Section 42(1)

It is legal communications between clients ( or complainants) which are protected - the content of those private communications.
(Quite rightly so.

NOT the number of meetings.

In addition Section 42(1) is also a qualified exemption and therefore subject to a public interest test.

According to the response, the PHSO has NOT carried out a public interest test....which breaches the FOIA.

The public interest would be served by allowing complainants-who are not legally represented at the time of their complaint, to know how many of these meetings are taking place with a qualified lawyer.

If these meetings (where many might be with legally unrepresented complainants ) are rising in frequency, it would demonstrates a deeper malaise - in that complainants would be at the point where they have lost all confidence in the PHSO.

Therefore it's justifiable that the PHSO demonstrate this public expenditure,

:::::::

Section 42(1)
Legal professional privilege (LPP) protects confidential communications between lawyers and clients: it is a fundamental principle of English law.
 Section 42 provides an exemption under FOIA for information protected by LPP.
 When considering whether s42 is engaged, the key to deciding whether the right to claim LPP has been lost will be to consider whether previous disclosures to the world at large mean that the information can no longer be said to be confidential.
 Section 42 is a qualified exemption, subject to the public interest test.

Good luck Fiona,

Your request

How many meetings has Helen Holmes offered to complainants in the following years?

Response 1.

Please can you clarify whether you are seeking information on the number of meetings that have taken place between Helen Holmes and complainants.

Comment :

Seems perfectly clear to me. What else could you mean?

Looks like this respondee is trying to cover up the fact the request was not treated with respect by arguing s/he didn't understand it.
An eight year old could understand this part of the request.

:::::

Respondee : There has been some confusion about the interpretation of your request in relation to question

Comment : There certainly has. Seems someone forgot to read and process it via FOIA properly.

:::::

Please also clarify whether you are interested in

a)meetings that have taken place in the context of issued or proposed litigation, or 's

Comment-

How would you know this? And why would you be asked to make a choice on technical grounds?
It is a number that you have asked for, not any defined specific content.

------

b)meetings taken place as part of policy development for the Public Service Ombudsman Bill,

Comment : With complainants ? As per request - COMPLAINANTS.

Is this respondee informing you that ordinary public Complainants guide the PHSO's lawyer in making the UK's PHSO legal policy?
Surely Ms Holmes, directed by the ombudsman and cabinet office isn't asking complainants to help define legal points?

Well perhaps she is - if the respondee is telling you so.

Otherwise, it looks like this strange and unnecessary addition has been introduced as an 'extra' to confuse the issue.
Very poor indeed.

----

or issues relation from casework or matters arising from FOI/DP cases, or
c) both of the above.

Comment - All this to try and explain why this request was not read, understood, evaluated and a sensible response given.

----

Opinion- S/ he should stop wasting your time, public money and get on with it without extrapolating for the sake of unnecessarily prolonging this request.

It's very hard to follow Fiona,

PHSO missed the date.

Then didn't seem to read what you are requesting - before providing..
....their own response ...to a request that you didn't make.

When you challenged that on April 15 ( that constitutes a review) the PHSO provided a response which amounts to:

We don't understand what 'a complaint meeting with HH' is.👀

What sort of meetings do you want..even ones without complainants or what? 🙄

Seems to be asking you to provide S16 help and advice to the responder which the PHSO should have given you in the first response -it didn't. Masking it as a 'clarification ' of the startlingly obvious.

Overall, it looks like the response is from a person who is new to the PHSO - and hasn't got enough clout to insist the requested FOIA data is retrieved.

::::

If the PHSO just dodges the request again...or pretends they don't understand who Helen Holmes is, or something equally fatuous - I'd send it to the ICO as a complaint.

Thank you J T Oakley.

You have form with the ICO, whereas mine has been abysmal.

I don't seem to have the skills set to engage them in a fit for purpose review of the events leading to repeated perjury against me.

Onwards & Forwards ...

You're right. There are numerous complaints about the cosines if the relationship between the PHSO and the ICO, as complaints about the ICO go to the ICO, it's basically a non-starter.

As you know, in my case, the PHSO wrote to the ICO that it had 'no remit' to investigate my evidence ( anything to stop a fair investigation and cover up distinct 'departures from the truth' ).

I took it to court - and won.

I found the court wonderfully fair after the PHSO and ICO.

Intelligent legal reading of the evidence ( yes the ICO had the remit but was bullied out of it) and none of the time wasting gaming that you get with the PHSO.

But it's a long haul - with lots of work.

And the result is a negative.

Even AFTER a critical verdict the PHSO shows complete contempt of the court's summary.

So what can say?

At all costs it protects its employees ( as we saw with the Mick Martin/Dame Julie Mellor eventual resignations) because, unlike mere proles, the PHSO doesn't consider its privileged employees subject to any Tribunal verdicts.