27/11/2025
Would you be able to forward me instructions as to how I make a complaint regarding the way I am being treated by one of your Parliamentary Ombudsman please.
26/11/2025
I should be obliged if you could please send me your data sharing agreement, between yourselves (both PHSO and LGSCO) and our ICB.
1) All funding details 2) Wages of all staff 3) Cases resolved 4) Heads of Dept details 5) Who oversees the strategy of the organisation
24/11/2025
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 has not conducted a reasonable search. To clarify and redraft the original request for success: 1. Anonymized summaries of complaints upheld against the Department of Health and Social Care on mental health funding shortfalls or Mental Health Act 2025 resourcing from 2023-2025, including outcomes related to parity of esteem between mental and physical health. 2. Audit reports or investigation findings on the Department of Health and Social Care's handling of Human Rights Act 1998 claims in outsourced mental health services following the Sammut case, including any recommendations on accountability gaps. 3. Records of correspondence between the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Department of Health and Social Care on systemic mental health access issues, such as 1.9 million waiting list patients, from January to October 2025. 4. Equality analyses in Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reviews of the Department of Health and Social Care decisions impacting mental health disparities, such as Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework non-compliance. Public reports like "Discharge from mental health care: making it safe and patient-centred" (2024) suggest the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman holds related information on funding and access failings. The public interest in transparency for patient safety outweighs exemptions.
The policy/guidance used to determine when a complaint is regarded as “lodged” for time-limit purposes in NHSE IRP cases. Any internal communications about publication of this decision and steps taken to ensure non-identification.
The policy/guidance defining when a complaint is treated as lodged for time-limit purposes; Who in PHSO handles service complaints/quality reviews (name/title of the senior role).
21/11/2025
A copy of any internal policy governing independence and impartiality in the use of clinical advisers for reviews;
I note from the PHSO all enquiries received from January to March 2024 was 9,952 please confirm how many enquires within that figure is "not in line with our approach".
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting all documentation held by your office regarding oversight, escalation, and enforcement of clinical duty of care obligations by NHS Trusts, NHS England, the General Medical Council (GMC), the Care Quality Commission (CQC), in urgent patient cases. Specifically, I request: 1. Copies of any policies, guidance, or internal communications held by PHSO concerning your role in ensuring that these entities act promptly and appropriately when urgent patient safety concerns are raised, including cases where patients explicitly report life-threatening symptoms such as severe difficulty in breathing. 2. Records of any investigations, reports, correspondence, or recommendations issued by PHSO concerning the failure of these entities to follow clinical escalation protocols, ensure urgent intervention, or uphold their ethical and legal duties to patients. 3. Documentation describing PHSO's authority and procedures for addressing situations where NHS England, GMC, CQC, or NHS Trusts fail to act in accordance with the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) or NHS Constitution regarding urgent clinical complaints. 4. Any criteria, thresholds, or decision-making frameworks used by PHSO to determine whether and how to investigate or intervene in cases where these entities have been notified multiple times of urgent clinical needs but have not escalated appropriately. This request relates to a case where a NHS Trust treated a patient's urgent clinical complaint solely as an administrative matter, ignoring repeated alerts of severe respiratory distress. NHS England explicitly refused to intervene, reducing the matter to an administrative issue. Given the extreme seriousness of this case—where inaction could result in severe harm or death—it is essential that this FOI clarifies what legal duties, obligations, and rules these entities are required to follow in cases of urgent clinical risk. I request that all relevant documents be provided in electronic format (PDF or Word), and I expect a response within the 20 working days stipulated under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
20/11/2025
(redacted) explained the service model guidance states we have a formal complaints procedure and he would like this in writing.
I am submitting a Freedom of Information request regarding the complaints data published for all Government Departments on your website. The figures currently displayed for 2023/24 and 2024/25 are identical across all organisations: Please provide: The confirmed, correct complaints figures for each Government Department for financial year 2024/25. Clarification on whether the figures currently shown for 2024/25 are placeholders, incorrect, or pending update. If an error has occurred, the date on which corrected figures are expected to be published. This information is requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Under the FOI act please explain why The French banned Chinese honey as it proved adulterated so why did we not ban any product including this honey
18/11/2025
Thank you for confirming that there are four complaints being looked at together. Do all four relate specifically to Cornwall NHS Trust? Will they be written up at the same time as mine? I’m just trying to understand the wider context of the group you mentioned.
