02/10/2026
PHSO states publicly that it publishes “most of our decisions”. I would like to establish what proportion of decisions are actually published and understand the process governing publication and non-publication. To keep this request proportionate and readily within the appropriate cost limit, I am seeking only centrally held statistics and existing recorded policies, procedures and governance information. I am not asking PHSO to undertake a manual review of individual case files or to create new statistical information. 1. Number and proportion of decisions published For each financial year from 2021/22 to 2025/26, please provide, where these figures are already held centrally: a. The total number of PHSO casework decisions made. b. The number of those decisions published on the PHSO Decisions Portal. c. The number of those decisions not published on the Decisions Portal. d. Any percentage or publication rate already recorded by PHSO. If PHSO does not hold a calculated percentage, please simply provide the underlying figures that are held. I am not asking PHSO to create a new calculation. If the terminology PHSO uses internally differs from “casework decisions”, please provide the equivalent centrally held figures which underpin PHSO's statement that it publishes “most of our decisions”, together with a brief explanation of what those figures represent. 2. Publication criteria and process Please provide copies of the current recorded policies, procedures, guidance, instructions, criteria, checklists or process documents which set out: which casework decisions are published on the Decisions Portal; which decisions are not published; the criteria used when deciding not to publish a decision; any anonymisation or identification-risk criteria affecting publication; and the process through which a decision moves from case closure to publication or non-publication. I am requesting existing documents only. 3. Who decides whether a decision is published Please provide the existing recorded information identifying: the team, function or job role responsible for determining whether a decision is published; who is authorised to decide that a decision should not be published; whether the caseworker has any role in that decision; whether publication or non-publication requires managerial approval or sign-off; and whether decisions not to publish are subject to any review or quality assurance. I am seeking job titles, roles and organisational responsibilities only, not the names or personal information of individual staff members. 4. Recorded reasons for non-publication Please provide any existing centrally held list, coding framework, policy or categories used to record reasons why a casework decision is not published. I am not asking PHSO to review individual case files to identify or calculate reasons for non-publication. If statistics showing the number of non-published decisions by reason/category are already held centrally, please provide them. If no such statistics are already held, please simply state that they are not held. Separate FOI request For the avoidance of doubt, I have submitted another FOI request to PHSO within the preceding 60 consecutive working days. That request concerns staff training materials. This request concerns entirely different information: casework publication statistics, the criteria and process governing publication of decisions, and responsibility for publication decisions. The two requests do not seek the same or similar information and should therefore be treated as separate requests for the purposes of regulation 5 of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This request has also deliberately been framed so that it does not require a manual examination of individual case files or the creation of new information. It seeks centrally held statistics and existing governance documents only. If any individual item requested above is not held centrally and answering that particular item would require a manual review of individual case files, please state that the information is not held in the form requested rather than undertaking such a review. This should not prevent disclosure of the remaining centrally held information.
Please provide me with your policy about service complaints.
Please provide the case closure codes for 2024-25 & 2025-26 in a similar format to that from a previous FOI request linked below https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/case_closure_code_for_2022_23_20&data=05|02|informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk|07aaffa6731c423f2b4c08df0db7020c|7c88cec864114f329333cf6877fd3515|0|0|639244751860043889|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|0|||&sdata=PJKYyD73k6A6jKNh76VUbREgDIwHAiIzcGKPsyBWmiY=&reserved=0 If case closure codes are no longer used please provide similar details showing the number of cases closed grouped by the reason for case closure for the years 2024-25 & 2025-26
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, There were 464 cases recorded as Resolved in 2024-25 and 511 cases recorded as Resolved in 2025-26. Please provide the number of cases recorded as Resolved in which financial compensation was obtained for the complainant in 2025-26 and also the total amount of financial compensation obtained for complainants in these Resolved cases in 2025-26. Please also provide the number of cases recorded as Resolved in which financial compensation was obtained for the complainant in 2024-25 and also the total amount of financial compensation obtained for complainants in these Resolved cases in 2024-25. Yours faithfully, Nicholas Wheatley
Please provide the current recorded guidance or training material used by PHSO caseworkers which explains how they should determine the relative authority or weight of different standards or sources when deciding what should have happened in a complaint. In particular, I am seeking any material which tells caseworkers how to distinguish between, or choose between: legislation or statutory regulations; NHS contractual requirements; regulatory or professional standards; national clinical guidance; local NHS or organisational policies; guidance produced by professional associations; and non-binding guidance produced by trade unions, including trade unions representing the profession or organisation whose conduct is being investigated. Please include any material explaining whether PHSO operates a hierarchy of authority between these categories. I am particularly seeking recorded information which explains whether caseworkers are expected to identify the legal, statutory, contractual, regulatory, professional or advisory status of a source before using it to establish what an organisation was required or expected to do. Please also provide any current recorded guidance or training material concerning the use of guidance produced by the British Medical Association (BMA), including in its capacity as a trade union representing doctors, when assessing complaints about GP practices or doctors. I am not requesting individual case files, statistics, correspondence, or a search of historic decisions. If there is no recorded guidance or training material which addresses the relative authority of these different sources, or the distinction between binding requirements and non-binding trade-union or professional-association guidance, please simply confirm that no such information is held. If the relevant information is contained within the current Service Model, Caseworker Academy material, Balancing Evidence guidance, quality-assurance instructions or another existing document, please provide that document or the relevant section.
