified & agreed the 12 sections. However when it went to the investigator, he only looked at one, he simply ignored the rest, then he notified others that my case was
NOT UP-HELD, & this stopped my legal funding, on basis of PHSO decision. He assumed !! all docs were destroyed, YET TOTALLY REFUSED TO ASK FOR, OR RECEIVE ANY PROOF OF DESTRUCTION, AS IS LEGALLY REQUIRED.

PHSO legal dept agreed my case was not look at right,
& finally, UNDER ORDER TO ANSWER JUST WHEN DID YOU DESTROY, Trust said, we never destroyed anythiing,
M-M was forced to re-opened a new case.

Under a new case, its only looking at basically one matter prior investigated, & ignores " up to now the other 11 parts ".

I do note this comment above,,
" Partially upheld - Investigation partly upheld because we did not adequately investigate every aspect of the complaint " I dont recall an explanation why the 11 of 12 sections were refused.

I shall reserve further comment, but I DO expect MANY thousand's in compensation, sufficient to pay all my legal bills. To force file destruction, via Court Order, as ordered by the ICO.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org