17/11/2025
I am making this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please provide the following information for each of the financial years: 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24, and 2024/25. The total number of new complaints received by the Financial Ombudsman Service relating to Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud. A breakdown of the total APP fraud complaints received for each of the following providers: Lloyds Bank TSB Halifax Bank of Scotland Barclays HSBC NatWest Santander UK Nationwide Revolut Monzo Starling Bank For each provider listed in (2), please provide the uphold rate for these APP fraud complaints (i.e., the percentage of complaints found in favour of the consumer). Does the FOS use a specific flag, code, or tag to identify APP fraud complaints that relate to 'romance fraud' or 'dating fraud'? If so, please provide for each of the years listed: a) The total number of complaints received with this 'romance fraud' flag. b) The overall uphold rate for these 'romance fraud' flagged complaints.
14/11/2025
I can no longer find some of your previously published cases and under a freedom of information request I would like to request the following cases. Thank you. SC/2022/0117 – Anticipatory gender preference check for a transgender patient (mental health service) Item Details Reference SC/2022/0117 Year published 2022 Trust involved North Somerset Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Core issue A transgender man was referred for a CBT programme. The referral letter mentioned his gender identity, but the Trust’s intake system did not prompt staff to ask whether he required a same sex therapist. He was allocated a female therapist, which caused severe distress and led to premature termination of the programme. Ombudsman’s finding The Ombudsman stated: “The Trust had a proactive duty to anticipate the patient’s need for a gender matched clinician and to ask about preference at the point of referral. Failure to do so breached Guarantee 1 of the NHS Constitution and the Equality Act 2010.” The decision ordered the Trust to (1) add a mandatory gender preference field to its electronic referral form, (2) train all mental health intake staff on transgender sensitive practice, and (3) audit compliance quarterly for the next 12 months. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2022-0117.pdf NHS Ombudsman – Decision SC/2022/0054 (2022) Item Details Reference SC/2022/0054 Year published 2022 Trust involved [Specific NHS Trust – as listed in the PDF] Core issue The complainant’s written request for email only communication (due to a learning disability) was ignored; the Trust continued to contact the patient by telephone, causing anxiety and missed appointments. Ombudsman’s finding The Ombudsman found that the Trust failed to act on a clearly documented accommodation request, breaching the Equality Act 2010 and Guarantee 1 of the NHS Constitution. The decision required the Trust to embed a “preferred communication method” field in its call handling software, to audit compliance quarterly, and to apologise to the complainant. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2022-0054.pdf SC/2021/0123 (Adult mental health assessment, 2021) Item Details Reference SC/2021/0123 Year published 2021 Trust involved [Adult mental health service – the PDF specifies the NHS Trust] Core issue An adult patient was scheduled for a mental health assessment without being told the gender of the assessor. The patient later complained that the lack of information prevented informed consent. Ombudsman’s finding The Ombudsman determined that the Trust failed to disclose a material piece of information (assessor gender) and therefore breached the NHS Constitution’s guarantee of patient centred care. The decision required the Trust to add a “clinician gender (if relevant)” field to its appointment booking system and to ensure that all staff are trained to ask patients about gender preference where appropriate. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2021-0123.pdf SC/2020/0145 Item Details Reference SC/2020/0145 Year published 2020 Trust involved South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust Core issue The complainant was not told the gender of the psychologist before a telephone assessment and was not offered the chance to request a same sex practitioner. The Trust argued that it would have complied “if it had been informed of the preference”. Ombudsman’s finding The Ombudsman concluded that the Trust failed to anticipate a material need arising from the complainant’s gender dysphoria. Under Guarantee 1 of the NHS Constitution and the Equality Act 2010, the Trust had a proactive duty to ask about gender preference at the point of referral. The decision ordered the Trust to amend its booking system to include a mandatory gender preference field and to provide staff training on transgender sensitive care. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2020-0145.pdf SC/2020/0189 Item Details Reference SC/2020/0189 Year published 2020 Trust involved [Mental health NHS Trust – identified in the PDF] Core issue The complainant suffered from severe anxiety and depression, which impaired her ability to request a same sex therapist. The Trust did not ask about gender preference at referral and assigned a male psychologist. Ombudsman’s finding The Ombudsman explicitly stated that the Trust had a duty to anticipate the need for a gender matched clinician and to ask the patient at the point of referral. The decision ordered the Trust to revise its intake forms, embed a gender preference tick box, and provide staff training on transgender sensitive practice. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2020-0189.pdf SC/2019/0098 Item Details Reference SC/2019/0098 Year published 2019 Trust involved [Community mental health team – Trust name not publicly disclosed in the summary; the PDF identifies the specific NHS Trust] Core issue The service user suffered from PTSD and was unable to articulate a request for a same sex therapist. The Trust proceeded with a male clinician without checking whether a gender matched professional was required. Ombudsman’s finding The Ombudsman held that the Trust breached Guarantee 1 because it did not ask the patient about gender preference despite the patient’s condition limiting her capacity to raise the issue herself. The decision required the Trust to introduce a mandatory question on gender preference in all referrals and to record the response in the patient’s electronic record. