18/02/2025
I understand that PHSO are crown servants. Does that mean : 1. that employees fall under the "Constitutional reform and Governance act 2010? 2. Are subject to the Civil service code? 3. Could be found guilty of Misconduct in a public office?
Why didn’t Rebecca Hilsenrath attend the Work and Pensions Select Committee hearing on 22 January?
I am writing to request information related to a case you handled concerning the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and survivor state pensions. I understand you dealt with a complaint dated 21 May 2024, brought by a Mrs. D, regarding the DWP's handling of her state pension after her husband's death in 2019. I am particularly interested in any information you have that discusses the interaction between a survivor's own Additional State Pension (ASP) and an inherited portion of their spouse's occupational pension, specifically the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP). I am seeking documentation that addresses whether and how a survivor's ASP is reduced due to inheriting part of their spouse's occupational pension (GMP). Specifically, I request copies of any documents related to Mrs. D's case that include the following: 1)The full breakdown and explanation provided by the DWP regarding the changes made to Mrs. D's pension. 2)The DWP's response issued on 13 April 2022, explaining the reasons for the changes. 3)The information provided by the DWP, including its calculations for Mrs. D’s SP entitlement, as mentioned in paragraph 17 of your reported findings. 4)Information supporting the claims in paragraphs 30 and 31 that the DWP made changes in line with applicable laws and applied the Contracted Out Deductions (CODs) from her husband as legally required. 5)Information supporting the statement in paragraph 35 that the DWP followed the law and its internal guidance when reviewing Mrs. D’s SP entitlement. I am requesting this information to better understand the complexities of inherited GMPs and their impact on survivor pensions as this may affect my wife if I die before her..
13/02/2025
I am seeking information as to whether the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (‘the Ombudsman’) has a policy of not considering complaints about GP Practices in circumstances where the GP Practice fails to provide a substantive response to a patient complaint (despite the patient making all reasonable endeavours to complain to the GP Practice). If the Ombudsman does have such a policy, then I am seeking information or guidance as to how the patient can meaningfully seek intervention from an outside agency in circumstances where the GP Practice continue to fail to provide a substantive response to a complaint. If the Ombudsman does not have such a policy then I am seeking information as to at what point you will consider a complaint and what powers you have to take action against a GP Practice that persistently fails to respond to a patient complaint.
11/02/2025
I am dissatisfied with the handling of my request below and wish to ask for an internal review. The reason for my disatisfaction is your statements as follows - "We do not know what reports the PM Kier Starmer has based his claims on we do not hold this information we suggest you direct your request to the cabinet office directly foi-team@cabinetoffice.gov.uk. We have attached reports from 2004 and 2006 although as stated we are unable to say what research various MPs based their claims upon" It is clear from the Government's own statement that they based their claims on research referenced by the PHSO. Quote "Published research, which is referenced by the Ombudsman in their report, also shows that 73% of women aged 45-54 said that they were aware of State Pension age increases in 2004. By 2006, 90% of 1950s-born women knew about State Pension age changes. Therefore, the Government does not agree with the Ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy, which has informed the conclusion that there should be no financial compensation to 1950s-born women." Response to PHSO report on communication of changes to women’s State Pension age Response to PHSO report on communication of changes to women’s State Pen... Following careful consideration of the PHSO’s report into how changes to the State Pension Age were communicated... As I said in my original FOI request I am particularly interested in the methodology used in these pieces of research as the implications of its prominence in Government decisions has negatively impacted millions of women and once again increased the injustice you identified. It is very disappointing to realise that the Government have managed to find one small bit of research amongst your pages and pages of evidence with which to deny compensation. You did send me access to the reports and I am studying them, but I feel it's unfair of you to state that you are unaware of what the PM Keir Starmer based his claims on.
03/02/2025
What is the headcount (number) of staff employed in communications, marketing, press and public affairs in your organisation?
28/01/2025
We have been alerted to the following story and wanted to clarify the figures quoted for our organisation. Do you have a list of all the cases that were sent to us for proposed investigation as the numbers quoted don’t appear to tally with those on our records and we want to ensure our records are accurate. Ombudsman received dozens of complaints about Hertfordshire Partnership University Trust last year Figures from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report show 53 complaints about Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust were received in the year to March.