01/10/2026
I would be grateful if you could share the organisation’s monthly sickness absence rate and monthly turnover rate (rolling 12 months) for the period April 2026 to August 2026. I am keen to minimise any additional work for you, so please feel free to provide the information in whatever format is easiest. A brief email with a simple table of figures would be perfectly sufficient. If it is simpler, I am also very happy to liaise directly with your HR department, please do feel free to share their contact details if that would reduce the workload on your side.
28/09/2026
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about the process, timescales and procedures relating to OAT (Ombudsman’s Assurance Team) reviews. Please could you provide the following information: 1. What is the formal process, and what stages are normally followed, when an OAT review is undertaken following a challenge to a previous caseworker decision? 2. Is there an expected, target or indicative timescale for completing an OAT review? 3. What is the average time taken to complete an OAT review? 4. What is the median time taken to complete an OAT review? 5. What is the longest recorded period that an OAT review has remained ongoing before a final outcome was reached? 6. How many OAT reviews have taken longer than 6 months, 9 months, 12 months, 18 months and 24 months? 7. For the above statistics, please provide the figures for the most recent five-year period available and clarify how PHSO defines the start and end of an OAT review for the purpose of calculating these times. 8. Where further clinical input is considered necessary during an OAT review, what process is followed, and are there expected timescales for obtaining that clinical input? 9. Is there any requirement for senior clinical or management oversight of an OAT review before conclusions are reached? 10. At any stage of an OAT review, is the Ombudsman personally involved in, consulted about, or required to approve the review, the further clinical input being sought, or the final conclusions? If so, at what stage and in what circumstances? 11. Where an OAT review has remained ongoing for a prolonged period, is there any stage at which the matter is escalated to the Ombudsman, a senior Ombudsman, or another senior decision-maker for oversight or intervention? 12. Where an OAT review concerns clinical care, does PHSO normally seek to obtain all relevant original medical records and underlying records or data, rather than relying solely on records previously supplied by the organisation complained about? 13. If the organisation has not provided all original or potentially relevant records, what steps does PHSO normally take to establish whether further records exist and whether they should be obtained and reviewed before the review is concluded? 14. While an OAT review remains ongoing, particularly where not all original records have yet been obtained, does PHSO request or require the organisation concerned to preserve all potentially relevant records and underlying electronic information so that they are not destroyed, altered or otherwise lost while the review remains open? 15. Does this preservation extend to electronic records, audit trails, system data, machine-generated data, amendments or alterations to records, and other underlying information where these may be relevant to a complaint concerning clinical care? 16. If there is a PHSO policy, procedure, guidance or standard practice dealing with the preservation of records during an ongoing OAT review, please provide a copy or link to it. 17. If an OAT review has been ongoing for a prolonged period and the complainant has still not received an outcome, what formal steps or escalation routes are available to the complainant? 18. Is there a point at which a complainant can request that the delay is reviewed by a more senior member of staff or that a formal explanation is provided as to why the review remains outstanding? 19. If an OAT review ultimately does not provide an outcome within a reasonable period, what further avenues are available to the complainant to raise concerns about the delay or seek progression of the review? I am seeking this information to understand the general OAT review process, the expected timescales and the safeguards in place during a prolonged review. I am not requesting confidential information about any individual complainant’s case. Additional questions sent on same day: 1. Whether OAT reviews that are already in progress will continue to be dealt with under the existing OAT process or whether they will be transferred to a different team, process or decision-making structure. 2. Whether there are any changes planned to the handling, review, clinical input, senior oversight or final decision-making of OAT reviews that are currently ongoing. 3. Whether an OAT review that is already in progress could be delayed, paused, transferred or otherwise affected as a result of the transition to the Public Services Ombudsman. 4. Whether there is any possibility that an ongoing OAT review would need to be restarted, reassessed or transferred to another member of staff as a result of the transition. 5. Whether there is a planned date by which ongoing OAT reviews will be transferred to the new arrangements, and if so, what safeguards are in place to prevent existing reviews from being delayed as a result. 6. Whether complainants with OAT reviews currently in progress will be notified of any changes affecting their review. 7. Whether there is any internal guidance, policy, implementation plan or other document explaining how existing OAT reviews will be dealt with during and after the transition to the Public Services Ombudsman. 8. Whether the transition is expected to have any impact on the timescale for completing OAT reviews that are already in progress.
