The Magna Carta; the right to private prosecution. Where is this "right" progressed by the PHSO?

Fiona Watts 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.

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

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Due to my failure to source this information from the PHSO staff since last year, please may I have your co-operation on this public forum website?

1. Following a deadlock letter from The Ombudsman, how does one progress a judicial review against The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman?

2. I am already progressing civil action (under the UK's data laws) against a range of public sector departments; where in the constitution does it state that The Ombudsman is immune from similar civil action?

3. Why does the Review Team and the Director of Complex Cases repeatedly fail to attach to their deadlock letters that information which would outline how the public can progress a judicial review against The Ombudsman?

4. In respect of the Magna Carta, on what grounds does The Ombudsman support the withholding of data explaining how to progress a judicial review?

Yours faithfully,

Fiona Watts

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 ()

I believe the British Constitution has its base in Magna Carta and R4 recently had a very interesting analysis of it! In fact R4 have lots of info on Magna Carta:http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Magna%20Ca...

Greetings Dee,

You have been an inspiring role model for me, although I don't have the balls for Twitter!

I have been in debate with the PHSO on the issue of Civil Rights for sometime now. I seem to have discovered a route which so many lawyers told me would be impossible but a Barrister working for the Bishop Of Southwark advised me on how to progress civil action through the Small Claims court.

The legal dilemma is that the EU's constition is in conflict with those UK laws put in place by the Magna Carta.

Dee, I hope you get "justice" one day.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

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 ()

Thank you Fiona,
More power to your elbow as they say!
With you all the way.
BTW NOT having balls gets you further on Twitter I feel!:o)

W. Millward left an annotation ()

Ann Harding , PHSO Head of Legal Team fails to recognise a claim for damages for breaches of the Data Protection Act. She chooses to ignore it, claiming "a court needs to issue it" which according to the ICO website - is rubbish. But PHSO processing of data breaches DPA and is illegal yet its own lawyers ignore it - ( they are public servants paid by us and expected to follow the Nolan Principles and strangely get away with that too)
I intend to take PHSO to the small claims court - its quick, easy and relatively cheap. naturally one invites the press. I have nothing to lose.
Magna Carta clause (40) , "to no one deny or delay right or justice" is still valid in law today. PHSO breaches even this.

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

I tried to take PHSO to Small Claims Court, first they sent my form back as not being filled in properly. Then I hadn’t sent enough copies, then something else, can’t remember what just now. By the time all that took place I was out of time!!!!!!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

You have to show financial loss in the small claims court.

It's a money claim.

So you have to prove that the PHSO has fiddled you out of some money.

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Dear J.T Oakley,

Thank you for your annotation. But I am concerned by your annotation and what it may imply to those who wish to contest any legal action from me in the future.

This is why your annotation might be considered a sideways distraction to the remit of my FOI enquiry;

1) My first complaint to the NHS in 2009 was based on the fact that I did not have children - let alone two children in care.

2) Before my breakdown in 2008, my background had been working with children in care.

3) So I complained to the room of NHS staff that I had been referred to The Mental Health Services on a false profile with false data attached to it. Instead of sorting out the issues that upset me, the Mental Health team contacted my doctor to warn him about me.

It is now 2015 and I have still not recieved a written apology from any of those Public Sector organisations who failed to protect and correct data when they had the opportunity to between 2008 and 2009.

I have lost everything, including my career. My skills set has become so reduced that I even struggle with grammar and spelling now.

J.T Oakley, are you aware of how little routes are left for victims to resolve injustices?

a) My agenda in the Small Claims Court is to try to confirm the DATA HELL that I have been put through across six public sector organisations since 2008.

b) I see the Small Claims Court as the ONLY route left to confirm the injustices that have escalated against me when I was at my most vulnerable.

c) My career and life has never been dictated by money. In my last education posting, I took a wage for £8,000 less per year than the one offered by another school in nearby Mildenhall.

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

My small claim was for money incurred by me for researching the false information supplied to PHOS by their 'adviser' and giving PHSO the correct information, on which PHSO reopened one of my cases.

I didn't get any compensation for doing their job or the job of the adviser for them.

Fiona, don't be 'out of time'. Anything is worth a try with this lot!

