Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Could I please access a full copy of the recent staff survey held at PHSO office?I'm sorry I dont have a date....but most recent please.

Yours faithfully,

D. Speers

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

Dear Ms Speers

 

Further to your email of 10 October 2013, I am writing in response to your
request for a ‘full copy of the recent staff survey’.

 

As you will be aware, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 obliges
all public authorities to comply with information requests promptly and in
any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of
receipt.

 

However, when a qualified exemption applies to the information in
question, and the public interest test is engaged, the Act allows
additional time for the consideration of that public interest.  While we
aim to make all decisions within 20 working days, including in cases where
we need to consider information under one of the qualified exemptions, in
this case, we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of the
public interest lies.

 

We estimate that it will take an additional 20 working days to reach this
decision.  Therefore, we plan to let you have a response by Thursday 5
December 2013.  If it appears that it will take longer than this to reach
a conclusion, we will keep you informed.

 

The specific exemption which we consider applies in relation to your
request is section 36 of the FOI Act. More information about this can be
found online here:
[1]www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Detailed_specialist_guides/section_36_prejudice_to_effective_conduct_of_public_affairs.ashx

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Luke Whiting

Head of FOI/DP

 

 

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/~/media/documents/...

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you for letting me know of a delay and as the Staff survey has been carried out & published, I wonder why an exemption applies.
However, I shall wait until December and hope I can access then!

Thank you again for the link to FOI Act, Section 36, which I shall read and digest later.
Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Dear Luke Whiting
Head of FOI/DP,

I am aware there is a delay on this FOI request and look forward to a full answer by 5th December.
Yet again I am wondering why Section 36 applies and had been quoted......as I believe this FOI request is definitely in the public's interest!

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Ann Reeves left an annotation ()

I note they are still up to their delaying tactics.. maybe an idea to escalate it to the ICO Dee or give the ICO a ring and get some advice? December 5th... they are playing games!

Ann

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thanks Ann....will see what happens on 5th Dec and take it from there! Agree usual game playing!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The reason that they won't give it to you us that it slams senior management.

It's that simple.

There are decent people working for the PHSO and they recognise that it's senior management to blame for the mess, which gives the PHSO such a poor reputation.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thank you for latest info...will be interesting to see if PASC have seen it!

E. Colville left an annotation ()

ICO Survey as a precedent response?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thank you for posting E.Colville....very helpful!

Dear foiofficer,

I believe PHSO uses same OPR benchmarks to this ICO staff survey:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

With genuine respect should I be expecting any less detail from PHSO?

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Della left an annotation ()

That is interesting E.Colville. ICO managed to release data which named no names and did not breach DPA laws about their staff survey. So now we can look forward to the same openness and transparency from PHSO.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Of course not. The survey is scathing about the management.

The PHSO pretends it doesn't even know what a 'manager' is - as a ridiculous ploy for not answering a request.

....On second thoughts, maybe they've never had a decent one ...a view which may be borne out by the survey...and have difficulty in understanding what one is for that reason.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thank you again for your clarity and expertise! Clearly the PHSO system is not working!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Dee....

The problem us that the PHSO simply do not recognise the term 'public interest'..I should know, I based my case on it.

Oddly enough there was not one mention of this term in the files, no weighing no weighing up, no logical determination.

Therefore the only conclusion is that the PHSO does not use its famous 'discretion' for, and in, the public interest.

Therefore - if the public are out of the equation - you have to ask in whose interest does it act?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Here's a staff survey on the South Yorkshire police..as you can see, there is no exemption applied.

But the PHSO has tried to apply one on the grounds that it us an exclusive little club and doesn't have to be open and honest like other public authorities.

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disc...

Here's some more.. NHS ones.

http://www.nhsstaffsurveys.com/Caches/Fi...

http://www.nhsstaffsurveys.com/Caches/Fi...

http://www.secamb.nhs.uk/about_us/our_pe...

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thank you Jt Oakley....your help is much appreciated...I may just ask "in whose interest are PHSO discretionary powers used" and evidence to back it up of course.

