Stskeholder list

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman did not have the information requested.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
Could I ask please which the companies and organizations are on your STAKEHOLDER list

I am presuming your proposed stakeholder manager will need to have a list to manage?
I believe PHSO has spent a considerable sum developing on and it would be interesting to know which businesses and organizations are to be considered stakeholders!

Thank You

Yours faithfully,

D. Speers

foiofficer@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.

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Speers

 

Thank you for your 3 emails between 10 and 15 June 2015.  I have responded
to each of your queries below.

 

1.      ‘Just who are the ‪phso stakeholders?’

 

The PHSO does not define the term ‘stakeholder’, however I can confirm
that any party (individual or organisation) with an interest in the work
we undertake is considered a stakeholder.  To explain further, our
stakeholders may fall into the following broad categories:

·         People who use our services;

·         Organisations that provide advocacy services for people who use
our services e.g. Voiceability;

·         Organisations connected with people who use, or may use our,
services e.g. MS Society ;

·         Parliamentarians e.g. House of Commons Health Committee;

·         Bodies in our jurisdiction, e.g. DVLA; or

·         Organisations connected with bodies in our jurisdiction e.g. NHS
Confederation.

 

2.      ‘Why so much money being paid to engage a manager (cant we hear
direct from the stakeholders?)’

 

I note that this part of your request is asking for justification for the
salary of the Stakeholder Engagement Manager, recently advertised through
the PHSO website.  I also note that the Freedom of Information Act 2000
only contains a general right of access to recorded information.  However,
I have attached a copy of the Stakeholder Engagement Manager job
description to provide you with the context of the role.

 

3.      ‘With the mooted amalgamation of Ombudsmen services - as a
cost-saving exercise, I believe - Can the PHSO reveal if it has plans to
sell any part of its business- if so -what?’

 

I can confirm that the PHSO does not hold any recorded information on this
topic, as there are no plans to sell any part of the business.

 

4.      ‘Could I ask please which the companies and organizations are on
your STAKEHOLDER list.’

 

The PHSO Stakeholder Database contains the contacts of companies and
organisations that constitute some, but not all, of the PHSO
stakeholders.  However, the Stakeholder Database also contains the
information of a number of individuals, and organisations that have been
included on the assumption that their details would remain confidential. 
An example of this is individuals or organisations that have asked to be
included in the PHSO update emails, where PHSO has undertaken to use that
information for that purpose alone.

 

I recognise that you do not appear to be interested in this type of
stakeholder though, so I have not interpreted this to be a part of your
request.  In this context, I have considered the scope of the request to
include only organisations that are listed as a stakeholder where there is
no understanding of confidentiality (e.g. NHS Trusts, patient advocacy
groups etc.).

 

To retrieve this information from the Stakeholder Database would require
each record to be checked to determine the reason the stakeholder is
included on the database.  As there are more than 7000 records on the
Stakeholder Database it is likely to take over 230 hours to retrieve the
information.  As such retrieving the information would exceed the
appropriate time and cost limit set out by section 12 of the FOIA.

 

This concludes my decision.  If you have any further queries, or would
like to ask for a review of my decision you can write to
[1][email address].

 

Regards

 

David Thomas

FOI/Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [2][email address]

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

 

 

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

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

Where a public authority claims that section 12 is engaged, it should, where reasonable, provide advice and assistance to help the requestor to refine the request so that it can be dealt with under the appropriate limit.

:::::

There is no S16 Reg 9 help and assistance to refine your request given.

....You could ask for stakeholders from A- E for instance.

Dear Mr Thomas
PHSO FOI Team
It is my understanding that where a public authority claims that section 12 is engaged, it should, where reasonable, provide advice and assistance to help the requester to refine the request so that it can be dealt with under the appropriate limit.....please advise: Am I missing something?

I further understand in this case there is no S16 Reg 9 help and assistance to refine my request given.

Therefore please provide details for stakeholders from A- E in first instant please.

Yours sincerely,
Dee Speers

foiofficer@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.

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

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thank you Jt....I have replied!

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
What Do They Know have advised this response has been delayed and PHSO should, by law, have responded by 14th July.
Please advise: Is this part of amalgamated FOI request?
Yours faithfully,

D. Speers

foiofficer@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.

