In respect to PA-266397
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
Can you please provide me with details of the status of this investigation as it appears despite contacting investigator earlier this year. I have not had later correspondence than the 21st March 2017.
Yours faithfully,
CEO Mr. Newbold
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 Mr Newbold
If you have a complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, please can you get in touch with us privately. We are unable to discuss individual complaints in a public forum.
Kind regards,
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
CEO Mr Newbold (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
I think you might mean years not months, Jt Oakley
I am finding it difficult to get a response from them. This is odd as I have asked to be a party to the investigation process. Which has not currently transpired.
CEO Mr Newbold
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Dear InformationRights,
Please note I have served you with a legal request for documents in relation to this alleged investigation which you state that you have been conducting yet your investigator has shown me little evidence privately that this process is being investigated further than a telephone conversation. When I have telephoned and written for correspondence nothing is being provided.
Yours sincerely,
CEO Mr. Newbold
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
______________________________________________________________________
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
You can't be. It's not the British system of justice.
It's the continental system - where both sides put it all files ....and it's only a ombudsman that gets to read and judge both for a decision.
In practice, it means that the other party withholds loads of files - and you will never know that they have.
So is rather bent towards the side .
But you can so for a SAR This is where you can read your communications between you and PHSO- and some of the stuff might be included. What do you have to do is find any points which the PHSO has got wrong in judging your case.
And put them in for review. You may get ignored as the PHSO doesn't ever like to be told it's got anything wrong,
Even when it's blazingly obvious that it has. My complaint upheld - but it was a real struggle against an arrogant couple of officers .
:::::
Going to the SAR page from the ICO. You have to fill the form in and send it from your home address - not from this site.
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/person...
There is a template letter on it for you to follow, but I just write to the phso stating :
I am making a subject access request for all data which you hold in my name
..and give your name and address etc.
Good luck.
CEO Mr Newbold (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Dear Jt Oakley,
By SAR do you mean The Suspicious Activity Reports ?
I am involved in a huge struggle for public owned land which was given to the public and is being stolen by officers with the help of agents of government departments. None of this benefits me directly but benefits the community I live in.
I don't know why some of the decisions are so complicated to see from the legal perspective. Its almost like they don't want to uphold the laws of our country or the EU which we are currently still obliged to follow.
Thanks
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
No - Subject Access request.( see link above)
And don't forget to ask for the metadata,....which Public Authorities tend to 'forget'.
This is all the computer input - and is sometimes very valuable as to funding out who did what and when.
Good luck
Dear Mr Newbold
I have passed your request for an update on to the relevant staff.
As we have already advised, we are unable to discuss complaints in a public forum. This is due to the privacy provisions within the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as well as the Data Protection Act 1998.
If you would like to make a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act, you can do so by writing to us at: [PHSO request email].
Yours sincerely
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [PHSO request email]
Dear InformationRights,
I quite am sure I do not need to point out to you that there is a quite reasonable method of protecting privacy rights by means in use by all organizations that are in compliance with the Access to Information Rights. These procedures are known as redaction which enables you to act within the acts which you have stated. Furthermore, my request was for the status of this investigation:
"Can you please provide me with details of the status of this investigation"
Which bears no relevance to any of the Acts which you presented as an exemption.
Please send me recorded information, which includes information held on computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten documents as well as images, video and audio recordings.
If this request is too wide or unclear, and you require a clarification, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I understand that under the Act, you are required to advise and assist requesters.(Section 16 / Regulation 9).
If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to charge excessive fees.
If any of this information is already in the public domain, please can you direct me to it, with page references and URLs if necessary?
Please confirm or deny whether the requested information is held ( section (Section 1(1)(a) and consider whether information should be provided under section 1(1)(b), or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of the Act.
If the release of any of this information is prohibited on the grounds of breach of confidence, I ask that you supply me with copies of the confidentiality agreement and remind you that
information should not be treated as confidential if such an agreement has not been signed.
I would like the above information in relation to this request for information to be provided to me as electronic copies, via WDTK. The information should be immediately readable - and, as a freedom of Information request, not put in a PDF or any closed form, which some readers may not be able to access.
I understand that you are required to respond to my request within the 20 working days after you receive this initial request. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request.