25/09/2026
Please treat this as a request for recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is separate from my Subject Access Request and seeks generic process information only. Please provide the current version, title and date of any recorded policy, procedure or staff guidance used by PHSO for: 1. handling enquiries or evidence about an HMCTS complaint before the HMCTS internal complaints procedure is complete; 2. determining when a complaint about HMCTS administration involving an outsourced enforcement contractor is within PHSO jurisdiction, premature, or requires another procedural step; 3. distinguishing complaints about HMCTS’s own administration or contractor oversight from complaints solely about the conduct of an enforcement contractor; 4. retaining, linking or disposing of evidence supplied at enquiry or eligibility stage before a complaint becomes eligible for investigation; 5. information-sharing with HMCTS or another public body at enquiry or eligibility stage, including any generic policy on disclosure of an enquirer’s identity or personal data; 6. reasonable adjustments or accessible communication at the enquiry and complaint-intake stages, insofar as generic recorded guidance is held. I do not request information about any other complainant, details of any live investigation or material protected by PHSO’s statutory confidentiality provisions. If the relevant material is already published, links plus document title/version/date will be sufficient. If part of a document is exempt, please provide the non-exempt remainder where reasonably possible.
Please provide the following recorded information held by PHSO. I am seeking general policy, process and statistical information, not personal data about my individual case, which is the subject of a separate Subject Access Request. 1. The complete prioritisation criteria, Public Value Model, scoring methodology, weighting guidance and decision-making instructions in force on 28 July 2026. 2. The corresponding material in force on 26 August 2026, identifying any changes between the two dates. 3. All guidance explaining how PHSO assesses the severity of injustice when deciding whether to investigate or prioritise a complaint. 4. Any guidance, policy or instruction authorising or explaining the use of PHSO's published financial-remedy severity scale when making investigation or prioritisation decisions. 5. If a separate internal severity framework is used for investigation decisions, the complete framework, descriptions, scoring guidance and examples. 6. All guidance concerning the circumstances in which concerns about a final decision may be examined by someone independent of the original decision-maker, including the meaning of "more serious injustice" and "matter of public interest" in PHSO's published feedback process. 7. All guidance concerning requests for reconsideration, challenges to decisions not to investigate, service complaints about decision-making, and the distinction between those processes. 8. All policies or instructions concerning referral to a manager or senior officer, managerial approval, moderation, legal input or quality assurance for decisions not to investigate. 9. All templates, forms, checklists or standard decision records used for severity, prioritisation, public-value and no-investigation decisions. 10. All guidance concerning identification and assessment of potential systemic issues, including failures to apply national policy, inconsistent decision-making, flawed processes, delays likely to affect others and insufficient oversight. 11. All guidance concerning the use of complaint information to identify patterns, recurrent problems or issues capable of affecting groups of people. 12. For the period 1 January 2024 to 26 August 2026, the number of complaints received by PHSO about the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, broken down where held by: - calendar year; - issue category; - complaints concerning Home Detention Curfew; - complaints concerning POCA or confiscation proceedings; - complaints accepted for investigation; - complaints declined because of severity, prioritisation, public value, remedy or resource considerations; and - complaints in which a possible systemic issue was recorded. 13. For the same period, any recorded average or median time taken by PHSO to decide whether to investigate complaints about the PPO. If the statistical information in paragraphs 12 and 13 is not held in the precise form requested, please provide the nearest available recorded breakdown and explain what categories or search fields are used. Please provide the information electronically in searchable form. Where material is already publicly available, please identify the exact document, version and location rather than providing only a general link. If any part of the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit, please provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the Act so that I can refine that part while the remaining information is processed. Please do not treat one potentially burdensome statistical element as preventing a response to the policy and guidance elements. If information is withheld, please identify the exemption relied upon and explain the public-interest assessment where applicable.