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms Speers

Thank you for your email of 9 July 2015 and this morning.

First, the request is not overdue. The WhatDoTheyKnow website does not keep track of it automatically and is not always a useful guide. I responded to your request on time and you have since asked us questions about that response. I respond to those queries below.

The stakeholder database is used as a way to manage the contacts of the PHSO. However, as I explained when I wrote to you, not everyone in that database is a stakeholder like the ones you are seeking information about. Some contacts are recorded simply to receive more information about PHSO. To separate and extract a list of stakeholders for you from a database of over 7000 entries would entail a large amount of work making it difficult to assist with refining the request. Given the work it would entail, I hope you will understand therefore why requesting names beginning with A-E still engages the time and cost limits in section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

That being said, if there is a specific stakeholder that you are interested in, you can ask about them and, if we are able to confirm, we will tell you if they are on the list.

Regards

David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

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

Rob Bird left an annotation ()

If they spent half the time they spend looking for inappropriate excuses not to do anything and actually did something, it would have a almighty effect. They wouldn't receive as many complaints, they wouldn't get so many complaints about themselves. For sure there wouldn't be as many suffering. And the fact they can't do a simple search on stakeholder list speaks volumes about their incompetency.

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

Still no S16 R9 help to inform you how to narrow your request within the expense constraints.

Offering to supply one stakeholder name isn't it.

And he hasn't supplied you with his calculations for your narrowed A-E request.

He can't just say 'it's too much work ..because I say so' - without providing the calculation on which his evaluation is based.

And how much did the PHSO pay Silver Bear to provide this new database? Plus £50k? £60?

It can't be still on paperwork - in filing cabinets - which gives the PHSO its usual excuse (Section12 ) too many days to supply information.

And yet,with all this expenditure, information can't be retrieved from it simply and easily.

And how much is the stakeholder manager being paid? ...Yet he/she doesn't have the database at his/ her fingertips?

Despite the contract, it would seem that Silver Bear was paid to construct a stakeholder database - from which it would take the stakeholder manager days to extract the basic information of a list of stakeholders.

If so, it's an extraordinary waste of public money.

Dear Mr Thomas ,

"Whichever way this is looked at it appears to me to be an extraordinary waste of public money. I will offer my apologies if I have misunderstood the What Do You Know alert!

I qualify this statement in that :
1) You haven't appeared tp supply me with your calculations for my narrowed A-E request.......aqny comment?
2) There appears to be no S16 R9 help to inform me how to narrow my request within the expense constraints.= which you are undoubtedly going to quote! I dont believe you can just say 'it's too much work ..because I say so' - without providing the calculation on which your evaluation is based. ......am I correct in my understanding?
3) Despite the contract for Stakrholder Manager , it would seem that the said manager et al , eres paid to construct a stakeholder database - from which it would take the stakeholder manager days to extract the basic information of a list of stakeholders. .....a complete waste of public funding IMHO!!

4)BTW).....What is the Stakeholder Manager being paid?

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

foiofficer@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.

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

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
I again am asking:
To qualify this statement again:

1) You don't appear to have supplied me with your calculations for my
narrowed A-E request.......any comment?

2) There appears to be no S16 R9 help to inform me how to narrow my
request within the expense constraints.= which you are undoubtedly
going to quote! I dont believe you can just say 'it's too much work
..because I say so' - without providing the calculation on which
your evaluation is based. ......am I correct in my understanding?

3) Despite the contract for Stakeholder Manager , it would seem
that the said manager et al , is paid to construct a stakeholder
database - from which it would take the stakeholder manager days to
extract the basic information of a list of stakeholders. .....a
complete waste of public funding IMHO!!

4)BTW).....What is the Stakeholder Manager being paid?

Specific Questions requiring specific answers please!

Yours faithfully,

D. Speers

foiofficer@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.

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 ()

I share you concerns about the stakeholders database. Any database I have ever used has been designed to allow particular information to be easily extracted from a menu of data fields.

I too have had some concerns with the inability of the PHSO to provide information. I recently wrote:

4. “To use the online form to complain about NHS services in England a complainant is required to register with you online.  How many accounts have been registered with you in each month since January 2015 (or since the service started, if later)?”

We hold no data on when customers register with us because we do not record this information. Therefore I am unable to provide figures on how many customers registered each month.'