Dear PHSO foi officer,
In advance of Hopefully a full response to the PHSO staff survey, it may also be helpful to look at these responses.
http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disc...
NHS ones:

http://www.nhsstaffsurveys.com/Caches/Fi...

http://www.nhsstaffsurveys.com/Caches/Fi...

http://www.secamb.nhs.uk/about_us/our_pe...

As mentioned in my email of 23rd November: "should I be expecting anything less?"

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

D. Speers left an annotation ()

"Clarification on Discretionary powers" asked and links provided.https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
Will keep all posted!

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

May I remind everyone how the FOI team answered my own request as below;

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

There is a very definite attempt to mislead. I had to query the response several times, before I got to the truth. The fact that they are so duplicitous in their responses, is in direct contrast to their claims of transparency. Why has this request not been answered immediately? Its outrageous and it makes my blood boil! Madam Julie spends all her free time (thats when she is not reviewing the 29 cases per year she has to) telling the media and all a sundry how they are this wonderful organisation there to help people. What a load of old codswallop. Answer the request Luke!!! We want to see what your staff think of your organisation. I can tell you all - if this question is not answered - I would consider taking it to court. I have just applied to the Court for the same thing - the UKBA would not provide me with information I requested on this site.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Look on the bright side....

We can use it as an example for PASC.

We stated that the PSHO wouldn't answer reasonable requests ....and here's the proof.

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

Dear Dee Speers

 

I write further to my email of 7 December 2013 in relation to your
information request for ‘a full copy of the recent staff survey held at
PHSO office?’

 

I can confirm that we hold a high level breakdown of the PHSO staff survey
results. We do not yet hold the raw data and we only hold a summary of the
qualitative data. However, it might be helpful if I explain that a more
detailed analysis of the results is still being completed. Once this work
is complete then more detailed discussions of the findings can take place
with staff and the action plan in response to the findings can be
finalised.

 

It was for these reasons that we concluded that section 36(2) of the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was engaged. Section 36(2) exempts
information when the release of the information would prejudice the
effective conduct of public affairs.  However, as I explained when I
emailed you on 7 December 2013, we have had to consider the public
interest test. 

 

The public interest test entails a public authority deciding whether it
serves the interests of the public either to disclose the information or
to maintain an exemption. To reach a decision, a public authority must
balance carefully opposing factors based on the particular circumstances
of the case. 

 

In this case the public interest factors in favour of disclosing the
information requested are:

·         Transparency in the way in which PHSO records and engages with
staff
satisfaction and addresses concerns that they raise.

 

·         A general public interest in what PHSO’s staff think about PHSO,
particularly during a time of organisational change.

 

·         The fact that members of the public may also wish to take part
in PHSO’s consideration of the issues raised by PHSO staff in the survey
and/or use these to input put forward their own suggestions for improving
our service.

 

The factors that weigh against the release of this information are:

·         The process of reporting to staff on results in their
teams/directorates is only just complete. Disclosure to the public at this
stage would impact on/inhibit the safe space staff require to have full
and frank discussion of the results. If the debate is restricted then the
learning and actions flowing from that debate are also undermined.

 

·         If the results are made public before proper discussion with
staff has taken place, our staff might be less likely to engage with or
respond to staff surveys in the future.

 

·         The process of drafting and finalising PHSO’s action plan in
response to the survey results is also still ongoing. Releasing this
information while this work is ongoing may undermine the process and
outcome.

 

 

On balance, we have concluded that while the work outlined above is being
completed, PHSO’s staff survey results should not be released.

 

However, I should want to be very clear that the decision to withhold the
staff survey is based on where we are currently with respect to analysing
the data, discussions with staff, and the completion of an action plan.
Once this work has been completed, our intention is to make the staff
survey results available on our website.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Luke Whiting

Head of FOI/DP

 

 

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

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

And, by an amazing coincidence.....that will be after December 16.

Of course, it may upset the staff feelings to find out exactly what they think of management.

.... On the other hand, it can hardly come as a tremendous shock.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

My feelings exactly! So still waiting and still being refused relevant information! Which bit is in the public's interest!
BTW Think FOI officer meant 7th November....as we haven't reached 7th Dec yet!