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Brenda, you wrote;
Fiona, don't be 'out of time'. Anything is worth a try with this lot!

What do I need to be aware of time wise?
All advise and warnings from you and J.T Oakley are very welcome.

Thank you both for your advise and annotations.

I can see how embittered I seem to becoming on here. Sorry; taking on the establishment has been such a toxic task ... and very bad for one's mental health after a decade of constant knock backs and cover ups.

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

Fiona,

I couldn’t find the time bar on the small claims court web site so I phone them. I was told it depends on who it is you are trying to get money out of. It is usually 6 years! So I said, I’m not out of time then? The answer is no!

So….. I think I’ll try again. I do know what you mean about our own health, no one cares about that, only that they defend the indefensible

Thank you Fiona!

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Thank you Brenda,

Plus, I wish to openly say thank on here for representing the PHSO Pressure Group in Westminster this month. You set about these tasks with no public funding.

You are inspiring and one of my role models. When I met with you and Della in Westminster last year - I raised "my game".

I learnt so much more from meeting YOU two .... than I did from my encounters with the CQC representative and a publicly funded PR Queen in October last year!

Dear foiofficer,

Please could I draw your attention to W. Millward's helpful clarification on here;

Magna Carta clause (40) , "to no one deny or delay right or justice" is still valid in law today.

Many thanks for your time on this data query and genuine public health issue. I look forward to your clarity on what is clearly and unresolved issue when one reviews the other contributions to this FOI enquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

--------------------------------
[Insert your auto response here]

show quoted sections

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms Watts

 

Your information request (FDN-213167, FDN-214229)

 

I am writing further to your emails of 28 January and 5 February 2015 in
which you ask about court procedures.

 

First of all, it is not clear what you mean by ‘deadlock letter’, but
judicial review is a court process open to everyone and, as such,
information about it is available in the public domain.  Guidance setting
out the procedure for Judicial Review can be found on the Ministry of
Justice website, at:
[1]www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-building/administrative-court/applying-for-judicial-review 
PHSO does not withhold information about this process, as it is freely
available in the public domain.  We do not hold any information detailing
any policy decision to prevent access to this information, in respect of
the Magna Carta or otherwise.

If you have any queries regarding the process of Judicial Review, you
should seek independent legal advice.  Your local Citizen’s Advice Bureau
or Civil Legal Advice may be able to assist you further.

 

You have also asked where it is stated that the Ombudsman is immune to
civil action in relation to UK data laws.  The Ombudsman has no immunity
to civil action in relation to the Data Protection Act and this is not
stated anywhere to our knowledge.  If this is not the information you are
looking for, please let us know.  You can find out more information about
information rights on the Information Commissioner’s Office website at:
[2]www.ico.org.uk

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Aimee Gasston

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

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

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [4][email address]

 

 

 

From: Fiona Watts [mailto:[FOI #250345 email]]
Sent: 26 January 2015 14:44
To: foiofficer
Subject: Freedom of Information request - The Magna Carta; the right to
private prosecution. Where is this "right" progressed by the PHSO?

 

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Due to my failure to source this information from the PHSO staff since
last year, please may I have your co-operation on this public forum
website?

1. Following a deadlock letter from The Ombudsman, how does one progress a
judicial review against The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman?

2. I am already progressing civil action (under the UK's data laws)
against a range of public sector departments; where in the constitution
does it state that The Ombudsman is immune from similar civil action?

3. Why does the Review Team and the Director of Complex Cases repeatedly
fail to attach to their deadlock letters that information which would
outline how the public can progress a judicial review against The
Ombudsman?

4. In respect of the Magna Carta, on what grounds does The Ombudsman
support the withholding of data explaining how to progress a judicial
review?

Yours faithfully,

Fiona Watts

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #250345 email]

Is [6][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear foiofficer,

Thank you for the response.

How is a member of the public supposed to keep confidence in this organisation when it openly questions the term "deadlock"letter?

I refer you to the OMBUDSMAN SERVICES website where the term is explained to the general public!

For the attention of Aimee Gasston and the PHSO FOI team; http://www.ombudsman-services.org/downlo...

This FOI response says it all about the quality of staff training at the PHSO.