FOI Request: Sepsis cases at Northamptonshire's hospitals. 1a) How many complaints were made to PHSO about patient care at Northampton General Hospital (NGH) for the calendar years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024. 1b) How many of those complaints about NGH involved sepsis - eg) mentioned poor treatment of sepsis, or missed signs of sepsis. 1c) How many of those complaints about sepsis care at NGH involved a patient's death? 2a) How many complaints were made to PHSO about patient care at Kettering General Hospital (KGH) for the calendar years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024? 2b) How many of those complaints about KGH involved sepsis - eg) mentioned poor treatment of sepsis, or missed signs of sepsis? 2c) How many of those complaints about sepsis care at KGH involved a patient's death?
27/01/2025
I have requested a freedom of information request to ask how much the 6 years investigation into maladministration by the DWP 1950s women's State pension increase.
Dear ombudsman under the foa I think a crucial issue would be foi in how the RSC were able to dismantle a care pathway initiated by the former surgeon which was a patent protocol.Further why the RSC didn't inform patients that this protocol IE resvoir sensor monitoring was aborted with the dismissed former surgeon a was approved by the previous surgeon.Also why this trust did not follow due process patients were compromised not informed no information as to the new neurosurgery take over where diagnosis were rewritten.Why complex patients such as myself were not referred much sooner to a better equipped hospital where surgeon who specialises in inaccessible tumour.Why the surgeons are ok with the health and safety at the trust IE operating with pen knife.In my case I had a very make shift procedure which was a breech of the patent. Why the hospital are able to continue and oversee their own safety without external oversight.
Please could I ask for a copy of your parliamentary strategy or public affairs strategy that covers how PHSO engage with Parliament.
24/01/2025
I would like to gather information regarding previous ombudsman cases shown below. I do have some background details about them but require more in depth information. The cases I require information for are as follows: Leeds Ombudsman Case, 1994 Coughlan Case, 1999 Pointon Ombudsman Case, 2003 Grogan Case, 2006 Pearce Ombudsman Case, 2007 Could you please provide, or advise where to obtain as much information as possible regarding these cases.
Please provide the following information for each grade and band within your department or organisation: 1. Salary Min/Max or Spot Rate: Provide the full salary range for each grade, including minimum and maximum pay points or spot rates. 2. Grade/Band and Civil Service Equivalent: If your department operates its own grading structure, please indicate the corresponding Civil Service grade where applicable. 3. Multi-Year Pay Deal: Please confirm whether your department is currently within a multiyear pay settlement. If so, provide details of this arrangement. 4. Mechanism for Reaching Maximum Pay Point: Outline if there is a structured pathway or mechanism for employees to progress to the maximum salary point within their grade (e.g., time-served contractual pay progression, performance/capability-based pay). 5. Non-Consolidated Pay: Confirm whether your department has a non-consolidated pay pot (e.g., for awarding bonuses or a reward and recognition scheme). Include details of such schemes and specify the total amount represented by the non-consolidated pay pot. 6. Contracted Hours: Confirm the number of hours salary calculations as based on (i.e. 42hour gross/37-hour net contracts, or any other variations/calculations). Particularly in relation to National Living Wage/Minimum Wage hourly rate calculations. 7. Weeks Per Year: Confirm whether salaries (hourly rates) are calculated based on 52 weeks per year, 52.2 weeks, or another arrangement. 8. Annual Leave: Confirm annual leave, public holiday, and privilege holiday entitlements for all grades (including retained grades). Specify any mechanisms for leave increases (e.g., one additional day per year up to a maximum, or increases after a set number of years). 9. Overtime Arrangements: Confirm overtime pay arrangements for all overtime scenarios (e.g., weekday, weekend, public/privilege holidays). Please provide the requested information in an electronic format, preferably as a spreadsheet/table or other accessible data format.