1) The proforma letter sent to MP's (both maladministration and relevant duty basis), performing a referral role for complainants. 2) Detail clearly the communication from PO accessible to House of Lords members, including s.10(1). 3) Provide the PO's policy detailing the use of administrative discretion in respect of dissemination of reports in relation to s.10 PCA 1967 in respect of such members of the House (Commons), as the Commissioner 'thinks appropriate'. Please indicate when this further s.10 House of Commons circulation is deemed appropriate, but also how these supplementary recipients are determined. 4) Detail whether all recipients of individual complaints are CC'd and have knowledge of one another, or whether a policy of BCC-ing is adopted and the reasons for the policy adopted. 5) Detail the frequency with which additional circulation of s.10 reports are sent, in proportion to the obligatory MP referral letter at 10(1) in years 2022, 2023 and 2024: a) Governmental Minister responsible, for example either the Secretary of State or another minister responsible for presenting issue (group per complaint response) b) Corresponding opposition shadow Ministers (group per complaint response) 6) Please provide the PO's policy detailing the use of administrative discretion in respect of deciding or not deciding to provide for laying a parliamentary report. Both represent decisions, from which inferences are made. 7) Detail the capacity for the PO to identify thematic reporting (as a basis for 6), based upon the replication of issues, from independent complainants? 8) Detail the number of themed complaints concerning experiences/issues Health and Social Care in years 2022 - 2024.
I am looking for some assistance with your organisation’s Spend/Transparency data, Spend over £25,000 available on the following weblink: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/freedom-information-and-data-protection/our-publication-scheme/transparency-data-spending#accorditab__body2045-1 Are you able to provide me with a copy of the June 2026 to August 2026 file or advise when the correct file will be available on the website above? Note: Would not access the available file "June 2026, July 2026, August 2026", which leads to "Failed to load CSV document." or The Page you are looking for doesn't exist or another error occurred." Can you help us on this request, Thank you.
I am looking for some assistance with your organisation’s Spend/Transparency data, Spend over £500 available on the following weblink: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/freedom-information-and-data-protection/our-publication-scheme/transparency-data-spending#accorditab__body2045-1 Are you able to provide me with a copy of the June 2026 to August 2026 file or advise when the correct file will be available on the website above? Note: Would not access the available file "June 2026, July 2026, August 2026", which leads to "Failed to load CSV document." or The Page you are looking for doesn't exist or another error occurred." Can you help us on this request, Thank you.
I am looking for some assistance with your organisation’s Spend/Transparency data, available on the following weblink: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/freedom-information-and-data-protection There appears to be no file available for the month of June 2026 Could you advise when the file will be made available to view online? Would it be possible for you to email me a copy of the June 2026 file please and thank you.
24/09/2026
I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your published organisational data for South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust records 57 total complaints received by PHSO in 2024 to 2025, with 2 accepted for detailed investigation (0 fully upheld, 0 partly upheld, 1 not upheld). I have separately received a response from South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust under the Freedom of Information Act (their ref 3484-FOI), in which the Trust states it received 9 “enquiries” from PHSO regarding the same 2024/25 period. When I asked the Trust to explain the discrepancy between their figure of 9 and your published figure of 57, the Trust suggested that PHSO may count every email received as an “enquiry”, but only forward to the Trust those cases requiring further investigation. I would be grateful if you could clarify: 1. What is counted within your published figure of 57 “total complaints received” for South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust in 2024/25 - does this reflect every initial contact, or only complaints that met a threshold for consideration? 2. Of those 57, how many were formally referred to or forwarded to the Trust for a response, at any stage of your process (whether or not they proceeded to a detailed investigation)? 3. Is there a recorded or standard reason why a Trust’s own count of enquiries received from PHSO about it might differ substantially (9 versus 57) from your own published total for the same organisation and year? I understand there is no charge for this request and that you aim to respond within 20 working days.
