Helen Holmes & her offer to former complainants to have a "meeting".

The request was partially successful.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

1) How many meetings has Helen Holmes offered to complainants in the following years.

April to April timeline please.
a) 2014
b) 2015
c) 2016
d) 2017

2) What are the procedures for progressing an invitation to a meeting at the PHSO?

3) Are there any protocols to protect victims from malfeasance by the Ombudsman?

4) Are there any procedures in place for preventing Helen Holmes acting with malfeasance against victims when they are at their most vulnerable due to not being able to resolve medical errors against them?

5) Are there any protocols that might prevent Helen Holmes from delaying her offer of a "meeting" by months and then years?

I look forward to your "S16" co-operation.

Yours faithfully,

Fiona Watts

@MAGNACARTA300

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
______________________________________________________________________

Shah Deepa, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear Fiona Watts,

 

Your information request: FDN- 274493

 

I write in response to your email of 15 March 2017 in which you requested
information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman  in the
following terms:

 

1) How many meetings has Helen Holmes offered to complainants in the
following years.

 

April to April timeline please.

a) 2014

b) 2015

c) 2016

d) 2017

 

Meetings are offered on a case by case basis and relate to potential legal
issues raised by complainants.  As a general rule, meetings are offered to
complainants who comply with the pre action protocol at the time that a
formal response is sent.  The detail and number of such offers is legally
privileged and therefore exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the
FOI Act.  Other meetings are offered that relate to wider legal matters
such as the meeting with PHSOthefacts on 11 May 2016 on the draft
legislation.

 

2) What are the procedures for progressing an invitation to a meeting at
the PHSO? 

 

There are no procedures.  

 

3) Are there any protocols to protect victims from malfeasance by the
Ombudsman? 

 

There are no protocols.

 

4) Are there any procedures in place for preventing Helen Holmes acting
with malfeasance against victims when they are at their most vulnerable
due to not being able to resolve medical errors against them? 

 

There are no procedures.

 

5) Are there any protocols that might prevent Helen Holmes from delaying
her offer of a "meeting" by months and then years? 

 

There are no protocols.

 

I am sorry I am unable to assist further but hope that this information is
useful. If you believe I have made an error in the way I have processed
your information request, it is open to you to request an internal review.
You can do this by writing to us by post or by 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,

 

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Follow us on

 

[3]fb  [4]twitter  [5]linkedin

 

______________________________________________________________________
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.facebook.com/phsombudsman
4. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
5. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

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.

Dear Shah Deepa,

Further to your reply 3 days ago, you need to clarify the following;

a) Did you mean to act with malfeasance against me in your reply on 12th April 2017?

b) I refer you to JT Oakley's factually correct annotation published under your response; and I have to ask you to clarify whether it was it your intention to mislead me?

c) Are you aware of Tort of Misconduct In Public Office?

d) On the 12th April 2017, you wrote the following:

"As a general rule, meetings are offered to complainants who comply with the pre action protocol at the time that a formal response is sent".

i) You replied "No protocol" and "No procedures" in 4 out 5 of your responses; so I am genuinely confused by the above comment "as a general rule"?

ii) I am more confused and perplexed now than I was before. Therefore, in respect of UK data legislation, please clarify what "rules' do exist for staff at The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman?

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

 #magnacarta300
#lawcomMIPO

Dear Jt Oakley,

Thank you for your guidance.

I am always grateful to your and your input. The staff at the PHSO seem to try to make fools of us and they would usually succeed if it were not for your knowledge and input.

Many thanks again.

Fiona Watts

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Good luck Fiona,

Dear Shah Deepa,

I seek a reply to my request for clarity in compliance with UK data laws.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

Dear Shah Deepa,

A best response to my FOI has been delayed.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

Shah Deepa, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Fiona Watts

Thank you for your emails in relation to this request.

There has been some confusion about the interpretation of your request in relation to question 1. Please can you clarify whether you are seeking information on the number of meetings that have taken place between Helen Holmes and complainants. If so, please also clarify whether you are interested in a)meetings that have taken place in the context of issued or proposed litigation, or
b)meetings taken place as part of policy development for the Public Service Ombudsman Bill, or issues relation from casework or matters arising from FOI/DP cases, or
c) both of the above.

I will be in a position to respond more fully once this has been clarified.

Kind regards

Deepa Shah
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Follow us on

show quoted sections

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

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.

Dear Shah Deepa,

Lets have a review of whats going on here;
you have a wage for the "job" that you do whilst I have been unable to return to my career due to 300 false items of data that were shared about me across over 40 government departments, regulators and charities; for example, I do not have "two children in care".

As your intention is to waste my time and challenge my ability to keep Good Mental Hygiene, then I have no option but to charge for my time. Please acknowledge the charge of £150 for your delay and malfeasance against me on here. Your delay is wasting my time and causing me grief.

Please note that I will donate the money to the VOLUNTEERS who are responsible for this.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

Dear Shah Deepa,

Now, lets resolve your failure to comply with UK data laws?

I refer you to J T Oakley's annotation to this FOI.

"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. "

Ms Deepa, you should be in no doubt of how you need to best respond to my original FOI posted on here on 15th March 2017. Please best comply with the Nolan Principles and UK data laws.

Many thanks.

Fiona Watts
 #MIPO_phso

Dear J T Oakley

This website wrote;

By law, the Ombudsman should have provided a response before the end of 13 April 2017.
They are NOT above the law are they?

THANK YOU for your help JT Oakley. As you can see, I am clueless and very much out of my depth!

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

  #MIPO_phso
 #MIPO_ nhs
 #lawComMipo

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

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.

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

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 ...

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

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.

Shah Deepa, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Fiona Watts,

Thank you for your email below and clarifying your request.
Please see the information below.

1. The number of meetings taken place between Helen Holmes and complainants is as below. Please note that Helen Holmes joined the PHSO in 2015, so no information is held for 2014.

2015- 2 meetings
2016- 3 meetings
2017- 0 meetings

As previously advised, we hold no recorded information on questions 2 to 5 made in your original request.

Kind regards

Deepa Shah
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Follow us on

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org