21/01/2025
My questions are towards the end: Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report, Volume 759: debated on Tuesday 17 December 2024 The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendal made a statement to parliament on the above date: She said with permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way that changes in the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. In the statement she said “The Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and I have given the ombudsman’s report serious consideration and looked in detail at the findings, and at information and advice provided by the Department that was not available to us before coming into Government. She made a clear statement that she and Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds) looked in detail at the findings. The Secretary of State for Works and Pensions made also a statement which she said “that research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing”. In a reply to questions from the house after Liz Kendal statement: she repeated this 90% figure many times, the below are extracts from Hansard Volume 759: debated on Tuesday 17 December 2024 from Steve Darling (Torbay) LD Liz Kendal had said “and when 90% of women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot accept that that flat rate of payment of up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op) Liz Kendal had said “When “90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not think that the proposed compensation scheme is fair or proportionate. That is why we have taken this extremely difficult decision.” from Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) Con Liz Kendal had said “This is not about the matter being too complicated; we do not believe that, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op) Liz Kendal had said “We do not believe that, given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) Liz Kendal had said “when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing,” from Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab) Liz Kendal had said “but I have already said why we think that is not justified when 90% of those women knew their state pension age was increasing.” from Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD) Liz Kendal had said “and given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that a compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind) Liz Kendal had said “When 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that giving flat-rate compensation is a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.” from Jess Brown Fuller (Chichester) (LD) Liz Kendal had said “When 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot justify a flat-rate compensation scheme of up to £10.5 billion. We do not believe that that is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.” The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendal when she made her statement to parliament on the Tuesday 17 December 2024 with regards to the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way that changes in the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. She had said: Liz Kendal in replying to question from MPs had included this in her reply’s 90% of women knew that the state pension age was increasing, this inclusive of variations which is set out below. NINE TIMES Liz Kendal repeated it this answer. 90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing. 90% of those women knew their state pension age was increasing.” From a question from Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)Liz Kendal replied by this answer “ the ombudsman used the research that was provided to him—he looked at those aged 16-plus and found that 43% of them knew what their state pension age was—but he did not adequately reflect the research on the specific group of women affected. I think that is an important consideration, as part of our overall decision, which is not based on money alone. In Government, we have to look at what is a fair and proportionate use of taxpayers’ money, which is one of the elements along with the others—the impact of letters, the fact that the great majority of women knew—that has informed our conclusion, which I have set out” My questions for the FOI are set out below. The evidence that Liz Kendal had from your ombudsman report that made her make this statement "that the fact that the great majority of women knew, and the other similar statements made to parliament such as 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing, and or 90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing. The report that Liz Kendal had from your department in which she is reporting to parliament on, she has said in replys to questions from the house such as 90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing. 90% of those women knew their state pension age was increasing.” the statements has been inplied that from 3.5 million women 90% of the which is 3.15 million women knew that the state pension age was increasing. My Question is: Could you confirm that the figures that Liz Kendal has used is correct or is she not correct. Liz Kendal had said to parliament research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing, My Question is: Please could you supply the research that she had alluded to, My Question is: How many women in total aged 45 to 54 were in this research. It is critically important because Liz Kendal had said that it had informed the government to make a conclusion and that she had repeated the outcome of this research in her speech to parliament many times in her statement. Liz Kendal had said in her statement that It references research from 2004 showing that 43% of women aged over 16 were aware of their state pension age, My Question is: Please could you supply the research that she had alluded to. MyQuestion is: How many in this cohort of the 1950’s women do the research from 2004 relate to. It is critically important because Liz Kendal had said that it had informed the government to make a conclusion this research was in her speech to parliament when she made her statement. Sir Keir doubled down on comments by chancellor Rachel Reeves that affected pensioners knew about the changes and therefore should not receive compensation. He said: “The research shows... that 90 per cent of those impacted knew about the changes that were taking place.” Rachel Reeves sid “I understand that women affected by the changes to the state pension age feel disappointed by this decision, but we looked in full at the ombudsman recommendations and they said that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming. Angela Madden, chair of the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign group, said: “This isn’t just misleading; it’s an insult to millions of 1950s-born women who were blindsided by these changes.” Meanwhile, Rebecca Hilsenrath, the ombudsman, told Times Radio: “What we don’t expect is for an acknowledgement to be made by a public body that it’s got it wrong but then refuse to