22/12/2025
Can you please confirm that you make up the Executive Board of the PHSO.
I request an Internal Review of your response to my Freedom of Information request dated 31/10/2025. The reply provided is incomplete, legally insufficient, and fails to meet several statutory duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. ________________________________________ 1. Failure to comply with Section 1(1)(a): Duty to Confirm or Deny My request explicitly sought: • internal policies, • internal communications, • escalation mechanisms, • risk assessment frameworks, and • procedures relating to urgent, life threatening clinical cases. Your response did not confirm whether these documents exist, which is a breach of Section 1(1)(a) FOIA. If such materials exist, you are legally required to confirm this. If they do not exist, you are legally required to state that they do not exist. Your reply does neither. ________________________________________ 2. Misuse of Section 21 FOIA You relied on Section 21 to claim that the Service Model Policy and Guidance is publicly available. My request, however, sought non-public, internal supervisory and escalation documents. Section 21 cannot be invoked to avoid confirming the existence of internal documents that are not publicly accessible. ________________________________________ 3. Systemic Escalation and Urgent Clinical Risk You failed to address documents, protocols, or internal procedures for handling urgent clinical cases, such as: • severe respiratory distress • high-risk deterioration • clinically significant red-flag alerts The NHS recognizes these as extreme, immediate threats to life. I hereby request again: Provide any and all internal protocols, escalation procedures, risk-assessment flows, or decision-making frameworks used by the PHSO when handling urgent, life-threatening clinical cases. If such documents exist, you must confirm and disclose them. If they do not exist, then the PHSO is formally acknowledging that no internal mechanisms exist to respond to life-threatening clinical risk. ________________________________________ 4. Consequence of Absence of Protocols: Evidence of Systemic Dysfunction Engaging Article 2 ECHR If the PHSO confirms that it does not possess protocols for urgent clinical harm, this constitutes formal evidence of systemic dysfunction within the NHS oversight structure. Under UK jurisprudence, including R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool & Fylde [2020], a breach of Article 2 ECHR arises not only through individual medical errors but when the State: • fails to maintain adequate systems to protect life, • lacks frameworks to prevent foreseeable fatal risk, or • allows structural gaps that expose individuals to life-threatening harm. The absence of PHSO protocols to address severe respiratory distress — a scenario recognized by NHS England as extreme, immediate risk — would constitute structural/systemic failure engaging Article 2 ECHR. Your response to this FOIA request is therefore crucial evidence for potential escalation to the Information Commissioner’s Office, Judicial Review, and, if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights. ________________________________________ 5. Section 16 – Duty to Assist Your initial response fails to meet the duty to provide advice and assistance. You did not: • clarify which searches were conducted, • specify which document categories were considered, • explain why decision-making frameworks “are not held”, or • assist in understanding your internal processes. This constitutes a breach of Section 16 FOIA. ________________________________________ 6. Required Outcome of This Internal Review I request the following: 1. Confirmation of whether internal urgent-risk protocols exist or do not exist. 2. If they exist: disclose them, or specify lawful exemptions. 3. If they do not exist: formally state this in writing. 4. Reassess the use of Section 21. 5. Provide a detailed explanation of search methodology. 6. Address all legal deficiencies identified above. ________________________________________ 7. Deadline and Next Steps In accordance with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office, I expect a full response to this Internal Review within 20 working days. Should a response not be received within this period, I will consider this as a failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will take appropriate further action, including escalation to the Information Commissioner’s Office, pre-action protocols, Judicial Review, and, if necessary, proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, as outlined above. ________________________________________
19/12/2025
also I wanted to find out how many complaints they (Cambridge Street Dental Practice ) have in the ombudsman specially related to NHS patients and also any complaint related to periodontitis I was thinking: - 2020-2025 - complaints about not managing well gum disease/periodontitis - how were those complaints resolved - was the patient satisfied with the outcome? Does this help? Please let me know how can I be more specific
