ICE cases not investigated

The request was successful.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

You recently wrote (FDN-188577):

"In order to facilitate the change in our approach, we changed our threshold of assessments to investigate complaints. Historically we set quite a high bar and approach was to not investigate a complaint unless evidence showed the complaint was likely to be upheld.  Because we wanted to be able to investigate more cases for more people we now start an investigation where there is an indication of injustice in consequence of maladministration or service failure unless there is a good reason not to."

For the year 2013/14 you accepted 139 cases from complainants dissatisfied with the service they received from the Independent Case Examiner, of which you upheld 3. For the years 2012/13 you accepted 10 cases and for the year 2011/12 you accepted 7.

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

For each of the 3 years identified, please specify the number of cases concerning the Independent Case Examiner that you chose not to investigate.

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The review team is managed by the legal advisor.

If a complainant wants to challenge the review team's decision, the complainant supposedly goes to the legal advisor. But the legal advisor doesn't communicate with the public directly ( just try ringing her up) .

Nb It took 11 months to get a response in my case - and via the FoI department and operations officer.

So your challenge may go nowhere without a circuitous route.....Because even if you get it to the legal advisor, she can pass the challenge back to the review team, which refuses to look at the points raised in your challenge again.

::::::

Taking PHSO employees out of it .. Logically, what line manager wants to constantly send their own departmental cases to an external investigator?

Too many ....and it might look as if their team was badly managed.

So the obvious strategy for a manager wishing to avoid corporate criticism would be to 'bounce-back' complaints to his/ her own team - for presumed closure.

Back at the PHSO :

At the PHSO , this 'bounce- back' system is in place and it is why complainants get so frustrated.

Because, even if their challenge is not justified, how can they be sure of a fair assessment - even if, by some fluke or mischance, they can get it to the departmental head legal advisor?

::::

If the complainants challenge gets as far as an 'independent' external investigator, note that they are paid for by the PHSO and also report to ....the legal advisor.

Don't believe that the external investigators report is for Dame Julie Mellor's eyes only.

My external investigator sent his report to the legal advisor on the same day that he sent to the Ombudsman.

So, in effect, the legal advisor may read the 'independent' report from the external investigator reporting to her, before the Ombudsman does.

::::::

What the PHSO needs is a system where a challenge to the review team's performance goes to a separate department - The PHSO already has one.

It's the aptly named 'Investigations Department'.

So the continuation of the with the current bounce-back system should be under review,

The Investigations Department would employ independent external investigators.

So that all investigations are done at arms-length from all those with a vested interest in the performance of the review team.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

J Roberts

By email only

 

 

FDN-191421

 

 

4 June 2014

 

 

Dear J Roberts

 

RE: Information request

 

I write in response to your email of 12 May 2014 requesting information
made in the following terms:

 

For each of the 3 years identified [2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14], please
specify the number of cases concerning the Independent Case Examiner that
you chose not to investigate.

 

For years prior to 2013/2014 the information you are seeking can be found
at
[1]http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-pu....

 

The information for 2013/2014 is due for publication later in the year,
however I can provide you with the following information for the
Independent Case Examiner:

 

Complaints received: 238

Complaints accepted for investigation: 102

 

I hope that this information is helpful.  If you are unhappy with my
decision you can ask for a review by email to:
complaints[2][email address]

 

If you still have concerns after that, you can ask the Information
Commissioner’s Office to look into your case.  Their contact details are
available on their website at: [3]www.ico.org.uk

 

Yours sincerely

 

David Thomas

FOI/Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [4][email address]

W: [5]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

show quoted sections

Dear foiofficer,

There is an apparent discrepancy in the information you have provided to me (FN-191421). You wrote:

"The information for 2013/2014 is due for publication later in the year, however I can provide you with the following information for the Independent Case Examiner:

Complaints received: 238

Complaints accepted for investigation: 102"

The ICE has suggested that I write to you to seek clarification of the period that your figures cover:

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

How do you account for your lower figure of 102?

Can you confirm that the number of cases upheld against the ICE for the year 2013/14 was 3?

Yours sincerely,

J Roberts

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

J Roberts left an annotation ()

In response to another request the PHSO wrote:

"3. I have spoken with the Deputy Director of Parliamentary Investigations and he has advised me that the figures with which you were previously provided relate to the calendar year 2013. I am sorry for any confusion caused by our previous response."

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