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Do these people think we will just pack up and go away?

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

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Yes bur WHY do they think we will? We have more staying power and a valid reason to seek answers......onward!

E. Colville left an annotation ()

If PHSO staff have conveyed their concerns about the 'mess' senior management are apparently making of running the service is it any wonder none want to blow the whistle by disclosing a copy of the survey ?
http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/44-201...

Della left an annotation ()

By the time the results of the staff survey have been 'analysed' it will come out looking like the customer satisfaction report!

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Lets hope someone at the PHSO can find a way to let us have the survey. Its them that are in the firing line, so they have everything to gain by getting the system changed. I know they must read WDTK - fingers crossed.

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Very interesting Elaine. I recently made a financial donation to this site (WDTK) and I would strongly encourage anyone else to do the same - however small - bearing in mind that this site is run by volunteers - their work is unquantifiable. They need funds to keep it running.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Well said CA...I totally agree!

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Wonder what shade of whitewash is being sought by PHSO ....plenty left since SHA and PCTs closed.

Dear foiofficer,

Two things please:

1)Please advise when the "clarified" PHSO staff survey is likely to be published on PHSO website?

2)Is this FOI request now considered completed?

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

MINUTES OF THE PHSO EXTRAORDINARY BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, 17 September 2013
15th floor, Millbank Tower
10.30am - 3.30pm

People Survey Results Presentation

2.2 It was agreed that we would assess what had caused current staff survey results; decide on a plan to address them; and have a timeline for improvement as well as expect more immediate communications with staff to keep them up to date with what is happening. The Chief Operating Officer said that the Leadership Team was doing work with focus groups to check our hypothesis – and then the Board would test these results at the October Board meeting.

:::

But, surely, there must be some concrete results from the survey to be discussed in October ?

It's now December.

That means either the PHSO still cannot work out what the results were .. Or it still wishes to withhold them for some mysterious reason.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Couldnt agree more Jt Oakley.
How can "lessons be learned" unless ALL data is considered!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

As a wild guess.... I'd say that only around 20percent of employes have any faith in senior management at all.

But, of course, I could be proved wrong once the results if the survey are available.

Rob Bird left an annotation ()

So obvious that all OMBDUSMAN donothing but avoid, manipulate truth, cover up and lie. Really think its time the public stopped paying for any of these bodies and did it themselves. On a previous FOI i did regarding sections, I received a false response, as I already knew answer to my question, when I pointed out lie, they said oh we made a mistake, then ombudsman sent all my details to wrong address on memory stick and then gave them the password in Dec 2013 (last month) TOTAL JOKE lot of em

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Report them Rob! They sent your personal data to the wrong address?

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Spot on CA..."Report them Rob!"

Rob Bird left an annotation ()

was actually the CQC and has been reported my main worry and priority remains my sons care who is still being neglected abused and attacked under NHS Care and they won't even allow him to go private and the PHSO wont do anything with my complaints because I am not the patient. IF THERE ARE MAJOR PROBLEMS IT SHOULDNT MATTER WHO REPORTS IT! They dont give a toss :(

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Suppose using the Data Protection Act legally is not achievable, as certainly sounds like there has been a serious breach!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The results of the survey are reportedly these:

47% of staff satisfied with their job
22% think morale is good
19% have confidence in senior managers
20% think senior management are sufficiently visible
10% think PHSO manage change effectively
20% think communication in PHSO is open and honest
16% think senior management provide effective leadership

Tsk......And Dame Julie Mellor was very keen to inform PASC how respected her leadership is.

Perhaps now the PHSO will either confirm or deny.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Thank you Jt Oakley. Damning indeed! Dare PASC ignore this?

Kathleen Dobson left an annotation ()

love how they try ti spin things...
53% of staff not satisfied with their job.
88% think morale is bad.
81% do not have confidence in senior management.
80% think senior management are not sufficiently visible.
90% think communication in phso is NOT open and honest.
84% do not think senior management provide effective leadership.
Amazing how dismal it looks now! Still thats all the money ploughed into the strategists and media people.