Yours sincerely,
CEO Mr. Newbold
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 Mr Newbold
Your information request (FDC-274263)
As previously stated, it is open to you to make a subject access request
under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to us by writing to:
[1][PHSO request email]. However, we are generally unable to release
information about individual cases under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).
Section 11 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 sets out the
provisions for secrecy of information obtained during the course of an
investigation. As this legislation prevents the wider release of
information about investigations, the exemption at section 44(1)(a) FOIA
applies to your information request.
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 [2][PHSO 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 ([3]www.ico.org.uk).
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [5][PHSO request email]
From: CEO Mr Newbold [mailto:[FOI #403969 email]]
Sent: 05 May 2017 16:24
To: InformationRights
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - In respect to
PA-266397
Dear InformationRights,
I quite am sure I do not need to point out to you that there is a quite
reasonable method of protecting privacy rights by means in use by all
organizations that are in compliance with the Access to Information
Rights. These procedures are known as redaction which enables you to act
within the acts which you have stated. Furthermore, my request was for the
status of this investigation:
"Can you please provide me with details of the status of this
investigation"
Which bears no relevance to any of the Acts which you presented as an
exemption.
Please send me recorded information, which includes information held on
computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten documents as well as
images, video and audio recordings.
If this request is too wide or unclear, and you require a clarification, I
would be grateful if you could contact me as I understand that under the
Act, you are required to advise and assist requesters.(Section 16 /
Regulation 9).
If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify all
deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I will also
expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve the right to
appeal your decision to withhold any information or to charge excessive
fees.
If any of this information is already in the public domain, please can you
direct me to it, with page references and URLs if necessary?
Please confirm or deny whether the requested information is held ( section
(Section 1(1)(a) and consider whether information should be provided under
section 1(1)(b), or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of
the Act.
If the release of any of this information is prohibited on the grounds of
breach of confidence, I ask that you supply me with copies of the
confidentiality agreement and remind you that
information should not be treated as confidential if such an agreement has
not been signed.
I would like the above information in relation to this request for
information to be provided to me as electronic copies, via WDTK. The
information should be immediately readable - and, as a freedom of
Information request, not put in a PDF or any closed form, which some
readers may not be able to access.
I understand that you are required to respond to my request within the 20
working days after you receive this initial request. I would be grateful
if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request.
Yours sincerely,
CEO Mr. Newbold
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
You have already made the request but they have to have your private address as they have to be sure that data protection is in place-( you could be another person with the same name).
And they can't give it to you via WDTK for this reason as it's NOT a FOIA request...which are the requests on this site - but a SAR ( personal data..only applying to you and not a general request ) .
So write to PHSO -giving your private address as stated- and remind the PHSO that you have already technically made the request on the date above, so they should provide it quickly.
Good luck
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Dear Madam,
Thank you for your advice in regard to data access. I have already served you with an information request for information which is not covered by your privacy or secrecy. I believe and imagine you have made an error incorrigibility You are also not providing me proper responses in this matter PA-266397 which I have asked for in hard copy and have not been forthcoming to date.
1) Can you please explain why the exemption at section 44(1)(a) FOIA applies to your information request. applies directly to this request.
Under the Data Protection Act 1998, there is an obligation under protocol 4 where the principles are to ensure that all information is suitably held.
Yours sincerely,
CEO Mr Newbold
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
______________________________________________________________________
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Dear Madam,
I am of the opinion that you are currently promoting a paradoxical contradictory legislation in your use of this exemption in this case. I ask you to consider reasonable reasoning in this as on one hand you claim exemption stating your investigation and information contained therein is confidential and cannot, therefore, provide a "status" of this investigation under an FOIA Request as you have stated it is exempt. Yet by this reasoning, it is also unclear by this exemption if an investigation is occurring and this exemption can be valid in its exemption then I wonder if in this case, you have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal your own abuse of power?
Your investigator has repeatedly told me that my case PA-266397 is taking a back seat as he has far more serious matters to deal with. Do I wonder that this is because he is treating our wildlife as an unequal in his time-sharing as a minority and having no rights? Which is contrary to the legislation of our current government.
Yours Sincerely,
CEO Mr. Newbold
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 Mr Newbold
Your information request (FDC-274263)
Thank you for your further email. In my previous email I explained that
the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 prevents us from responding to
your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). That
legislation is available at: [1]www.legislation.gov.uk. As you will see,
section 11 sets out the provisions for secrecy of information. These do
not extend to discussing an investigation on a public website or providing
the information you have requested under FOIA.
