John Jones,

Here is what the Public Administration Select Committee has to say:

'We monitor complaints about the Ombudsman as a way of scrutinising the work of her office and identifying systemic problems, but we will not consider individual cases.'

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commit...

Very important information can be found here:

http://phsothefacts.com/pasc/

'*We are independent and not part of the government. Our
role is to investigate complaints from individuals who have been treated
unfairly or have received poor service from the NHS, government
departments or other public organisations'

( *I think she means the PHSO..and not an unspecified 'We'.)

:::::::

1. The PHSO is financed by the government.

(... Not that the government would reduce its operational budget if it wasn't making the 'right' decisions of course).

But there are some complainants who would have reason to question why NHS complaints were not investigated properly. -

Here's just one:

... James Titcombe, after his son, Joshua, died.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

2. PASC, which is made up of MP's, appoints the Ombudsman.

3. And Cabinet Minister (and Paymaster General ) Frances Maude appoints qualified persons, which safeguard the privacy of government/PHSO interviews - under Section 36 - should an FoI Requestor ask any tricky questions about the relationship between the PHSO and its 'overseers'.

The major 'loophole' regarding scrutiny is that PHSO investigates individual cases of maladministration but PACAC - the select committee is unable to review 'individual cases' handled by the Ombudsman. Therefore PACAC is unable to scrutinize the core role of PHSO and can only look at the data produced in the Annual Report.

And not many people are in a position to challenge a PHSO refusal decision. Mr Walker did in 2012 – permission to apply for judicial review:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

Paras 49 – 52 deal with the refusal decision of the Ombudsman. The judge identifies 16 separate matters that were arguably erroneously taken into account in the decision.

" 53. My function is not to determine whether the court should intervene but merely to determine whether, on the basis of the factual background that I have summarised and the possible errors in the Ombudsman's decisions that I have discussed, Mr Walker has an arguable case for obtaining a quashing order and an order requiring the Ombudsman to consider afresh whether to hold a formal inquiry into his complaints.

57 . I invite the Ombudsman to give further thought as to whether she wishes to maintain her decision not to investigate Mr Walker's complaints. I also invite her to consider making a proposal to Mr Walker and HMCS that they and she should collectively attempt to resolve Mr Walker's complaints against both HMCS and the Ombudsman an informal, speedy and economical way without further intervention of the court. If she is prepared to put such a proposal to both of the other parties, she could at the same time propose a way that all three parties could adopt as the means of attempting such a resolution."

I meant to include this from para. 53:

"The grounds for interfering with a decision of the Ombudsman are limited given the wide discretion that she is provided with in order to decide whether or not a court should intervene. However, as Collins J found in R v Commissioner for Administration (ex parte Turpin) EWHC Admin 503 at paragraph 36:

'If it is clear that the Ombudsman in reaching a decision has misdirected himself as to a matter of law or has failed to have regard to a relevant consideration or has had regard to an irrelevant consideration … then the court can and should intervene.'"