E. Colville left an annotation ()

"DARE PASC IGNORE THIS?"
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

They might if they are not sighted on it... and do not make a point of informing themselves as to the reality of the PHSO 'service' by following highly pertinent public disclosures via WDTK and/or by heeding what actual complainants tell them by other means.

So, on behalf of the PHSO-The FACTS Pressure Group, I am e-mailing the PASC a copy of this thread.

Short of being either blind, illiterate or lacking in comprehension, the assumption must be that PASC Members and others in Parliament grasp how hopelessly ineffective the PHSO service is (FOR BONA FIDE COMPLAINANTS); what little confidence rank and file staff have in the PHSO leadership who are steering Parliament's Ombudsman service like a rudderless ship.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Thank you for recent annotations and I have Tweeted link to this to MP Bernard Jenkins PASC Chair.Wont harm getting a repeat via official lines! Thank you Elaine!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Is the PHSO STILL refusing to release it's staff survey?

Is it being withheld ...until PASC makes it's deliberations public?

I think we should be told.

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 'Survey'.

It seems response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman should have responded by now

I have asked for details of the staff survey and to date have received nothing!

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,

D. Speers

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Since PASC is due to report on the 28th of April, there us now no need to withhold the results of the survey.

It was stated it would be made public in the 'spring'.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

But "Spring" what year?

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mrs Speers

We are writing in response to your email of 20 April 2014. We are sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your information request entitled ‘Survey’.

Under our internal complaints procedure, your complaint has been passed to our Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office, Mr Steve Brown.

Mr Brown will consider your concerns and will send you a full reply once his review is complete. This review of your complaint is the only review that we will undertake.

We aim to reply to such complaints within 40 working days.

Yours sincerely

Review Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

show quoted sections

D. Speers left an annotation ()

9th May....."Internal Review" granted
Informed its "the only review we will undertake"
Better be open and transparent then!
Deny, Delay, Defend..... default?

Dear Complaints at PHSO,

Thank you for your recent information and I gather the "aim of a reply within 40 working days" mentioned will be from when I requested the Internal Review on 20th April 15 working days ago?
Would I be right in my assumption?
Reply due Friday 13th June?

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Complaintsphso, 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 ()

Reply due before or after the Seminar?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The PHSO has given its reasons (below) so this should all have been completed by now..unless the PHSO is wildly incompetent of course..

Oh.. Wait a minute...

::::

The factors that weigh against the release of this information are:

· The process of reporting to staff on results in their
teams/directorates is only just complete. Disclosure to the public at this
stage would impact on/inhibit the safe space staff require to have full
and frank discussion of the results. If the debate is restricted then the
learning and actions flowing from that debate are also undermined.

· If the results are made public before proper discussion with
staff has taken place, our staff might be less likely to engage with or
respond to staff surveys in the future.

· The process of drafting and finalising PHSO’s action plan in
response to the survey results is also still ongoing. Releasing this
information while this work is ongoing may undermine the process and
outcome.

On balance, we have concluded that while the work outlined above is being
completed, PHSO’s staff survey results should not be released.

Della left an annotation ()

Well we all know that Mr. Brown only has one standard letter on his computer. Have you ever seen him say that the response was NOT appropriate?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Section 36 requires that, other than for statistical information, the qualified person for the public authority must give their reasonable opinion that the exemption is engaged. Therefore, in order to use section 36, public authorities must establish who their qualified person is.....
.....

The PHSO has used Section 36 on this request. Therefore the qualified person had to sign it off.

The PHSO has stated that Dame Julie Mellor is the qualified person.

So what the FoI team are telling is us that Dame Julie Mellor does not want the public to find out how well her management of the PHSO is regarded by her workforce.

Putting aside openess, transparency and candour - as is the PHSO's very own modus operandi - should the Ombudsman have the power to sign off requests and keep secret information about her own performance?

Because a now-ancient survey isn't going to stop the smooth running of the PHSO. All the staff have had time to assimilate the information - and process it.