As usual, it has been the feedback volunteered by the public that has been the most clear, concise and helpful!

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

--------------------------------
[Insert your auto response here]

show quoted sections

Dear foiofficer,

These two FOI questions do still require a "best" answer under UK data law.

3. Why does the Review Team and the Director of Complex Cases repeatedly fail to attach to their deadlock letters that information which would outline how the public can progress a judicial review against The Ombudsman?

4. In respect of the Magna Carta, on what grounds does The Ombudsman support the withholding of data explaining how to progress a judicial review?

Question 4 was obviously asked in the context of those deadlock letters and the PHSO website.

I look forward to a clear answer to a clear FOI query.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

--------------------------------
[Insert your auto response here]

show quoted sections

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms Watts

 

Your information request (FDN-213167, FDN-214229)

 

Thank you for your further emails.  We have nothing further to add to our
response to your information requests.  However, if you would like an
Internal Review processing in relation to my handling of them, please let
us know.

Yours sincerely

 

Aimee Gasston

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

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

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][email address]

 

 

 

From: Fiona Watts [mailto:[FOI #250345 email]]
Sent: 19 February 2015 09:34
To: foiofficer
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - The Magna Carta; the right
to private prosecution. Where is this "right" progressed by the PHSO?

 

Dear foiofficer,

These two FOI questions do still require a "best" answer under UK data
law.

3. Why does the Review Team and the Director of Complex Cases repeatedly
fail to attach to their deadlock letters that information which would
outline how the public can progress a judicial review against The
Ombudsman?

4. In respect of the Magna Carta, on what grounds does The Ombudsman
support the withholding of data explaining how to progress a judicial
review?

Question 4 was obviously asked in the context of those deadlock letters
and the PHSO website.

I look forward to a clear answer to a clear FOI query.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Watts

show quoted sections

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Fiona.... Sorry if you didn't approve of my annotation.

I was trying to point out that there has to be a costed claim for money in the small claims court.

Otherwise the case can be thrown out.

The fees are £25- £35 for money claims up to £300 - and they are £910- 815 for reclaiming £50,000.01 - £100,000.

But you may even lose your fee without ever having to get to a court, if there is no specific financially costed claim and legal argument of its loss.

.....Because the court can refuse to process it.

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-...

If you win your case, you may get the fee back.

But your case sounds much more complex than a 'small' monetary claim.

Maybe a No win - No Fee lawyer?

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

J.T Oakley,

You are an inspiration to so many people who have been let down by the "system".

No offence was taken. I hear you and I'm genuinely sorry if I came across as unappreciative. Head butting "brick walls" all day tends to give me "an attitude" on here. Sorry!

However, you have pointed out the Catch 22 situation we're put in .... when we attempt to clarify that data considered to be factually correct data under UK law.

If we pursue all the monies owed, then we look like we're taking this action purely for financial gain. But if we do not clarify our losses in full, then we may fail in progressing our case in the first place.

What an utter farce - all subsidised by the British public!?!

Here is wishing you the best of of luck for the progress of your EU petition.
Onwards and forwards!

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Fiona
What claim do you want to make against the PHSO? I originally went to them for help with maladministration by the Home Office. PHSO didn't investigate my claim. We now know this was due to cherry picking cases. I know this because I have since made a civil claim against the Home Office and they settled with me! I have since made three other claims! All settled,bar the last one which is the most contentious and hasn't come to trial yet. Civil litigation is not as easy as it seems and you have to have some knowledge of caselaw if you are going to get anywhere. The District Judges that would hear your case are only interested in the law. Our personal stories count for nothing. It is long, hard and stressful journey. I wouldn't encourage anyone to do it unless they know the law! As Brenda pointed out, there are a number of small things that can trip you up. Having fought the system for eight years now, I am fully aware of how heartbreaking it can be, but JT Oakly is right, and ENCOURAGING people to take the PHSO to Court is a journey to nowhere!! So again - what is the legal claim you wish to make against the PHSO and I will help you all I can.

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

I also failed to mention that it was the lovely and brave Dee Spears that got me onto Twitter some time back. I've never looked back. I am a strong presence against The Home Office and it's given me a voice to air concerns that otherwise would have no way of being highlighted. Twitter is a powerful tool and I would encourage you to try it.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I'd agree about Twitter. I didn't think I'd like it.

