Scope

Brenda Prentice made this Freedom of Information request to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

What prevision is there to request a change to parameters of scope?

Scope cannot be dealt with until a case is closed and a review requested. Since few cases are alter at review, this would appear to be closing the stable door after the horse has gone.

It is not the case that 'scope' is agreed with the case worker. Complainants are told what will be in scope.

Yours faithfully,

Brenda Prentice

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
______________________________________________________________________

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear Brenda Prentice

 

Your information request: FDN 272136

 

I write in response to your information request of 6 October 2016 in which
you asked:

 

‘What prevision is there to request a change to parameters of scope?

 

Scope cannot be dealt with until a case is closed and a review requested.
Since few cases are alter at review, this would appear to be closing the
stable door after the horse has gone.

 

It is not the case that 'scope' is agreed with the case worker.
Complainants are told what will be in scope’.

 

Please find below the link to our Service Model Guidance:

 

[1]http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/asset...

 

Page 50 sets out the process our Investigators follow for scoping an
investigation.  Both the complainant and organisation complained about are
given an opportunity to comment on the proposed scope before the
investigation is confirmed. Without acceptance of the scope from the
complainant, we cannot continue the investigation.

 

Page 50 also explains the process of expanding the scope of the complaint
once the investigation is underway.  Again the amended scope would be
agreed with both the complainant and the organisation complained about.

 

I hope this information is helpful. If you are unhappy with the way I have
handled your information request you may ask for an internal review by
emailing [Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]. Further to that you may
contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Her contact details can be
found at www.ico.org.uk.

 

Kind regards

 

Rebecca Gadsdon

FOI/DP Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 1516

E: [2][email address]

W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[4]fb  [5]twitter  [6]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. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/asset...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
4. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
5. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
6. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you for your response.

I note under Customers Services Guidance it says;
43.It is often the case that even after they have been in contact with Customer Care, some of our complainants are still dissatisfied and want to complain further. Complainants can challenge our decisions through a Judicial Review.
However, there is no organisation that can specifically look into an individual complaint about the service we provide.

Under your Service Model it says
5.7 The Investigator should ensure that the parties understand and accept the scope of the investigation before the investigation is confirmed (Policy requirement). Without acceptance of the scope from the complainant, we cannot continue the investigation.

The point is, if you don't agree with what the case worker says, there may be no investigation anyway, so take it or leave it the order of the day. As PHSO has said, 'it is our investigation , no the complainant's.'
Any 'provision' is not adequate for the complainant to make any changes at that stage, later after the draft report is made, very few changes ever happen.

The system is set up for complainants to lose. It is waste of public money to lead the public on thinking they will get a fair and just hearing, when they don't. And there is no accountability as point 43 above says.

So the answer to my question is, no adequate provision and there doesn't need to be. As point 43 says, there is no organisation that can specifically look into an individual complaint about the service we provide.

It would be better not to lead the public on by saying, PHSO is the last place the public can find justice. There is no justice.

I would like an internal review please.

Yours sincerely,

Brenda Prentice

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,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'Scope'.

Please see my previous response,.

There is no adequate provision to deal with Scope for the complainant. What has been written in 'guidance' does not work.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

Brenda Prentice

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,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'Scope'.
Dear InformationRights,
Thank you for your response.
I note under Customers Services Guidance it says;
43.It is often the case that even after they have been in contact with Customer Care, some of our complainants are still dissatisfied and want to complain further. Complainants can challenge our decisions through a Judicial Review.
However, there is no organisation that can specifically look into an individual complaint about the service we provide.
Under your Service Model it says
5.7 The Investigator should ensure that the parties understand and accept the scope of the investigation before the investigation is confirmed (Policy requirement). Without acceptance of the scope from the complainant, we cannot continue the investigation.
The point is, if you don't agree with what the case worker says, there may be no investigation anyway, so take it or leave it the order of the day. As PHSO has said, 'it is our investigation , no the complainant's.'
Any 'provision' is not adequate for the complainant to make any changes at that stage, later after the draft report is made, very few changes ever happen.
The system is set up for complainants to lose. It is waste of public money to lead the public on thinking they will get a fair and just hearing, when they don't. And there is no accountability as point 43 above says.
So the answer to my question is, no adequate provision and there doesn't need to be. As point 43 says, there is no organisation that can specifically look into an individual complaint about the service we provide.
It would be better not to lead the public on by saying, PHSO is the last place the public can find justice. There is no justice.
I would like an internal review please.
Yours sincerely,