16/12/2025
Subject: Freedom of Information request – Sickness policies, sickness absence data and home-working arrangements (2019/20–2023/24) Dear Freedom of Information Officer, Please treat this as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024, please provide the following information. ________________________________________ 1. Sickness absence and sick pay policy 1. Copies of any sickness absence policies, procedures or staff handbook sections in force at any time between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2024 which set out: a. The PHSO’s approach to managing sickness absence; b. Entitlement to sick pay for staff (for example, periods of full pay and half pay, qualifying periods, and any differences by grade, length of service or contract type – full-time vs part-time); c. Any specific provisions relating to long-term sickness, stress, mental health–related absences, or similar. 2. If more than one version of the sickness policy existed during this period, please provide: o the current version, and o each earlier version that applied between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2024, indicating (where known) the dates each version came into force and/or was superseded. Electronic copies (PDF, Word or similar) are acceptable. ________________________________________ 2. Sickness absence data – all staff, complaint-handling staff, and part-time staff For each financial year from 2019/20 to 2023/24, please provide: 2.1 All PHSO staff (organisation-wide) 1. The total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff; 2. The headcount of staff, broken down into: o number of full-time staff; o number of part-time staff. 3. The total number of working days lost due to sickness absence; 4. The percentage of working time lost to sickness absence (or equivalent measure you routinely use); 5. The average number of days’ sickness absence per FTE (if recorded). 2.2 Complaint-handling staff (including call handlers, caseworkers, investigators and equivalent roles) For the same period, please provide: 1. The total number of FTE staff in complaint-handling roles; 2. The headcount of complaint-handling staff, broken down into: o number of full-time staff; o number of part-time staff. 3. The total number of working days lost due to sickness absence for this group; 4. The percentage of working time lost to sickness absence for this group (if recorded); 5. The average number of days’ sickness absence per FTE in this group (if recorded). 2.3 Part-time staff – organisation-wide For all part-time staff across the organisation, for each financial year from 2019/20 to 2023/24, please provide: 1. The total number of part-time FTE; 2. The total number of working days lost to sickness absence for part-time staff; 3. The percentage of working time lost to sickness absence for part-time staff (if recorded); 4. The average number of days’ sickness absence per part-time FTE (if recorded). 2.4 Existing reports If you produce any standard internal reports, dashboards or summaries which show sickness absence rates and trends over this period (for the organisation as a whole and/or for complaint-handling functions and/or for part-time staff), please provide copies of those documents, redacted only as strictly necessary to remove personal data. I am not requesting personal data or information identifying individual employees. Aggregated statistics and anonymised reports will be sufficient. ________________________________________ 3. Working from home / hybrid working and office attendance For the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024, please provide: 1. Copies of any policies, guidance or staff communications which set out the PHSO’s approach to: a. Home working, remote working, or hybrid working arrangements; b. Office attendance expectations (for example, minimum number of days per week or month in the office); c. Any changes to these expectations over the period (including COVID-related changes and subsequent revisions). 2. If more than one home-working / hybrid-working policy or guidance document has been in force during this period, please provide: o the current version, and o each earlier version that applied between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2024, indicating (where known) the dates each version came into force and/or was superseded. 3. Any internal documents that explain how office attendance is monitored, including: a. Whether attendance is tracked at an individual level (e.g. through sign-in systems, desk booking, swipe cards, or similar); b. Whether there are any targets or expectations for office-based vs home-based working (e.g. minimum days in the office); c. Any standard reports or dashboards provided to management regarding office attendance rates or compliance with attendance expectations. If standard internal reports or dashboards exist showing attendance patterns or office usage during this period, please provide copies of these, redacted as necessary to remove personal data.