But I joined it - after the PHSO forced me to into court.

It's a very handy public medium for addressing the PHSO if it won't respond to you in any other way.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Thanks Fiona.

But I have no EU petition.

My efforts are individual, as I am trying to help a whistleblower who has been sacked due to having reported an assault on a patient and note fiddling by NHS staff.

::::

CA Purkis is something of an authority on courts and she has a fine track record in winning her cases.
So her advice is always good.

As she explains, fighting cases are draining both emotionally and financially.

:::
You will probably be aware of this often quoted remark - by Irish judge Sir James Matthew.

' Justice in England is open to all - like the Ritz Hotel'.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Well, well fancy that!

https://twitter.com/phsombudsman/status/...

Write to the via Twitter.. And you get an answer on the same day.

::::

I was beginning to think that I'd also be a dead pensioner before the PHSO investigated.....

The ombudsman tasked with overseeing Pension wise has reprimanded an arm of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over an administration error worth £26,514.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) secured the payout for the family of a deceased 90-year-old after the DWP's Pension Service failed to submit an electronic prompt that would have triggered a housing benefit she was entitled to.

http://www.professionalpensions.com/prof...

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Truth is demanding a hearing and AGREE CA Purkis Twitter is a very powerful tool. Glad you have mastered it so well. You are also very kind! Thank you.

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Dear C A Purkis,
Thank you for your advice, support on the 27th. Your knowledge base is genuinely valued & I admire your ability to keep good mental hygiene throughout.

Yours & JT's annotations were timely & really appreciated.

I've spent 7 years trying to NOT engage in legal action.

But when organisations fail to engage in mediation whilst continuing to cover up their maladministration against me ... we are left with no option but to attempt a judicial review.

I am still in shock, stunned & overwhelmed by the effort that public servants have gone to - in order to cover up their maladministration.

Every Small Claim case would be under The Data Protection Act 1998.

Due to the efforts of agencies to cover up their errors - I've got to break down my case to force a judicial review of every piece of false data that has impeded the progress of my case.

Ive been battling 17 organisations since 2009 so my mental health & resources are poor. But I'm hoping that by focusing a judicial review of each factually incorrect item of data on my records... I might be able to confirm that factually correct data. I am unable to work or access unbiased healthcare due to the amount of false profiling I am having to deal with since moving to Suffolk.

Moving forward:
I have no family left, my friends have understandably reached compassion fatigue. My boyfriend has become ill with the stress as he & other supporters have been victimised,misquoted, bullied & harassed ... just for being associated with me.

I have a tape recording of the PHSO's Dr Gavin McBurnie agreeing that my situation was "Kafka-esque' before he failed to conduct a best investigation of the errors made by the PHSO.

I have ten civil actions (under Principle 1, 4 & 6 pending against a Trust, Borough Council & one due against the police's legal advisors.

Any further advice will be gratefully received.

Many thanks

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Re; TWITTER.

I'm too much of a Twit nowadays to risk it. One of the outcomes of my breakdown was that I lost my skills set including the ability to spell. I cringe when I read my postings on this website.

Let me lose on TWITTER & I fear that I'll make a bigger fool of myself.

But a big congratulations to your achievement with it this week JT Oakley. Good news?! Your energy & focus on here is INSPIRING to witness.

I'll look at TWIT as an option in the future.

Thank you again for your advice & solidarity JT Oakley & Dee. X

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 'The Magna Carta; the right to private prosecution. Where is this "right" progressed by the PHSO?'.

I am genuinely sorry but I still seek a clear explanation for this FOI query.
(I reviewed the links provided but I am perplexed as to where the guidelines are that state that the PHSO is NOT duty bound by Parliament to help a victim of NHS maladministration access justice and resolution?)

I still seek clarity under UK data law with the following FOI query;
3. Why does the Review Team and the Director of Complex Cases
repeatedly fail to attach to their deadlock letters that
information which would outline how the public can progress a
judicial review against The Ombudsman?