Perhaps the files showing her reasoning on this qualified exemption..and why she wants to keep the public in the dark about this particular survey for so long would prove interesting.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thank you for clarity Jt I have sent a reply to PHSO office! Will await the response with interest! Section 36 requires that, other than for statistical information, the qualified person for the public authority must give their reasonable opinion that the exemption is engaged. Therefore, in order to use section 36, public authorities must establish who their qualified person is. I believe as "qualified person" DJM must explain her reasoning for supporting this exemption
.

Dear Mr Brown,
It is my understanding that Section 36 requires that, other than for statistical information, the qualified person for the public authority must give their reasonable opinion that the exemption is engaged. Therefore, in order to use section 36, public authorities must establish who their qualified person is.
The PHSO has used Section 36 on this request. Therefore the qualified person had to sign it off.

The PHSO has stated that Dame Julie Mellor is the qualified person.

Could I now access the files showing her reasoning on this qualified exemption, as I believe this is strongly in the public's interest!

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Complaintsphso, 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

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mrs Speers

 

I am writing in response to your email of 9 May 2014. I can confirm that 
the “40 working days” referred to in our email to you of 9 May, is
calculated from the 20 April 2014.  This means that our target date to
reply is the 18 June 2014. This date recognises weekends and bank
holidays.

 

Yours sincerely

 

The Review Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

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

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mrs Speers

 

I am writing in response to your email of 19 May 2014 addressed to Mr
Steve Brown. Your email has been passed on to Mr Brown. He will consider
it during his review of your case.

 

Yours sincerely

 

The Review Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

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

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mrs Speers

 

Further to my email below. I thought I should clarify that Mr Brown will
consider your email during his review of your Freedom of Information
request -  not of your case.

 

Yours sincerely

 

The Review Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

From: Complaintsphso
Sent: 22 May 2014 14:35
To: '[FOI #180565 email]'
Subject: Internal Review of Freedom of Information Request - Survey -
FDN-175377

 

Dear Mrs Speers

 

I am writing in response to your email of 19 May 2014 addressed to Mr
Steve Brown. Your email has been passed on to Mr Brown. He will consider
it during his review of your case.

 

Yours sincerely

 

The Review Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

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 ()

Ooops a Freaudian slip methinks! "Review of your case"....."well not your case but your FOI request!"

Dear Complaints phso,

Thank you for further clarification on the 40 day rule. I shall await Mr Browns response with interest.

Thank you again, I appreciate your time.

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your email. Due to a recent increase in the volume of work
we receive, we are currently considering emails around 14 – 16 working
days after receiving them. We apologise for any inconvenience this may
cause and would like to assure you that we will consider your email as
soon as we can.

 

Review Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

 

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

Della left an annotation ()

Mmmmmm due to the volume of correspondence - are the FOI team being swamped? If only PHSO replied to letters and phone calls we wouldn't all have to badger them. This 'do not acknowledge' policy simply moves the problem somewhere else.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

From the internal notes that I have..Anne Harding tells DJM what too think..and she agrees in a two line response.

There is no independent 'weighing up'.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Completely agree with both recent annotations.
How can I feel reassured by this debacle?

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...

Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation ()

The email above dated 18th June was sent by the authority on that date, but to an incorrect email address, and was therefore not delivered to the request thread until I manually moved it just now.

Ganesh - WhatDoTheyKnow volunteer

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Thanks you for your message and assuming the email situation has now been sorted?
I'm afraid I cant find the appropriate box to tick as whilst the Internal Review appears to be complete.....there is a recognition that I did not receive the Information It appears Dame Julie Mellor PHSO is planning to release this information "in July" (NOT SURE WHEN IN JULY) hence "Still waiting" Box ticked!

Dear Mr Brown,

Thank you for your contact which I have just recently received and it would appear the response was delayed due to email failure....I assume all is now sorted!

In your response you recognise & apologise for "I cannot see that we have ever formally responded to that request" (YOU HAVEN'T)and TBH don't you think this situation, which has dragged on since October LAST YEAR! deserves more than:"I can confirm the Ombudsman intends to make this information available in July" and again you have apologized!