make it right for those affected.” My Question is: Based upon your report, do you agree what Keir Starmer had said “The research shows... that 90 per cent of those impacted knew about the changes that were taking place.” My Question is: When you have given one of your report to a Public Body or even a Goverment for them to review your finding , and you find in your opinium that they have misled and or embilished your written contents, for the benifit not to take recommending actions , what action or policy do you have in place to seek re dress of such misleading to public and Parliament. Liz Kendal said to parliament that Given that sending out letters earlier, which we should have done, would not have made the difference that the ombudsman claims it would, and given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that a compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money. It is very clear that the Labour Government gave substantial credence that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, and have made it a clear addition to a financial conclusion not to pay out to the 1950’s any compensation. Parliament have been given a statement for the Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report by The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendal, I could not find any detail from the PHSO report that concludes any of the statements that
My question is at the end of some statements/interviews with government ministers Rachel Reeves: improving services more important than Waspi women payout Chancellor says high cost of compensation cannot be justified because most of women affected had known pension changes were coming Jessica Elgot Deputy political editor Wed 18 Dec 2024 04.06 EST Improving public services is a higher priority than spending £10bn compensating Waspi women, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has said, as MPs and campaigners criticised the decision to reject the watchdog’s recommendation for a flat-rate compensation scheme. Her comments came after campaigners accused Labour of hypocrisy for having promised to compensate women hit by the rising state pension age. The parliamentary ombudsman had recommended paying out £1,000 to £2,950 to each of the more than 3 million women affected. Reeves said the “expensive compensation bill” could not be justified as most women said they did know about the pension age changes. Reeves, who backed the Waspi campaign in opposition, said: “I understand that women affected by the changes to the state pension age feel disappointed by this decision, but we looked in full at the ombudsman recommendations and they said that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming. “And as chancellor, I have to account for every penny of taxpayers’ money spent. And given that the vast majority of people did know about these changes, I didn’t judge that it would be the best use of taxpayers’ money to pay an expensive compensation bill for something that most people knew was happening.” Rebecca Hilsenrath, the ombudsman, criticised the government’s decision not to offer compensation. She told Times Radio: “It’s great that the government are saying that our intervention will lead to service improvements and it’s fair to say also that people who come to us, overwhelmingly, are motivated by wanting things to improve for other people. Waspi compensation not affordable, Starmer tells Diane Abbott at PMQs “But what we don’t expect is for an acknowledgment to be made by a public body that it’s got it wrong but then refuse to make it right for those affected.” The homelessness minister, Rushanara Ali, admitted the situation was “deeply regrettable” but said the women had received an apology. She said compensation would not be a “fair or proportionate” use of taxpayers’ money. She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The fact is that we have got a huge, huge job to do in terms of making sure that the conditions that pensioners live in in our country are improved and that’s why our focus is on protecting the triple lock, which will unlock £30bn in this parliament, supporting pensioners … and that includes those who were women born in the 1950s. “So this government has inherited a devastating set of issues; we are responding to those challenges.” Ali told Sky News the cost of the compensation was too great at £10bn, “which we don’t feel is fair or proportionate in terms of use of public money, given that some 90% of those affected, according to the ombudsman’s report, it would not have been made a difference in terms of the delay in the letters. “But the reality is, this has been a very difficult issue for those affected, and it’s deeply regrettable, and lessons will need to be learned.” Challenged again on Labour’s promises to the Waspi women in opposition – including from the now work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall – Ali told Sky: “I go back to the point about the lessons that need to be learned, and the fact that this government has apologised for that delay. But we’ve got to focus on the issues at hand, in terms of improving the living standards of pensioners.” Rachel Reeves said, but we looked in full at the ombudsman recommendations and they said that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming. My question is this statement above true did you tell the government that around 90% of women did know that these changes were coming.
1) What is the name of the department and person where civilian dentists and doctors can complain and receive protection from corruption; from being abused, misled, deceived, defrauded, degraded, disparaged, exploited, entrapped and trafficked for criminal scams, falsely propagandised and racketeered upon for our "intellectual capital" and "volunteer" (false, fraudulent nomenclature) hours? If there is no civilian protection/safeguarding mechanism for healthcare workers, please clearly state which department of military corporate industry is responsible for this. Will this be A) the Provost Marshal, or B) the Ministry of Defence, or C) Trinity House? 2) Where/which department can civilian dentists and doctors gain access to the transparent T&Cs of the concealed/hidden "volunteer" corporate contracts (currently illegal) and for the intellectual property licenses to our livelihoods? 3) The legal reasons you believe your hands are all tied up from taking legitimate action against wrongful and unconscionable abuse, including corporate manslaughter of civilians by these healthcare councils. 4) The underlying reasons and rationale for the Ombudsman's discrimination between the legal, civil and human rights of civilians and why you believe that dentists and doctors are not entitled to the same rights as the rest of civilians; and why you believe you are not obliged to take action. 5) Since when (i.e.: date/year and title of mandate) healthcare civilians' legal, human and civil rights were co-opted / hijacked under the false and fraudulent pretenses and scam-charades of "volunteers", "intangible assets" and "securities" of "neoliberal" corporate industry?