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

I thought the date that a customer registers with the PHSO would be something easily retrievable.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thank you J Roberts, I totally agree with you!

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

It's the same old trick again and again. Either they deny recording the information, which is incompetent or they deny having it, which is dishonest. Whichever way you look at it PHSO are not serving the public and do not give value for (taxpayer) money.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Totally agree!

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

The PHSO is still not complying in advising and assisting you - even though you are prepared to narrow your request.

ICO guidance :

Regulation 9 similarly requires a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants. The Regulation goes further however in that it requires that where a public authority decides that an applicant has formulated a request in too general a manner, it should ask the applicant as soon as possible and in any event no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request, to provide more particulars in relation to the request; and assist the applicant in providing those particulars.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

One might almost think that it was embarrassed to divulge the name of even a few of its stakeholders.

Dear Mr Brown,

I believe Regulation 9 states "Regulation 9 similarly requires a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants. The Regulation goes further however in that it requires that where a public authority decides that an applicant has formulated a request in too general a manner, it should ask the applicant as soon as possible and in any event no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request, to provide more particulars in relation to the request; and assist the applicant in providing those particulars."

I include a link for your convenience: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

So in offering to narrow my request (with NO advice and assistance)I can only assume you are unwilling to honestly answer this request. Am I wrong in my assumption?

Yours faithfully,

D. Speers

foiofficer@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.

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

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

It should be known that Somerset Community Care Matters give advice to the public and has not been approached to be stakeholders.

In fact no authority will fund this charity as it does challenge them. This in spite of regulations that say advice should be funded by authorities. Sadly authorities don't know the difference between advocacy and advice. Or it this another 'get out'.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
Please remind me again why this response is delayed!

Thank You
Yours faithfully,

D. Speers

foiofficer@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.

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Speers

 

Thank you for your email of 24 July 2015 in which you requested
information in the following terms:

 

“1) You haven't appeared tp supply me with your  calculations for my
narrowed A-E request.......aqny comment?
2) There appears to be no S16 R9 help to inform me how to narrow my
request within the expense constraints.= which  you are undoubtedly going
to quote!  I dont believe you can just say  'it's too much work ..because
I say so' - without providing the calculation on which your evaluation is
based. ......am I correct in my understanding? 
3) Despite the contract for Stakrholder Manager , it would seem that the
said manager et al , eres paid to construct a stakeholder database - from
which it would take the stakeholder manager days to extract the basic
information of a list of stakeholders. .....a complete waste of public
funding IMHO!!

4)BTW).....What is the Stakeholder Manager being paid?”

 

Turning to the first and second of your queries regarding the application
of section 12 of the FOIA on a previous request for information, I have no
further comment on this matter.   If you are seeking further information
about the general application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA) and section 12 specifically, you may wish to consult the
Information Commissioner’s Office Website ([1]www.ico.org.uk).

 

I note that your third point is not in fact a request for information.  
At this time I wish to simply refer you to the job description that we
previously provided.

 

Finally, the actual salary of the Stakeholder Engagement Manager cannot be
released to you as this is the personal information of that individual,
and is therefore exempt under section 40(2) FOIA.  That being said, the
attached advertisement contains the salary range in which that actual
salary lies.

 

If you have any further queries or would like to ask for a review of my
decision you can write to [2][email address].

 

David Thomas

FOI/Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [3][email address]

W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

 

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

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

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

The PHSO still hasn't helped you to formulate a request that might enlighten you as to who the PHSO has deemed to be the sort of organisations and people that its stakeholders are.

I find it extraordinary that a public organisation would be so secretive about spending huge amounts of public money ( over £50k to Silver Bear for creating an easily accessible stakeholder base, plus the salary of the stakeholder manager etc which must bring it up to well over £100k ....) .yet not even be prepared to tell the public even part of the list..say names beginning with A,B,C.

This is such a cagey and unhelpful response - what on earth is the 'open and transparent' PHSO so determined to hide?

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Seems silence is their way....not open or transparent but until made accountable will carry on with default setting! Its an obscene waste of public funds, I agree! Feeling is, they aint gonna budge until someone makes them!