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

Yours faithfully,

Fiona Watts

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 A Giggins left an annotation ()

Fiona,

In practice I fear that J T Oakley is right - there is probably something in the remit/operation of the small claims court that will prevent you pursuing a claim there.

However, I too have been exploring this as a possible means of remedy.

I haven't put it to the test, and am not a legal expert, but I think the key may be in the definition of damage as opposed to financial damages

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...

The law recognizes three major categories of damages: Compensatory Damages, which are intended to restore what a plaintiff has lost as a result of a defendant's wrongful conduct; nominal damages, which consist of a small sum awarded to a plaintiff who has suffered no substantial loss or injury but has nevertheless experienced an invasion of rights; and punitive damages, which are awarded not to compensate a plaintiff for injury suffered but to penalize a defendant for particularly egregious, wrongful conduct. In specific situations, two other forms of damages may be awarded: treble and liquidated.

If correction of the data held is your principal aim, and you have proof that the information held is wrong, could you make a claim for nominal damages for invasion of (DPA) rights?, with or without a claim for compensation? Even if the small claims court can't order a correction of the data they might then be able to refer the case to another court.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

This week's File on Four was very interesting. It concerned the role of insurance companies in local authority child abuse cases, but things may be similar in hospitals. One contributor explained the difference between British and American law. In America the sheer enormity of the misdeed can lead to a considerable payout, but in Britain a victim's loss of potential earnings etc must be shown. This can be difficult, and it is made worse by the insurance company demanding that victims see one of their doctors for a psychiatric assessment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0537662

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Having walked through the quagmire of simple Data Protection Act civil actions, I would only urge you to seek proper legal representation. You can not begin to imagine how complicated the SYSTEM is let alone the law. My DPA against the Home Office, was a case in point. The hired an expensive and well known barrister to represent them. He arrived in Court ready to cut me to threads even though I had irrefutable evidence that one of their employees had accessed my data. The district Judge was patient and sympathetic, but strongly suggested that I get legal help. As it turned out they settled with me, but I believe that was only due to the Judge having a strong word with them. I have since made several other claims for my data. Simple straightforward SAR and they have spent THOUSANDS fighting me. I would not put my worst enemy through what I've been through, so please be sensible.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Wise words CA and good to have your expertise! Good luck Fiona Watts and always worth remembering in the case of trying to access justice: THEY have all the insider info and Public Money to call on! Add acting with total impunity and you are up against it! But I can see how you feel too. As I said "Good Luck" xxx

D. Speers left an annotation ()

BTW Re Twitter and spelling it don't mater a jot! If fact the less leters used the mor info in! Can help if needed! Twitter is a very powerful tool. So many knowledgeable Tweeps on there!
Have a think about it!
D.x

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Fiona.. The fault is not with you.

The PHSO brings many bereaved or unfairly treated people to the brink of losing it - because it consistently fails to understand complaints and believes everything the other party ( especially the NHS) tells it .

This seems to be the sum total of its 'investigations'which is why it is so infuriating to the point of disbelief and so draining.

Complainants simply cannot believe that an 'independent' Ombudsman is anything but.

So the human response us to keep trying. And that is why many complainants are still trying to get this organisation to seriously investigate their complaint years later.

So you are not alone in being badly treated by the PHSO - as there is now a consistent pattern that it has been neglecting the most basic of its duties.A consistent pattern like this is a systemic failure.

:::

Here's the public track record: (The private one may even be a worse).

After failing to investigate Mid-Staffs complaints - deaths estimated at up to 1,400 - the PHSO then went on to do exactiy the same thing fail by failing to investigate Morecambe Bay's mother and baby deaths.
Leading to even more deaths.

So 'learning no lessons' it just continued along the way by upholding Trust statements, declining to investigate the complainant's information properly and, worst of all - treating the bereaved parents and genuinely concerned people like uppity whiners with fictitious complaints that can be safely ignored. Simply because of the tremendous power that the PHSO has. This last reason alone is what makes the PHSO so unfit for purpose.

(Kirkup report out next week).