15/12/2025
I would like to request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding complaints handled by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) relating to the GP practices listed below. This request covers the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024. ________________________________________ 1. Target GP Practices (by organisation name and address) Please provide complaint data for the following GP practices. To assist with accurate identification, we have included both the organisation name and postal address in the attached Excel template for your convenience: • Heathbridge Practice – 15 Heathbridge Road, London SW18 2PG • Putneymead Group Medical Practice – 66 Putney High Street, London SW15 1SN • Chartfield Surgery – 10 Chartfield Avenue, London SW15 4EN • The Roehampton Surgery – 12 Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5EG • Mayfield Surgery – 45 Mayfield Road, London SW18 4PE • The Alton Practice – 22 Alton Road, London SW18 3QQ • Wandsworth Medical Centre (Putney branch) – 100 Upper Richmond Road, London SW15 2SH If any organisation name appears differently in your system, please provide results under the name you hold on record. ________________________________________ 2. Requested Complaint Data (2019/20 to 2023/24) For each of the above GP practices, please provide the following: A. Complaint Volumes • Total complaints received by PHSO relating to the practice (per year) • Number accepted for formal investigation • Number not accepted for investigation • Number closed at assessment stage B. Investigation Outcomes For complaints that proceeded to investigation, please provide counts for: • Upheld • Partly upheld • Not upheld C. Complaint Categories / Issues Raised Please provide counts of complaints by category or primary issue type (per year), using PHSO’s own classification. Examples (but not exhaustive): • Clinical care / clinical judgement • Staff behaviour / conduct • Communication • Administration / delays / process • Access / appointments • Other categories as defined by PHSO D. Additional Information (if held) • Number of complaints escalated or reopened • Any corrective actions or recommendations recorded (aggregated only) If exact figures for a specific practice cannot be released due to small-number suppression or risk of identification, aggregated annual totals for all seven practices combined would be acceptable. ________________________________________ 3. Format Please provide the data in CSV or Excel format if possible. For your ease, we have attached an Excel template illustrating the requested structure, including organisation names, addresses, and a sample first row for guidance. ________________________________________ 4. Publication If this data is later published or referenced, attribution will follow PHSO requirements. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if any clarification is needed.
12/12/2025
I appreciate the clarification you were able to provide; however, I remain concerned that key elements of my request have not been addressed. I want to restate that I have not asked for personal data, biographical details, or anything that would identify the individual beyond what I already know. What I requested was limited to procedural safeguards that directly affect the integrity of my own case: 1. Whether the individual has system access to case files, including mine; 2. Whether any recusal has been recorded; 3. Whether such a recusal—if in place—extends to visibility of material and influence over allocation or scoping; 4. The date on which the individual became associated with PHSO, purely for the purpose of understanding organisational routing and oversight. These questions relate solely to my case (Redacted), and to PHSO processes, not to the private personal details of a member of staff. Nothing I asked for requires disclosure of personal data under Section 40, and the exemptions cited do not appear to have been applied correctly. To be clear: • Confirming whether someone has access rights to live case files is not personal data; it is an internal procedural safeguard. • Confirming whether a recusal exists is not personal data; it is a procedural and governance measure used to maintain impartiality. • Confirming the date and capacity in which a staff member first became part of the organisation is, again, not private personal information when asked purely to assess whether any conflict could arise. I am simply seeking assurance that the individual has no access to my file and cannot influence allocation, scoping, or the outcome. The repeated assertion that they are “not involved in the handling of the case” does not answer these procedural questions. Given this, I request an internal review of the application of Section 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i), and of the decision not to provide the procedural information necessary for my confidence in the process. For the review, please consider: • Whether the information requested is actually personal data, or whether it concerns PHSO’s internal processes, which should be disclosable under FOIA; • Whether the repeated reliance on “assurances” rather than clear procedural confirmations meets the standard required for transparency and fairness; • Whether the refusal to clarify system-access rights, recusal status, or organisational association undermines my ability to trust that the case is being handled impartially.