Please advise the number of PHSO cases regarding DVLA medical complaints since PHSO case P-001082 dated 21 July 2021; that is cases taken to a concluding report, not those closed after investigation. We sought clarification to which you responded. I would like to know the number of cases fully investigated and partially or fully upheld beyond the case that I have quoted, where the complaint was about the DVLA and a medical issue. This is to verify the summary information on the PHSO web site - that if the filters are correct - shows there were no further DVLA Medical Group cases that were fully investigated and partially or fully upheld. I have had difficulty with the online summary in the past.
16/01/2025
This week, the Government chose to deny the compensation you recommended in your Women’s State Pension Age Report. To justify this, PM Keir Starmer repeatedly claimed in the House of Commons that the evidence showed 90% of women were aware of the proposed change. I believe he has picked specifically on the following parts of your report, ignoring many other sections that contradict it - 105. Research in 2005 and 2006 evaluating APFs found that 97% of women aged over 50 knew when they would receive their State Pension. This compared to 55% of women aged under 50 (women born in the 1950s would have been aged 46 to 56 years at the time, so would have fallen into both groups). Significantly, the research also found that 38% of women aged 40 to 49 (born 1956 to 1966) thought they could draw their State Pension at 60, when their actual State Pension age was 65. 106. In 2006 DWP carried out the first of three ‘Attitudes to Pensions Surveys’. The survey found that 83% of respondents were aware women’s State Pension age was going to rise in future. This included 90% of women aged 45 to 54 (women born in the 1950s would have been aged 47 to 56 in 2006). The survey did not ask respondents about their own State Pension age, so we do not know if respondents knew whether and/or how the changes affected them. Under the FOI Act can you please give me access to the reports the PM has based his claim on. Specifically, Research in 2005 and 2006 evaluating APFs and The 2006 DWP first ‘Attitudes to Pensions Survey’. I am particularly interested in the methodology used in these pieces of research as the implications of its prominence in Government decisions have negatively impacted millions of women and once again increased the injustice you identified.
Kier Starmer has recently stated in parliament that research has shown 90% of WASPI woman knew about the state pension age rises. This claims this is based on data from the Ombudsman. Could you please provide the following information: Was this a research study or a poll? When was it conducted? What methodology was used - interviews, questionnaire etc? How many participants were there if interviews were used? If questionnaires were used how many were sent out and what was the response rate? What questions were asked? What were the results per question? How and where were the results disseminated? Can you also send me a copy of the 'research'
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Liz Kendall (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) criticised the Ombudsman's report regarding financial redress for women who lost out as a result of the retirement age increasing (WASPI). The Ombudsman failed to take into account vital information he was provided with during his investigation: Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report Hansard Volume 759 17 December 2024 No. 65 (p167) 'First, the report does not properly take into account research showing that there was actually considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. It references research from 2004 showing that 43% of women aged over 16 were aware of their state pension age, but it does not sufficiently recognise evidence from the same research that 73% of women aged 45 to 54—the very group that covers women born in the 1950s—were aware that the state pension age was increasing, or research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.' https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-12-17&data=05|02|informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk|f658ec38564148453bb308dd26a29fa8|7c88cec864114f329333cf6877fd3515|0|0|638709202097639789|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ==|0|||&sdata=e1tkzB1eZsB/mvb4UM2k1BD/YZNEIO1VjxBwvS356gQ=&reserved=0 1. Please send me details of who commissioned and carried out the research referred to. 2. Please send me details of the research methodology the Ombudsman had sight of when preparing his report. 3. Please send me full details of any analysis undertaken by the Ombudsman to test the robustness of the research methodology.