Dear Mr Thomas,
The PHSO still hasn't helped me to formulate a request that might enlighten me as to who the PHSO has deemed to be the sort of organizations and people that its stakeholders are. Clearly the PHSO office is reluctant to help me ....WHY?Sorry I do not accept your understanding of Section 16 R9, your "no Comment" quote highlights this!
APPALLING!!!
Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

foiofficer@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.

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

D. Speers left an annotation ()

APPALLING is best description I can think of. We pay for this "service" aka £32m + per annum. How many extra nurses would that pay for? You decide!

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms Speers,

Are you asking for an internal review of the response?

Yours sincerely,
Rebyn Buleti

Business Support Officer
FOI/DP Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Follow us on

show quoted sections

Dear foiofficer,
Unanswered and over 40 days waiting WDTK Say "long overdue" & Illegal!....YES I am certainly asking for an Internal Review! How long will this take?
Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

foiofficer@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.

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

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

As if, having invested in ££££££s in the stakeholder list A/B stakeholders cannot be printed off - within minutes.

You really question why the PHSO is throwing all this money at the 'stakeholders' file system - when they still seem to have the files on parchment.

Brown Steve, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

4 Attachments

 

 

Steve Brown

Head of Risk and Assurance

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [email address]

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[2]fb  [3]twitter  [4]linkedin

 

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

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
2. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
3. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
4. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

Brown Steve, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

4 Attachments

 

 

Steve Brown

Head of Risk and Assurance

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [email address]

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[2]fb  [3]twitter  [4]linkedin

 

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

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
2. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
3. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
4. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Still not sure its been answered!

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

A £100k plus stakeholder database - but the PHSO hasn't got a definition of who its stakeholders are yet?

Let alone seem to be able to access who their names easily after installation of it's 193-page specification stakeholder database (Silverbear)

£70,661.33

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/asset...

::::

Silver bear 69,486.00 / up to 2013

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

Over £50k contracts:

Stakeholder database

Silverbear

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...
:::::

Plus:

ComRes,"27,000.00",Stakeholder research,25/03/2015,On completion

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

:::

Perhaps the first task of its new stakeholder manager ( around £42-50k it seems) will be to locate the list?

http://www.indeed.co.uk/Stakeholder-Mana...

::::

But wasn't the stakeholder managers job advertised publically?

And therefore the information has already been in the public domain?

::::

But could the new stakeholder manager one of Dame Julie Mellor's old business partners who has been appointed - without the usual procedures being fully undertaken again?

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

D. Speers left an annotation ()

SPEECHLESS!! Thank you JT Oakley

Colin Hammonds left an annotation ()

.....can anyone, anywhere, find this normal for an instititution pretending to be an independent complaints service......i think we really need to dig far deeper and find out who is behind the PHSO....and what if it happens to be those who are being supposedly investigated, or those who have vested interests in any eventual decision following an enquiry or moreover the lack of one ...! In anycase one to follow, thanks...

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thanks Colin....believe mind-blowing arrogance being shown and maybe The Mitting Precedence ("no records held" either!) -which gives PHSO her "Discretionary Powers" is to blame?
Nevertheless the situation is DIRE!!
STOCK PHRASES= No records held!

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

The weirdest thing is that even when you know records are held..because you've written to an employee - and they've responded on that very topic,....' no records are held'.

It maybe that the PHSO does the spy thing, where all employees are required to eat the paperwork - for fear of discovery.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

You have 5 seconds before this message expires!.......maybe!!

Dear Brown Steve,

Please can you explain this strategy PLEASE!?

I have been advised:
"the use of outside advisers by the PHSO to help with an eventual decision regarding a complaint. There seems to me to be a problem with that because the information given to the advisers to decide with is
information obtained from and based on that supplied by the service to which the complaint is about...in other words the outside advisers don't have the two sides of the story and so make a subjective minimalist decision to which the PHSO go on to use as the basis for refusing the complaint, in most cases finding the error"reasonable"....this is an area which we need to bring out into the light"

Obviously isn't just me?
Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Colin Hammonds left an annotation ()

....So so true.......a very grey area being neglected....What's more the outside advisers don't carry out the investigation and so have no means of cross-examining the information given by the service to which the complaint was made......Further to that there is now way of knowing what or just how much information from the complainant was given over to the adviser, if any.....and to think the final outcome could be based on this kind of subjective dubious practise...words fail me...