11/12/2025
I am writing to request a formal internal review of the response to my Freedom of Information request (Reference: 00003775), dated 11 November 2025. My request has been only partially answered, and the response provided demonstrates a misunderstanding of, and non-compliance with, core UK GDPR principles. Grounds for Internal Review: 1. Failure to Conduct a Mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA): Your response states that "We do not hold a recent DPIA for the complainant feedback survey. This is because the use of ORS is a longstanding process." This justification is legally insufficient. Under Article 35 of the UK GDPR, a DPIA is required for processing that is "likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons." The processing of sensitive personal data of complainants—often vulnerable individuals—via a third-party surveyor clearly meets this threshold. The age of a process is irrelevant; in fact, longstanding processes require periodic review to ensure ongoing compliance. The absence of a recent DPIA indicates a serious failure in your data protection governance. 2. Opaque and Split Handling of Request: Splitting my request across the FOI Act and the Data Protection Act 2018, with a delayed response for the latter, is obstructive. It prevents a holistic understanding of your data processing activities. I require a complete picture of how my data, and that of other complainants, is handled. Requests for the Internal Review: 1. Reconsideration & Action: I request that you reconsider your position and immediately initiate a proper DPIA for the complainant feedback survey conducted by ORS, in line with UK GDPR Article 35. 2. Disclosure: Following the completion of the internal review, please provide a copy of the newly conducted DPIA, or a detailed summary thereof. 3. Clarification: Provide a clear explanation for the decision to split my request and confirm the date by which I will receive the full response under the Data Protection Act (ref: 00003621). 4. Confirmation: Confirm the lawful basis for sharing sensitive complainant data with a third-party processor, and detail the specific technical and organisational measures in place to safeguard this data, as required by Article 32.
10/12/2025
Subject: Freedom of Information request – Capability and performance management for complaint-handling staff Dear Freedom of Information Officer, Please treat this as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For each financial year from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024, and in relation to staff whose primary role is handling complaints (including call handlers, caseworkers, investigators and equivalent): 1. The number of staff who were subject to a formal capability or performance management process where one of the stated reasons was: o failure to meet timeliness targets; o failure to meet quality standards for investigations or decisions; o failure to follow prescribed procedures in handling cases; o concerns about communication or behaviour towards complainants. 2. Of those, the number who: o successfully completed the process and were considered to be meeting required standards; o were moved to another role; o resigned during the process; o were ultimately dismissed on capability/performance grounds. 3. Any standard internal performance management guidance or policy documents used to govern capability/performance processes for complaint-handling staff during this period. I am not requesting personal data about individual staff members, only anonymised statistics and generic policy documents. Please provide the information electronically by email.
09/12/2025
I request an internal review of your Freedom of Information Act 2000 response dated October 29, 2025, as I believe the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman holds the requested information or did not conduct a reasonable search. Please provide the following specific information held by the PHSO, limited to cases flagged at the detailed investigation stage and created since January 1, 2023: 1. Anonymized summaries or aggregate statistics on the 3 DEFRA cases that progressed to detailed investigation, including any references to Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme closures or related farming subsidy delays. 2. Anonymized summaries or aggregate statistics on any GCA cases that progressed to detailed investigation, including references to Groceries Supply Code of Practice (GSCOP) enforcement or retailer-supplier imbalances. 3. Any non-case-specific internal guidance or assessments on risks to competition/consumer harms from government farming policies (e.g., SFI/IHT), excluding full investigation reports. 4. Records of coordination correspondence with DEFRA/GCA on enforcement, limited to non-exempt summaries or metadata (e.g., dates, topics).
08/12/2025
Section 6 (3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner ACT 1967 determines the time limit for complaints to be considered by the Ombudsman. For a complaint to be reviewed, subject to special circumstances, it must be referred to a member of the House of Commons not later than twelve months from the day the complainant first had notice of matters alleged in the complaint. In practice the Ombudsman does not apply the law as set out in the Act but inserts its own wording to require a complaint to be made to a member of the House of Commons within twelve months of the date on which the complainant first had knowledge of matters at issue in the complaint. There has been no amendment to the Act to authorise this revised wording so I would be grateful if you could let me have copies of all letters and documents (including, inter alia, all internal and external emails, all internal and external minutes of meetings, all manuscript notes or memoranda, all departmental or other guidance) which led to the Ombudsman applying time limits which are ultra vires.
Please resubmit my Freedom of Information request amending the words "which are ultra vires" to the words "which commence when the complainant first had knowledge of matters at issue in the complaint rather than the date on which the complainant first had notice of matters alleged in the complaint".