Here's what James Titchcombe had to say:

In a letter to the Ombudsman seen by this newspaper Mr Titcombe states: “Since Joshua’s death, no other organisation (including the trust) has caused me and my family as much distress as the Ombudsman. I turned to your organisation in 2009 in a desperate state, needing help to try and understand my sons death and wanting to ensure lessons were learned to keep others safe.
“My family, Joshua and the many other mothers and babies who died avoidable deaths whilst your organisation stood by have been badly failed. Your ongoing behaviour mirrors the very worst examples of poor culture I see in the NHS.”

NHS bosses to be criticised in Morecambe Bay mother and baby deaths report - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/114...

Della left an annotation ()

James Titcombe is still trying to get answers from PHSO as to why they failed to investigate his most serious concerns. Managing Director Mick Martin is still dishing out the same illogical reasons given in the first place. So no change there, yet they say they are 'different now'. Read the response James sent to Mr. Martin's lame explanation. https://patientsafetyfirst.wordpress.com...

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Thank you very much J Roberts,
I have provided the link for the File on Four article here should other readers wish to listen too; http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0537662

....................................................

Dear C A Purkis, Dee and J T Oakley,

Many thanks for your stella advice and input. It has been a life-line and I am sorry if this sounds a little dramatic but my feedback is genuine. I am at my wits end.

I have reflected and seriously considered your feedback over the week end.

But my situation is like "jogging through treacle as lawyers are closed to me until I can bring some clarity to my case. The pursuit maladministration under The Data Protection seems to be the only way that I can prove my case to a legal advisor before I seek their help.

My insurance company is supposed to be starting legal action against those misguided harassers who have made our lives "hell". Even putting the wheelie bin out last night was a "risk activity".

But that legal action against my attackers seems to have been delayed for two years due to the issues of false data on my medical records.

Unfortunately, the more I protested about data errors in my health records in 2009 the further I was sucked into "mental health care".

Surely a rural small claims court Magistrate would review the NHS or the PHSO's failure to adhere to the Principles of The Data Protection Act with some empathy for my situation?

The Magna Carta = the right to justice?

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Dear J T Oakley,

Your posting:
Well, well fancy that!

https://twitter.com/phsombudsman/status/...

Are you saying that you were updated by Twitter ... and not another method of communication? What?!!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Last April, I made a complaint about the two members of staff who had incorrectly 'vexed' my FOIA request.

The complaint was made in the knowledge that the PHSO's external investigator had then UPHELD my case in January - and therefore my case was not 'futile', as the FOIA team had maintained to the ICO.

At the same time, I gave the PHSO the chance to retract the false statements, which later drove me to court to repair my reputation.

:::

The PHSO declined .....and decided that one employee had ' no case to answer' straight away.

The other complaint could presumably be put on the back burner - until after the PHSO case was upheld in court and, of course, the Tribunal judge pronounced the PHSO to have acted correctly.

( In between was the ICO Decision. But the PHSO could expect it rubber- stamp any PHSO decision, as the PHSO oversees the ICO).

The PHSO's case hinged on the Dransfield FOIA Decision, in that I was making 'vexatious' requests because my case was 'futile' and had no chance of succeeding.

I was therefore attempting to ask how my complaint could be forwarded to an officer senior enough to understand it..presumably just for fun, or spite, now my complaint was 'over'.

Clearly I had been 'obsessional' in 'harassing' the FOIA team to provide information access to line-managers to point out that my complaint had been botched by the head of review's team.

Unfortunately for the PHSO the external investigator then UPHELD my case and recommended that, as the PHSO had acted so incompetently, that I was to be paid me compensation for the botched case

( Compensation which incidentally took me over a year to get - with aroun eight emails..around 8......so the PHSO eventually - rather begrudgingly - paid out ).

The Head of Review had to admit her sub-standard investigation..which she did. And her constant rejection of my case ( no replies etc) over the period of a year, and ignoring my MP.

Dame Julie Mellor formally apologised.

This was the factual evidence given to the Tribunal which UPHELD my case that the PHSO had acted wrongly by vexing my request. I represented myself since the case was straightforward.

IMO - It was straightforward 'blocking' by the FOIA department to prevent my by- passing the head of review, who works in the same department - to get my case to a line- manager.

The PHSO had demonstratably misinformed the ICO ....and the ICO hadn't bothered to check the facts.

:::

The QC judge had some pertinant remarks to make about the PHSO:

'That is what the case is all about.