D. Speers left an annotation ()

And me Colin...you are being kind calling them investigators as I doubt if staff are any more than clerks (nothing wrong with clerks BTW but NOT investigators!) I recall once reading on a SHA website "MH Staff from all over London have been brought in the ACT as investigators" Of Course I queried this and NOTHING!!
Think a lot of ACTING goes on!

Dear Mr Brown ,
Reading through this FOI I note Mr Thomas kindly offered "That being said, if there is a specific stakeholder that you are interested in, you can ask about them and, if we are able to confirm, we will tell you if they are on the list."
Forgive me, but if records are not available how will this information be accessed? Can a Stakeholder list be accessed for A-E for example? I understand large amounts of Public Money (£70,661.33) has been spent after installation of it's 193-page specification stakeholder database.

Am I wrong?

BTW Has the Stakeholder Manager been employed yet?

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Colin asks some interesting questions. Firstly, who is behind PHSO. When you learn that the Ombudsman meets every two months with the Cabinet Office - no meeting minutes released - that might give you a clue.

Secondly what information is given to the expert advisor. According to PHSO policy the (layperson) investigator puts a series of questions together for the expert to answer and supplies a selection of the evidence available. If the expert advisor sees an issue which is not framed in a question he/she is unable to refer to it. In other words if you don't ask the right questions you don't get the right answers. The complainant is then prevented from seeing either the questions or the expert advisor report, or given the name of the expert advisor who closed down their case.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

PROTECT

Dear Ms Speers,

Thank you for your email to my colleague Mr Brown and for your feedback about PHSO's casework process. Your comments have been passed to PHSO's customer care team who record the feedback PHSO receives about its work.

For the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I am required to confirm that we do not hold the specific information you have requested. However, information about our casework process more generally and how we ensure it is consistent and fair is available on our website and in the casework policy and guidance available there.

Yours sincerely

FOI/DP Officer

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

Colin Hammonds left an annotation ()

......Sending the work to outside advisers is an excellent idea.....it takes away a certain part of the responsibility from the PHSO when delivering the final reply and at the same time wears down the complainant even more by the additional psychological weight of a supposedly objective and independent source being on the side of the PHSO......in other words it's not one service the complainant is up against but multiple, for example, the service who commited the error, the PHSO and now the outside adviser.........no wonder people give up, the PHSO is set up to block the complaint, it's whole structure is there to simply wear people down until they give in......... and they do.
Furthermore there is no better way to get the awnsers you want than choosing the questions asked.......

D. Speers left an annotation ()

The old DENY DEFEND DELAY tactic and I agree most do give up but some dont let go! If Terriers get shaken off trouser legs just BITE HIGHER!!
Its not the size of dog in fight but size of fight in the dog!
Gggggggrrrrrr!

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

The best advice is never ever speak to anyone.

Under any circumstances.

If you do..tape it ( although note that your tape is inadmissible evidence - against the 'word' of a PHSO employee, which is on file - and therefore 100 percent accurate, according to the PHSO).

NB: The PHSO also makes this same judgemental call on NHS files etc - as if they are always accurate.

If the ombudsman suspects that they are 'edited' all that will happen is that the ombudsman will tick off the PA for having an inadequate filing system,.

The fact that you were an eye-witness to an event ....but didn' t happen to have your lawyer and camera with you, does not count against 'edited' files.

So insist that everything is done via email etc- as it is it is your evidence - otherwise you will be shocked at what is on record once you get the SAR files and you will spend valuable time arguing the case for its removal/correction.

The second:

Challenge every wrong point in the files immediately. Otherwise the amount of paperwork will wear you out.

The third:

And if you get an external investigation, read the list of points to be investigated which will be given to you - and furiously challenge any the wrong points.

Don't be hemmed in by an inadequate list .....because that's what the PHSO wants you to stick to - and ADD in the ones that have been 'mysteriously' left out, at that point, so that the external investigator has to address them.

Rob Bird left an annotation ()

It is nigh on impossible to get the truth from someone whose salary depends on them avoiding, lying and denying.

Colin Hammonds left an annotation ()

Rob Bird.......unless of course you take them to the police...http://phsothefacts.com/misconduct-in-pu...