So thats ok is it? I ask for salient details from a public body via FOI and your office keeps me waiting for almost 9 MONTHS. and YOU are "satified we have fully met our obligations to you under Information Access legislation" REALLY?

The very least you owe us is to inform the public: what date in July does PHSO Dame Julie Mellor intend to release this information?

I am appalled!

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Ooops a Freaudian slip methinks! "Review of your case"....."well not your case but your FOI request!"

:::::

Some of the FoI team seem to assume that they are handling 'cases' instead of treating requests dispassionately. FoI requests are supposed to be applicant blind..so how can a requestor have 'a case'?

I heard yesterday that another set of crucial case evidence was omitted from somebody's PHSO SAR.

And it was only produced when the requestor reminded the FoI team of its legal responsibilities - as I had to do when I requested mine. .....And found exactly the same thing. The evidence had not been included the first time around.

Two sets of crucial case evidence withheld on Subject Access Requests?

Co-incidental - or a deliberate ploy?

I would suggest that all SAR's are now accompanied by a note reminding the FoI team if it's legal obligations, as a reminder.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

I believe under Section 77 of FOIA the offence covers :"altering,defacing,blocking,erasing.concealing any record to prevent disclosure under Section 7 (Subject Access)

I wonder if ignoring an "unremedied injustice" flag falls into this category or accepting a lie was told by an SUI Investigator when I "allegedly" said I had "agreed and was happy with the Term of Reference " for an SUI

Dear Steve Brown,

You wrote Dame Julie Mellor would provide an answer to my 10 month old FOI request aka ""I can confirm the Ombudsman
intends to make this information available in July" I have asked "when in July" but have heard nothing more.

Please advise:
1) When in July is Dame Julie Mellor intending to respond to my FOI request on "Survey"?
2) Is the "July" you have referred to, this year, 2014?

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

...It is my theory that, should the world end in some mighty conflagration, it will only be the cockroaches, the uk government Cabinet members in their bunker and the PHSO staff survey in a nuclear proof protected safe at Millbank left.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Seems that way doesn't it! After 10 months instead of 20 days maybe the file is lost too!

D. Speers left an annotation ()

I'm still waiting to hear about staff survey!
Why such a long delay!?

Dear Mr Brown,
Its now August and I still dont appear to have answers to my FOI requests: Again I ask:
It is my understanding that Section 36 requires that, other than
for statistical information, the qualified person for the public
authority must give their reasonable opinion that the exemption is
engaged. Therefore, in order to use section 36, public authorities
must establish who their qualified person is.
The PHSO has used Section 36 on this request. Therefore the
qualified person had to sign it off.

The PHSO has stated that Dame Julie Mellor is the qualified person.

Could I now access the files showing her reasoning on this
qualified exemption, as I believe this is strongly in the public's
interest!

Could I also ask when I can expect your Internal Review to be completed!

Yours sincerely,

D. Speers

D. Speers left an annotation ()

This is a complete nonsense. October lat year is when I first asked this FOI.....as you can see we are all still waiting!!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I can't see why the FoI team is being so coy.

The information is on the PHSO's own website.

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/pub...

Perhaps you should write and tell the FoI team..

I'm sure that they would find it 'helpful'.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

I agree....am just feeling "forgotten" again!!
I have souced the info now but am just questioning if this site still works?
Thanks for link Jt am sure it is much appreciated!

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

... so when I wrote to Bernard Jenkins and the PASC committe last month, I explained to PASC that everything they needed to know about whether the PHSO was fit for purpose - could be found on this website.

So, I got a receipt for my contribution, but no acknowledgement of the link and the information I provided to PASC.

Unfortunately, I was very critical of PASC and MP's in their possible failure to best monitor The Ombudsman.

One has to wonder whether, due to my critical stance, my feedback to PASC has been edited too?

For example, not one of the PASC questions gave the public the opportunity to feedback on whether Parliament had failed to best monitor and review the conduct of the PHSO.

WHO and WHAT is the PHSO answerable to then?

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org