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Freedom of Information Team, Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide the following information held by your office relating to complaints about autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) services in England, as referenced in your report Improving ADHD and Autism Services: Commissioning With Confidence and a Guardian article published on 26 August 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/aug/26/autism-adhd-care-complaints-england-triple-five-years 1. Yearly complaint figures For each financial year from 2021–22 to 2025–26, please provide: • The number of complaints received by your office that relate to autism services, ADHD services, or both • Whether these figures refer to all complaints received, complaints investigated, complaints closed, or another defined subset. 2. Underlying complaints dataset Please provide the dataset, spreadsheet, database extract, or other structured data that underlies the analysis of approximately 3,000 complaints described in the report, including for each complaint (where recorded and not redacted): • Financial year • Whether the complaint concerned autism, ADHD, or both • Age group (child/young person, adult, or unspecified) • NHS region / integrated care board / commissioning body • Type of NHS body complained about (e.g. ICB, NHS trust, foundation trust, primary care, other) • Main issue categories (e.g. waiting times, referral handling, Right to Choose, recognition of diagnoses, medication/titration, assessment quality, removal from waiting lists, commissioning/capacity, other). 3. Methodology note Please provide any brief methodology note, coding frame, or technical annex that explains: • How the 3,000 complaints were selected or sampled • How issue categories and other fields were defined and coded. If any part of this request is likely to exceed the cost limit, please advise how it could be narrowed (for example, by providing only aggregated yearly totals and an anonymised sample of complaint records). If information is withheld, please identify the exemption relied upon and explain why it applies. Please provide the information electronically, preferably in CSV, XLSX, or ODS for any tabular data, and PDF or accessible HTML for any notes or reports.
23/09/2026
In the Data Protection I have a legal right information about Public Bodies like PHSO. Freedom Of Information Act Request Typical complaint journey for complaint about NHS GPs Time to read complaint Time to allocate complaint Selection process to allocate staff a particular NHS complaint Time to understand complaint eg read relevant policy, seek experts etc Corresponding with both parties - Who gets most time - Public or GPs Time spent shutting down valid complaint v investigating Time spent investigating complaints to up hold complaint The longest complaint journey and reasons for excessive time Total number of GP complaints Total number upheld complaints Reasons PHSO use to shut down complaints by category All encouragement incentive to shut down complaints instead of investigate them What has PHSO done to improve NHS patients outcomes and NHS GP services by upholding and shutting down complaints since 2018? This is a Legal Right under Freedom of Information You have 30 days to provide this data in line with UK Freedom of Information Data Laws
22/09/2026
You have been misled by the clinical expert that you are using as you categorically do not deconstruct a medical report (this action either by yourself OR the GMC registered professional is both incorrect AND unethical). Please can you share the GMC number of this person as I wish to report him to the GMC.
21/09/2026
I would like to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding: Mydentist Clarendon Road – Hinckley 8 Clarendon Road, Hinckley, Leicestershire, LE10 0PL Please could you provide information concerning complaints received by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about this specific dental practice for the following periods: 2022/23, 2023/24, 2024/25, 2025/26 and, if held, the current 2026/27 reporting year to date. For each reporting year, please could you provide: The total number of complaints received concerning this practice. The general subject/category of the complaints, for example clinical dental treatment, diagnosis, failure to diagnose, infection, extractions, treatment planning, record keeping, communication, complaints handling or administrative matters. How many concerned clinical treatment provided by a dentist, rather than administrative or practice-management matters. The number that proceeded to a detailed investigation. The outcome of those complaints, including how many were upheld, partly upheld, not upheld, resolved, discontinued or otherwise closed. Whether PHSO holds any anonymised final decisions, case summaries or other outcome information relating to these complaints which can be disclosed. If individual complaint information cannot be disclosed, please provide whatever aggregated or anonymised information is held for this practice for each year. I am not requesting the identities, addresses, medical records or other personal information of any patients who made complaints. If any part of this request cannot be disclosed because of confidentiality or another exemption, I would be grateful if you could still provide the remaining information that can lawfully be disclosed.