05/12/2025
Thank you for this response. Could you provide the following further information please. • How many complaints since 2017 has been made to the Ombudsman about the NCA? • Does the Ombudsman notify the NCA when it receives a complaint even if the complaint is closed at the primary investigation stage?
How many pt complaints did the Ombudsman receive from pts about IVF care including complaints about the funding of IVF. How many complaints did the Ombudsman uphold or partially uphold in relation to complaints about IVF. Could I also please have (if available) the same information for the previous 3 (financial years).
03/12/2025
Under the freedom of information act, can you please advise of the following information (during the period Covid and to-date) or alternatively as far back as the PHSO is able to go and to-date: • Number of complaints made to PHSO regarding GP practices? • Number of complaints made to PHSO regarding GP practices that have been upheld and not upheld? • Number of complaints of medical negligence made to PHSO regarding GP practices? • Number of complaints regarding sub-standard customer care made to PHSO regarding GP practices? • Number of complaints regarding breach of NICE guidelines made to PHSO regarding GP practices? • Number of complaints that have ever been made (ie as far back as your records go) to PHSO regarding Mickleover Medical Practice, and that have been upheld and not upheld? • Number of appeals made to PHSO regarding GP practices that have been upheld and not upheld? • Number of complaints regarding PHSO? • Number of Consultant Specialists (eg Consultant Surgeon/Consultant Oncology etc) used by the PHSO to decide on case outcomes? • Number of complaints made to PHSO by all your categories eg medical negligence, sub-standard customer care, breach of NICE guidelines etc? I would be happy to pay for the above information, regarding freedom of information request - please advise?
01/12/2025
I would be grateful if you could help with a query I have regarding your Principles for Remedy. I am not sure if you deal with this type of enquiry so please pass it to the relevant person if you are unable to help. Your Principles for Remedy states that: "We aim to secure suitable and proportionate remedies for complainants whose complaints are upheld and, where appropriate, for others who have suffered injustice or hardship as a result of the same maladministration or poor service". I cannot find any details within this document or on your website showing how "others" are considered. Please could you provide details of how and when this is done. Is it considered as part of the main complainants complaint? and if so how? or do the "others" have to submit their own complaint?
Can you please provide a response to the following: • What types of complaints is the Ombudsman able to investigate in relation to complaints made against the National Crime Agency (NCA)? • Has the Ombudsman investigated a complaint against the NCA within the past 20 years.?
28/11/2025
I was wondering if you could provide me with the answers to the following questions. How many cases involving dissociative identity disorder within the complaint do you investigate vs send a letter stating you feel it is too complicated to investigate? How may of those complaints are about integrated care boards vs other services of those complaints how many are investigated? What is the ombudsman policies around dissociative identity disorder is it like integrated care boards a bit of a lottery if the investigator believe it exists or dictated by department or overall organisation beliefs?
The document which mentions I am entitled to request that the process and score (and a copy) You later asked for: In addition, threshold for the low-level impact or injustice score at the time of the complaint
I am escalating that KCH has no disabled access, has overbilled me for 3 years, and has repeatedly failed to engage with my disabled-access Support Need requirements (GV15). You are required to contact me in full disabled-access format, exactly as set out in my attached Support Need Statement (GV15). This includes: • Contacting me by phone using the numbers in GV15 • Not using do-not-reply addresses • Not using links, passwords, or expiring files • Providing all information in fully accessible, authenticated, timestamped, live data format • Confirming that GV15 has been read, understood, and filed in my case so all staff comply with it. Please confirm whether your own organisation has appropriate disabled access procedures and whether you are complying with GV15.
27/11/2025
I thank you for your response (below) which does not provide any acknowledgement of the FOIR made in Statement of Case. I make clear again my request: FOIR: 1) Copy of PHSO policy for complaints handling process 2) Copy of PHSO policy/ procedure for caseworker roles and responsibilities 3) 2025 Data showing how many times caseworkers dealt with several complaints under one complaint response 4) 2025 Data showing how many (several complaints under one complaint response) decisions required review of decision 5) 2025 Data showing how many (several complaints under one complaint response) review of decisions were not upheld