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

Brenda Prentice

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
______________________________________________________________________

D. Speers left an annotation ()

I totally agree:"It would be better not to lead the public on by saying, PHSO is the last place the public can find justice. There is no justice. "

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Brenda Prentice

Thank you for your email. I understand you are seeking an internal review of your information request. However it is not clear why you are dissatisfied with the response. Can you please clarify.

Many Thanks

Rebecca Gadsdon
FOI/DP Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
T: 0300 061 1516
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Follow us on

show quoted sections

Dear InformationRights,

I am asking for a review as the two numbers quoted from your guidance documents don't correspond, as I have remarked.

Please tell me if my assumption made with the information you have supplied is correct?

If that is the case, can they both be right?

Yours sincerely,

Brenda Prentice

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
______________________________________________________________________

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Brenda Prentice

 

Your internal review (FDN-272136)

 

Further to your emails of 2 November 2016 and after that point, I am
writing with a response to your request for an internal review.  This
review will look at whether your information request was dealt with in
compliance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA). 

 

Was the request responded to in time?

 

We received the request on 6 October 2016 and responded to it on 1
November 2016.  As this was within the time limit of twenty working days
stipulated by section 10(1) FOIA, we responded to the request in a timely
fashion. 

 

Was the request complied with fully?

I have concluded that the response provided to you, comprising a narrative
along with links to information already available in the public domain
(the PHSO Service Model), fully complies with the terms of your request. 
Our response explicitly addresses the question that you raised.

 

It might be helpful if I explain that section 21 FOIA allows public
authorities to redirect requestors where the information requested is
reasonably accessible by another means.  Please note that FOIA only
entitles a right to information which is recorded.  I have concluded that
you have been made aware of all recorded information relevant to your
request.  While you may disagree with the content of the information to
which we have redirected you, it does not follow that we did not provide
you with a response compliant with the provisions of FOIA.

 

If you are unhappy with a service you have received from PHSO or a
decision it has made, information on how to raise such concerns is
available on our website at the following link:
[1]www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-complaint/feedback-about-us

 

You may also wish to note for future reference that all of PHSO’s current
policies are available as part of our publication scheme here:
[2]www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/being-open-and-transparent/our-publication-scheme/our-policies-and-procedures  

Outcome of review

 

For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that your request was
dealt with in a legally compliant manner.  I do not uphold your complaint.

 

I hope that this response is helpful.  If you remain dissatisfied with our
handling of your request, 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][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

 

From: Brenda Prentice [mailto:[FOI #363188 email]]
Sent: 02 November 2016 11:04
To: InformationRights
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Scope

 

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you for your response.

I note under Customers Services  Guidance it says;
43.It is often the case that even after they have been in contact with
Customer Care, some of our complainants are still dissatisfied and want to
complain further. Complainants can challenge our decisions through a
Judicial Review.
However, there is no organisation that can specifically look into an
individual complaint about the service we provide.

Under your Service Model it says
5.7 The Investigator should ensure that the parties understand and accept
the scope of the investigation before the investigation is confirmed
(Policy requirement). Without acceptance of the scope from the
complainant, we cannot continue the investigation.

The point is, if you don't agree with what the case worker says, there may
be no investigation anyway, so take it or leave it the order of the day. 
As PHSO has said, 'it is our investigation , no the complainant's.'
Any  'provision' is not adequate for the complainant to make any changes
at that stage, later after the draft report is made, very few changes ever
happen.

