James Spencer-Gray

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Please see the link quoted, lifted from the House of Commons own library, Briefing No 6340, you will note under Section 1, "Who participates on the Work Programme" it quotes the following: -

The Work Programme covers England, Wales and Scotland. Unemployed individuals are referred on to the programme from their local Jobcentre Plus after they have been receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) for a minimum amount of time. There are nine broad groups of people who are eligible for the Work Programme:

As the terms of the Social Security (Credits) Regulation 1975 clearly states that an individual registered as unemployed and ONLY in receipt of National Insurance credits is technically and legally deemed not to be in receipt of benefits.

Therefore based on these documents can you please confirm that an unemployed individual only in receipt of such credits could NOT be forcibly mandated onto the Work Programme against their will?

Yours faithfully,

James Spencer-Gray

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mr Spencer-Gray

Your request relates to information outside of the remit of the PHSO. Your request will need to be forwarded to the Department for Work and Pensions who would be the owners of this information and the most appropriate organisation to respond.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

show quoted sections

James Spencer-Gray left an annotation ()

Will official public domain documentation result in a truthful and transparent answer?

James Spencer-Gray

Dear Information Rights,

Your public domain web site states, and I quote : -We make final decisions on complaints that have not been resolved by the NHS in England and UK government departments and other public organisations. We do this fairly and without taking sides. Our service is free.

If you are unable to answer a simple question regarding stated protocols, from official government sources, how can you do your job and give the public confidence in your competence.

I also note that your response falls beyound the terms of the FoI Act which in theory places you in contempt of the law, not an ideal status when you are paid by the tax payer to ensure that Government departments comply with their published policies and within the law.

I formally request an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

James Spencer-Gray

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mr Spencer-Gray

Thank you for your email.

Section 8(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that a "request for information" must "describe the information requested". Section 84 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 defines "information" as "information recorded in any form". It follows that a "request for information" must concerned information that is recorded in any form. Your correspondence of 13th October 2019 was not a request as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, so PHSO does not have to treat it within the provisions of the legislation, and you do not have a right to an internal review.

Regards,

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

James Spencer-Gray

Dear Information Rights,

I note your comments and thus I would like to re-phrase the question accordingly.

Therefore can you please confirm that all your departments investigations have to comply with official government published public domain documentation?

Yours sincerely,

James Spencer-Gray

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mr Spencer-Gray

 

It is unclear what you mean by ‘official government published domain
documentation’. The PHSO operates in line with our Service Model which is
published on our website. Our powers are set out in the Health Service
Commissioners Act 1993 and the Parliamentary Commissioners Act 1967. We
are accountable to Parliament and our work is scrutinised by the Public
Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC).  Please find
the relevant links to these documents below:

 

[1]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/wh...

 

[2]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/co...

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

show quoted sections

James Spencer-Gray

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 Work Programme'.

I believe the question is quite clear but for clarity's sake could you please confirm that your deliberations have to comply with government policy, as published.

Furthermore as you so kindly point out a specific Act of Parliament can you also confirm that your deliberations have to comply with the law, i.e. Acts of Parliament, High Court and Supreme Court judgements.

Finally you state that your actions are scrutinised by PACAC so can you confirm that rather than purely review your STASTICALLY evidence PACAC also reviews the legality of your actions and that such deliberations comply with the law i.e. THAT YOU AS A DEPARTMENT ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

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,

James Spencer-Gray

James Spencer-Gray left an annotation ()

It will be interesting if they acknowledge the terms and conditions of the Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975 which states, quite clearly, that an individual registered as unemployed but only in receipt of National Insurance credits is NOT classified as being in receipt of BENEFITS.
Will they have a selective attitude as to which Acts of Parliament they comply with and which ones they don't?