As stated before, it is open to you to make a subject access request under
the Data Protection Act 1998. If you would like to do this, please let us
know by writing to us at: [2][PHSO request email]
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [4][PHSO request email]
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk
You do not seem to be reading what is written to you and respond then to the matters at hand, this has all moved on since your inappropriate reply it is not appropriate for a government department to use legislation in a catch-22 to withhold information.
You have not indicated to me that despite the amount of time concerned you have provided me no evidence that an investigation is ongoing. simply providing a number is not providing an investigation: (which starts with obtaining information then examines that information and writes up a report which is based on findings).
I caution you that I have recordings and transcripts of all calls with the alleged Investigator who has provided me with no credentials and am happy to provide you with those transcripts and recordings here on this public site to aid you with your investigation.
You have given no valid reasoning with your exemption just quoting legislation which seems inappropriate and introducing catch 22 and which is strengthening my observation that you have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal your own abuse of power? Please ensure you cover my questions in your response as it is not adequate in law to just make statements when you have been asked to reasonably debate these issue. I refer you to my Royal Mail signed for letter received by your office 10:38 am 23rd May 2017 as signed for by RON. at your victoria delivery office https://www.royalmail.com/track-your-ite....
Yours sincerely,
CEO Mr Newbold
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
______________________________________________________________________
CEO Mr Newbold (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Jt Oakley
Thank you for your comment.
Yes I am painfully aware that they are also aware of the NATURE OF THE REQUEST. It seems very odd that they will not provide details of the status of this investigation when it is clear that in my opinion, that i have had no sight of an investigation since this matter was referred to the Investigator 21st March 2017 some 64 days (some two months) ago. I repeat I am in no doubt that from the information I have been provided that no investigation is occurring. I do not know why it is not. This was referred to them by my MP I am unsure why they are not acting under their remit.
CEO Mr Newbold
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Dear Madam
Please additionally see my correspondence sent to Secretary of the State, Alleged Investigator who is not appearing currently to do his job, Consultations at Natural England who had not heard of this investigation, Sussex police, and Council Planning 24.05.2017 at 11:09 am an explanation is required. Please note I have served a further FOIA request "The request is for details of the method and procedure steps used by the Investigator as part of a PHSO investigation to investigate a Government body. Can you additionally provide details of the consequences for any stage misdirection and the procedures to ensure investigation by a government department is conducted correctly?" dated 24 May 2017.
See:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d... "www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/details_of_the_method_and_proced"
Yours faithfully,
CEO Mr. Newbold
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,
This request is long overdue and should have provided the information request under the Act 2010
Yours faithfully,
CEO Mr Newbold
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
______________________________________________________________________
Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()
Dear Mr N,
Are you a where of the Open Spaces Society? In case it helps.
No help with this lot who are a law unto themselves, but in your effort to keep open spaces open.
Fiona Watts left an annotation ()
The PHSO wrote;
"Section 11 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 sets out the
provisions for secrecy of information obtained during the course of an
investigation. As this legislation prevents the wider release of
information about investigations, the exemption at section 44(1)(a) FOIA
applies to your information request."
But when you check out their website; the PHSO do nothing to warn people about their misuse of Section 11.
CEO Mr Newbold (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Yes, Brenda, I am aware of this organization you mentioned but have not had much help from them save using their Facebook Page. I didn't believe they had any teeth to do much more.
Hi Fiona, Yes I am aware of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. When I told them that we had proof that Natural England had no internal regulation structure. The investigator told me that this was not part of his investigation remit! See here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
I could not believe this, his remit was that Natural England was not capable of issuing licenses. I would have thought this was not narrow at all
CEO Mr Newbold
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
"The request is for details of the method and procedure steps used by the Investigator as part of a PHSO investigation to investigate a Government body.
CEO Mr Newbold - we have been asking for this methodology for years. It does not exist. They will point you to their new 'service charter' and it's unlikely that any of these woolly statements will improve your understanding. Basically, the name of the game is to scope out of your complaint anything which could be damning for the public body concerned.
"Can you additionally provide details of the consequences for any stage misdirection and the procedures to ensure investigation by a government department is conducted correctly?"