18/09/2026
Freedom of Information Act 2000 request I am requesting recorded information concerning the PHSO's procedures for dealing with complaints about its own service and requests concerning the review or amendment of PHSO decisions and reports. I am specifically requesting copies of the versions of the relevant policies, procedures and guidance in force on 3 July 2026 and 7 July 2026, including any subsequent version if the relevant procedure changed after those dates. Please provide: 1. Complaints about PHSO service The procedure or guidance governing complaints made by service users about the PHSO's own service, including: how such complaints are categorised; - who is responsible for considering them; - whether they are referred to the Ombudsman Assurance Team or another function; - how the outcome is determined; and - how the outcome is communicated to the complainant. 2. Requests for review of PHSO decisions The procedure or guidance governing requests for review of a PHSO investigation, decision or report, including: - how a review request is identified; - who considers whether the review criteria are met; - how that decision is recorded; and - how the decision is communicated to the service user. - 3. Requests for amendment or correction The procedure or guidance governing requests to amend or correct factual inaccuracies in PHSO reports or decisions, including any guidance concerning amended reports where inaccuracies do not affect the outcome of the investigation. 4. Timescales Any documented timescales or service standards applying to: - acknowledgement of complaints about the PHSO; - consideration of service complaints; - consideration of review requests; - decisions about whether a review will be undertaken; and - communication of the outcome to the service user. 5. Non-response Any policy, procedure or guidance which provides for a complaint, review request or amendment request to be concluded without the service user being informed of the outcome. In particular, please provide any recorded information specifying: - when it is permissible not to provide a response; - who has authority to make that decision; - whether the decision must be recorded; and - whether the service user is to be informed that no response will be provided. 6. Relevant versions of the Review and Feedback Guidance I have located the PHSO's Review and Feedback Guidance and attach a copy for reference. Please confirm whether this was the applicable guidance in force on 3 July and 7 July 2026. If it was, please provide any associated procedures, instructions, guidance or process maps that explain how the provisions within that guidance are implemented in practice. If it was not the applicable guidance, please provide the correct policy or guidance.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 request – Section 117 aftercare Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would be grateful if the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman could provide the following recorded information concerning complaints involving Section 117 aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983. This is a request for general statistical, policy and casework information. It does not seek information identifying individual complainants or patients. Please provide: 1. The number of complaints received by PHSO between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2024 in which Section 117 aftercare was recorded as a significant issue. 2. Of those complaints, please provide, if recorded: o the number taken forward for detailed assessment; o the number formally investigated; o the number upheld or partly upheld; o the number not upheld; and o the number closed without investigation. 3. Please provide the principal recorded reasons why Section 117 complaints were not taken forward for investigation, where such information is held. 4. Please provide copies of, or links to, any PHSO guidance, casework instructions, assessment criteria, training material or policy used by investigators when considering complaints concerning Section 117 aftercare. 5. Please provide any recorded guidance or criteria concerning complaints alleging failure to provide: o a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment; o a written and integrated Section 117 aftercare plan; o clearly identified responsibility for coordinating care; o regular review of care and aftercare arrangements; o proactive community mental health support; o rehabilitation, occupational or psychological interventions; o appropriate support for substance or alcohol misuse alongside severe mental illness; o crisis and relapse planning; or o proper involvement of family members and unpaid carers. 6. Please provide any recorded guidance used by PHSO when considering a complaint that an NHS mental health provider has replaced a named care coordinator with a general "team approach", particularly where the complainant alleges that no identifiable professional is responsible for ensuring that agreed care actually happens. 7. Please provide any recorded guidance concerning complaints where a person with severe and enduring mental illness may minimise, conceal or mask symptoms and functional difficulties during brief professional contacts, and family or carers provide additional information about the person's condition and day-to-day functioning. 8. Please provide any recorded guidance concerning the distinction between: o disclosure of confidential patient information to a carer; and o a professional receiving information from a family member or carer concerning the patient's condition, risks, symptoms or functioning. 9. Please state whether PHSO records complaints concerning Section 117 jointly with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, where responsibility is shared between an NHS body and a local authority. 10. For the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2024, please provide the number of Section 117 cases, if recorded, that were considered jointly or in coordination with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. 11. Please provide copies of any reports, reviews, analyses, briefings or systemic learning produced by PHSO since 1 January 2019 concerning recurring failures or problems in the provision of Section 117 aftercare. 12. Please provide details or links to any published PHSO decisions since 1 January 2019 in which failures concerning Section 117 aftercare were upheld or partly upheld. 13. Please provide any recorded information showing whether PHSO has identified recurring problems involving: • failure to undertake a comprehensive assessment; • absence of an adequate written Section 117 aftercare plan; • lack of an identifiable person responsible for coordinating care; • inadequate involvement of carers; • failure of NHS and local authority services to work jointly; or • Section 117 aftercare consisting predominantly of medication monitoring with insufficient rehabilitation or psychosocial support. If some of this information is already publicly available, I would be grateful if you could provide the relevant links or document references. If answering the request in full would exceed the appropriate cost limit, please provide the information that can be supplied within the limit and advise me how the remainder might most effectively be narrowed. I would prefer the information electronically by return email.