We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are De Bert please sign in and let everyone know.

Identify the Correct Authority

We're waiting for De Bert to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Sir/Madam,

A local NHS office directed a patient to a dental practice some distance from the his home. The dentist was not preferred however, the NHS explained there was no alternative although, later it transpired the NHS had lied.

There were problems at the practice. The patient was not welcome and, quite apart from the practice's failure to treat the patient well, there began an escalation of other difficulties. In hindsight it would appear the NHS direction was 'loaded'.

Would you identify any material you hold which identifies you as a/the competent authority to deal with complaints against i) a dentist and ii) a dental practice.

And, given the above, the NHS involvement, failure of the PCT to address a complaint and other failings and misdirections, would you kindly identify any material held which identifies you as a/the competent authority to deal with such a matter.
(If you are not the competent authority, would you kindly identify one)

Yours faithfully,
De Bert

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
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Are you planning to offer a response? I've enclosed the original query below:

Delivered - 4 July 2017 (and received acknowledgement of delivery)
Dear Sir/Madam,
A local NHS office directed a patient to a dental practice some distance from the his home. The dentist was not preferred however, the NHS explained there was no alternative although, later it transpired the NHS had lied.
There were problems at the practice. The patient was not welcome and, quite apart from the practice's failure to treat the patient well, there began an escalation of other difficulties. In hindsight it would appear the NHS direction was 'loaded'.
Would you identify any material you hold which identifies you as a/the competent authority to deal with complaints against i) a dentist and ii) a dental practice.
And, given the above, the NHS involvement, failure of the PCT to address a complaint and other failings and misdirections, would you kindly identify any material held which identifies you as a/the competent authority to deal with such a matter.
(If you are not the competent authority, would you kindly identify one)
Yours faithfully.....

Yours faithfully,
DB

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
______________________________________________________________________

Kimberley Harris, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mr De Bert, 

Thank you for your enquiry. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
would deal with a complaint regarding a dentist or dental treatment
provided by the NHS. We would only do so if the complaint process with the
dentist has been completed.

Yours sincerely,

Kimberley Harris

Customer Service Officer

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Kimberley Harris,

Subject: Re: PHSO:0608000057

I understood the message below (or something similar) was sent you October 1, 2017. Did you receive it?

.....October 1, 2017
Dear Kimberley Harris

Subject, PHSO:0608000057

Many thanks for your message.

Complaints were made to the Dentist then escalated to the local PCT. The matter then sat on a GDC desk for about two years before it chose to acknowledge that it was not a matter for them (the GDC). I understand remedy is prejudiced because of the same; that's to say, time limitations dictated the Ombudsman's ability to deal with the complaint. If this is not correct, please tell me.

What would be useful now is to identify an authority competent to look into this affair. So, given the additional information above, and as you are able under the Act, would you kindly identify such an authority (if not yourselves).....

Yours sincerely,

De Bert

Harris Kimberley, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Email HK 171113 101452.switch

    2K Download

This email has been sent to you securely using Egress Switch.

Click https://reader.egress.com/p/2f1e1e63874a... to read it online.

If you have Switch installed, simply open the attachment.

--------
Regular user? Download our FREE desktop or mobile apps at http://www.egress.com/integrated-access/ .

Having problems accessing this email? Visit http://www.egress.com/support-articles-g... .

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Unless your latest message is particularly sensitive or exposes something Id prefer not exposed, perhaps you'd kindly send me a response without me having to sign up for yet an other third party app. to access messages.

I suspect the only security implications here are of the type which exposes phso failings.

I enclose my last message:

De Bert 12 November 2017 - Delivered
Dear Kimberley Harris,
Subject: Re: PHSO:0608000057
I understood the message below (or something similar) was sent you October 1, 2017. Did you receive it?
.....October 1, 2017
Dear Kimberley Harris
Subject, PHSO:0608000057
Many thanks for your message.
Complaints were made to the Dentist then escalated to the local PCT. The matter then sat on a GDC desk for about two years before it chose to acknowledge that it was not a matter for them (the GDC). I understand remedy is prejudiced because of the same; that's to say, time limitations dictated the Ombudsman's ability to deal with the complaint. If this is not correct, please tell me.
What would be useful now is to identify an authority competent to look into this affair. So, given the additional information above, and as you are able under the Act, would you kindly identify such an authority (if not yourselves).....
Yours sincerely,....

Yours faithfully,

De Bert

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
______________________________________________________________________

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are De Bert please sign in and let everyone know.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org