CEO Mr Newbold - this one is much easier to answer - there are no consequences. PHSO monitors itself and always finds itself to have acted appropriately, equally it finds the majority of government departments to have acted appropriately. Welcome to the rabbit-hole of PHSO dysfunction. It could take you years to find your way out.
CEO Mr Newbold (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
I am unsure under whose authority the PSHO have changed the scope of the investigation that I have with them regarding this matter. The opening discussions were recorded that this entity was not capable of performing its role with regard to licensing. I cannot see therefore this can be changed to omit whatever the PHSO feels is detrimental to making a favorable decision for this entity, when this is supposed to be a fair process?
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
PHSO have total discretion to act as they see fit. It's enshrined in their legislation. The Ombudsman can decide whether to start an investigation, the scope of the investigation and whether to end the investigation using this discretion. If you don't like it you will have to take them to judicial review and good luck with that. It is supposed to be fair but as you are finding out it is not fair for the complainant.
Dear Mr CEO Newbold
Ms Gasston has passed me your correspondence to respond to.
1. “You have provided no evidence that an investigation is ongoing” –
Ms Gasston was correct in her correspondence that we cannot provide
personal information in a public forum. This is both in line with the
provisions set out under the Data Protection Act and the Parliamentary
Commissioners Act and because we do not want to breach a confidence. What
do they know.com (WDTK) is a public forum where any personal information
provided to it is published on its website. We do not consider it is
appropriate or desirable to publish personal information about a
complainant’s case. If you provide an alternative private email account
we can process your subject access request accordingly.
2. I think it is important to clarify, that requests for a requestors
own personal information should be made under the Data Protection Act and
not the Freedom of Information Act – as is described in the Information
Commissioners Guidance. Consequently, the provisions, obligations and
duties placed on the public authority are different.
If you would like any details of your case then provide a private email
and we will process your request in accordance with the Data Protection
Act.
Regards
Information Rights
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Dear Pillinger-Cork Jonathan,
I have tried to contact the case worker yesterday by telephone to no end. My last conversation with him was rather one sided with regard to him informing me the scope of my investigation, which is something I understood was set by the parameter of a conversation outlining the complaint.
Because of these issues not being resolved further problems for organizations are persisting on sites where incorrect information is being given. It is quite apparent that new evidence was provided to the investigator and then ignored! How can an investigation be being conducted and not a situation where you are still gathering information?
I have asked you to provide me details of this investigation to prove to me one is happening on a public forum you will not do this to indicate that an investigation is occurring. The neglect of evidence processing respect to decisions on WDTK which have reached Internal Review for clarification is ridiculous and not constructive to the best investigation you could provide me. Can you explain why this happening? Why are you not able to establish an investigation is occurring?
Yours sincerely,
CEO Mr Newbold
Hi there
I've now left the PHSO. Please contact [email address].
Kind Regards
Jonathan
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
Fiona Watts left an annotation ()
Dear CEO Mr Newbold,
Oh deary me? It seems that those of us following your FOI request are now witness to two classic PHSO manoeuvres against a service user.
1. Get a member of PHSO staff to respond to your query - just before they leave their job at the PHSO.
(Nothing like passing you around different members of staff during and after a so called review of your case, to try to put you off making any further enquiries on here and/ or in private)
2. Behind the scenes, get the PHSO staff to put pressure on the WDTK website volunteers to remove anything factually correct about the public's experience of Parliamentary Ombudsman service.
After the PHSO has provided their report and you have the energy and resources left to take it to a Judicial Review, you then discover from the NHS and SERCO lawyers that you were hoodwinked by the Ombudsman.
You then discover that your case was never investigated, instead, your records were edited of all of that data that would give you your basic human right to justice in a timely fashion.
This is why, after 300 FOI's on here, I ma left with no choice but to display a banner outside my house next month. There is only so much perjury one citizen can manage ...
GOOD LUCK.
All the best,
Fiona
@magnacarta300
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Could take months Nr Newbold
The PHSO might not tell you it has closed your case, even when you've asked for a review.
If you find you're not getting any response, the PHSO has probably moved to ghosting you.
Perhaps involve your MP again?
The PHSO ignored mine ( later criticised for it).
So its not 100percent guaranteed that not even MP's won't get ghosted.
Good luck.