The system is set up for complainants to lose. It is  waste of public
money to lead the public on thinking  they will get a fair and just
hearing, when they don't.  And there is no accountability as point 43
above says.

So the answer to my question is,  no adequate provision and there doesn't
need to be. As point 43 says, there is no organisation that can
specifically look into an individual complaint about the service we
provide.

It would be better not to lead the public on by saying, PHSO is the last
place the public can find justice. There is no justice.

I would like an internal review please.

Yours sincerely,

Brenda Prentice

show quoted sections

Dear InformationRights,

I have read your response but I can't see the answer in the policies you have directed me to.
You have stated;
"For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that your request was
dealt with in a legally compliant manner.  I do not uphold your complaint".

Aimee, you may think you have responded in a 'legally compliant manner" but it does not answer the question. Point 43 says in effect the PHSO is above the law and can do as it likes.

Where in the policies of PHSO does it say that this organisation is above the law as point 43 indicates?

This must be made more transparent to members of the public. They don't understand this when they first come to PHSO, they are expecting a fair hearing . When it does dawn on them they will not get justice from the last adjudicator of Justice, it is a shock.

Can we have transparentcy please?

Yours sincerely,

Brenda Prentice

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
______________________________________________________________________

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Scope

Under your Service Model it says
5.7 The Investigator should ensure that the parties understand and accept
the scope of the investigation before the investigation is confirmed
(Policy requirement). Without acceptance of the scope from the
complainant, we cannot continue the investigation.

:::

Quite right. The problem is that the strategy that the NHS uses is to finally give up some witheld files after 'the PHSO scope' has been defined.

And the PHSO won't accept it as 'new evidence'.

Because it's decided on 'the scope' that it stated it was investigating - before the new files were 'found' by the NHS.

::::

And if you make a complaint against an PHSO employee - you cannot define the scope.

I tried but it was rejected. So a ridiculous investigation went ahead on an unagreed basis.

( I've seen some strokes in my time - but that one was one of the most contemptible. At least some organisations put up a pretence of giving a fair hearing).

Nb If you state that the 'investigator has gone ahead without any scope agreed and investigated something else other than your complaint' ....and therefore you request an external, investigator you are told you can't have one.

I was basically told.. don't be silly ....scope does not have to be agreed with internal complaints.

It wouldn't have been so bad but 'The scope' - as defined by me - was a Tribunal court verdict.

:::

The second one rejection of a Tribunal court criticism was that of Mick Martin -which led to Dame Julie Mellor's resignation.

Gasston Aimee, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear Mrs Prentice

Your internal review (FDN-272136)

 

Thank you for your further email.  I would like to confirm that we have no
further information which we can disclose to you.

 

If you are unhappy with a service you have received from PHSO or a
decision it has made, information on how to raise such concerns is
available on our website at the following link:
[1]www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-complaint/feedback-about-us

 

Yours sincerely

 

Aimee Gasston

Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [3][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

 

Follow us on

[4]fb  [5]twitter  [6]linkedin

 

From: Brenda Prentice [mailto:[FOI #363188 email]]
Sent: 29 December 2016 21:58
To: InformationRights
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Scope

 

Dear InformationRights,

I have read your response but I can't see the answer in the policies you
have directed me to.
You have stated;
 "For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that your request was
dealt with in a legally compliant manner.  I do not uphold your
complaint".

Aimee, you may think you have responded in a 'legally compliant manner"
but it does not answer the question. Point 43 says in effect the PHSO is
above the law and can do as it likes.

Where in the policies of PHSO does it say that this organisation is above
the law as point 43 indicates? 

This must be made more transparent to members of the public.  They don't
understand this when they first come to PHSO, they are expecting a fair
hearing . When it does dawn on them they will not get justice from the
last adjudicator of Justice, it is a shock.

Can we have transparentcy please?

Yours sincerely,

Brenda Prentice

show quoted sections