This failure to act properly or adequately respond to this request led to confusion and frustration and a breakdown in communications such that the Appellant did not seek or deserve.

We are of the view that it is wrong to suggest that she deliberately sought to all set out to harass or distress the public authorities staff and on hearing the Appellant at length we find on balance this case has not been established'.

More....
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...

So the PHSO's 'failure to respond to the request' , with the addition of the misinformation that I had ridiculously asked for the phone number of 'every member of staff' and that my case was 'futile' is basically why the grc Tribunal upheld my case.

::::

But the PHSO STILL wasn't investigating the complaint about two employees who had cost the public purse an estimated £8-10k, with this wrongful vexation - and driven me to court, taking me hours of totally unnecessary work and expense.

The PHSO was so supremely sure that a panel and judge would not dare to disagree with it, a retraction of a provably known false statement that my case was 'futile', would not be necessary.

IMO : The extraordinary arrogance is the PHSO's consistent problem.

Even when it makes a clear factual mistake, it will just not admit it.

And even when you appeal to its senior officers for sense, it carries along its course simply because it assesses itself to be invulnerable.

::::

I wrote and asked who was handling the complaint now that I had won the court case.....

As usual - this is the PHSO after all - I got no reply as to who is to investigate my case - and the terms of the investigation.

So to Twitter....

Where I got a reply

For anyone not on Twitter, here it is:

PHS Ombudsman (@PHSOmbudsman) tweeted at 5:15pm - 27 Feb 15:
PHS Ombudsman (@PHSOmbudsman)
27/02/2015 11:36
PHSO's Julie Mellor said elderly woman + family were let down due to service failure and poor complaint handling ow.ly/JIwog

:::::

Jatroa (@jatroa)
27/02/2015 13:51
@PHSOmbudsman

I'm elderly.

And I'm a woman.

Could the PHSO get on with my complaint please?

:::::

@jatroa

If you would like to discuss this matter further please call us on 0345 015 4033. (https://twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman/status/...)

:::::

Jatroa (@jatroa)
27/02/2015 17:19
@PHSOmbudsman

No thanks.

I know the PHSO.. so I get everything in writing.

Otherwise it was never said.

::::

So there you have it.

If the PHSO consistently fails to respond to reasonable correspondence ( as it will) - take to Twitter.

Because PR seems to be more important to the PHSO than integrity.

......But - of course - I'm still waiting to hear who is to investigate my case and the terms of the investigation.

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...

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

Dear What Do They Know website team and Dee Speers, W,Millward, Brenda Prentice, J.T.Oakley, C.A.Purkiss and J.A Oakley plus the founder Della Reynolds who set up thelifeline the unique pressure group http://phsothefacts.com

I have wised up about the "dark forces" that seem to over-rule the public service complaints systems in the UK.

Last week I confirmed that data that demonstrates that insurance brokers and drug companies seem to run "the show".

I have been SO naive! Our Members of Parliament do NOT seem to have the same power as the likes of Ghallagher Bassett.

It was only when I reviewed my correspondence and efforts to progress three pre-court small claims this morning that I identified an unpleasant and united Venn Diagram between Ghallagher Bassett's "employers" Suffolk County Council, Suffolk Constabulary and it seems, departments in the DWP, NHS and my own legal insurance company Direct Line.

I am still in shock. Those who know of my case will notice that a certain company responsible for 2.7 of the UK's GDP are not mentioned here. Apparently there is the offer of an out of court settlement. It all stinks - its all about cover ups. I have been so naive and clueless. Unfortunately, I am stubborn enough not to comply with their In House lawyer (who got a First in Law at Oxford) the fact that he is emailing me rather than someone lower in rank - seems to demonstrate that I have stumbled across FOI links that I should not have done.

TWITTER;

I have considered Twitter but after seeing how nasty people can be on it - am loath to subject myself to more scrutiny - its bad enough to have been bullied, hounded and harassed by public servants determined to cover up their maladministration against me.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SUPPORT. I hope it is okay to contact some of you in private as your knowledge base has been empowering and kept me going through a tough time.

I genuinely believe that their agenda is to drive us to extreme action .. on ourselves.