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2019-0098.pdf SC/2011/0214 – No gender preference option offered to a trans female patient in a community mental health service Detail Information Reference SC/2011/0214 Published 9 May 2011 Trust involved Oxfordshire Community NHS Trust (adult mental health community teams) Core issue A trans female patient was allocated a male psychologist for a series of CBT sessions. The Trust never asked whether she preferred a female therapist, nor did it inform her that she could request one. Ombudsman’s finding The Ombudsman concluded that the Trust “failed to anticipate a material need arising from a protected characteristic” and therefore breached the Equality Act. The Trust was required to amend its referral forms to include a gender preference tick box and to provide staff training on transgender issues. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2011-0214.pdf SC/2014/0199 – Inadequate provision of a gender matched physiotherapist for a patient with gender dysphoria Detail Information Reference SC/2014/0199 Published 27 August 2014 Trust involved Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust (rehabilitation & physiotherapy services) Core issue A transgender woman was scheduled for a physiotherapy assessment with a male therapist. The patient had previously disclosed her gender identity in a referral letter, but the Trust did not check whether a female therapist was required. Ombudsman’s finding The Trust failed to act on an implicit accommodation request and therefore breached both the NHS Constitution (Guarantee 1) and the Equality Act. The Ombudsman required the Trust to introduce a “gender match” flag in its booking system and to provide a list of same sex therapists for patients who request them. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2014-0199.pdf SC/2024/0012 – Anticipating mental health crisis intervention needs for a patient with severe anxiety (out of hours service) Item Details Reference SC/2024/0012 Year published 2024 Trust involved South Yorkshire Urgent Care NHS Trust Core issue The patient’s electronic health record flagged “Severe Generalised Anxiety Disorder – requires calm, low stimulus environment for telephone triage.” The out of hours call handler nonetheless transferred the patient to a busy, noisy call centre, which triggered a panic attack and resulted in an unnecessary emergency admission. Ombudsman’s finding “The Trust failed to anticipate the documented need for a low stimulus environment and therefore breached Guarantee 1 of the NHS Constitution.” The Trust was ordered to (a) create a dedicated “low stimulus triage line” for patients flagged with severe anxiety, (b) embed an automated alert in the triage software, and (c) provide a £150 compensation for the distress caused. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2024-0012.pdf SC/2023/0189 – Anticipating mobility access needs for a wheelchair using patient (community physiotherapy) Item Details Reference SC/2023/0189 Year published 2023 Trust involved East Lancashire Physiotherapy NHS Trust Core issue The patient’s referral from a GP included a note that she uses a powered wheelchair and cannot navigate stairs. The Trust scheduled her for a home visit physiotherapy session but sent a therapist who arrived in a standard vehicle with no wheelchair ramp, forcing the patient to miss the appointment. Ombudsman’s finding “The Trust had a duty to anticipate the patient’s mobility requirements as set out in the referral and should have arranged a suitably equipped vehicle in advance.” The decision mandated (1) a fleet audit to certify at least two wheelchair accessible vehicles, (2) a mandatory “mobility needs” checkbox on all referral forms, and (3) a training module on accessibility for all community service staff. Direct PDF link https://www.nhso.omudsman.org.uk/decisions/sc-2023-0189.pdf SC/2024/0065 – Anticipating dietary restriction accommodation for a patient with coeliac disease (hospital inpatient) Item Details
Could you please kindly advise me how many cases are waiting for assessment in the queue in front of my case and how many cases (average) are assessed per day/week?
“[redacted] and Procedural Impartiality Given your assurance that [redacted] and his department are not involved in casework, I would appreciate written confirmation of the following for transparency and procedural fairness: The date and capacity in which [redacted] became associated with PHSO; Whether he currently holds access rights to case files (including mine) through the internal system; Whether a formal recusal has been logged in respect of my complaint and, if so, when; and Whether this recusal extends to visibility of case materials, as well as influence over allocation or scoping decisions. I want to be very clear that I’m not trying to be awkward here. However, having already experienced a situation where the FSA concealed the involvement and conflicts of individuals in a complaint that was demonstrably in the public interest, I hope you can appreciate why this point is so critical to me. I would absolutely appreciate absolute clarity and confirmation that [redacted] will have no access to any file related to this matter, nor be in a position to influence any part of the handling or outcome of the complaint. I cannot overstate how important this is for my confidence in the integrity of the process. This complaint involves issues that are both personal and of public interest. I trust that the scope will reflect its full and documented content rather than being reduced to a narrow procedural dispute. I look forward to your next steps regarding the call and transcript, and any questions that support the scoping process.”
13/11/2025
He has made what I have taken as verbal request under GDPR for release of PHSO policies and procedures and transcripts of all calls he has had with PHSO. In terms of policies that fall under your FOI procedures. You must have policies relating to timescales in terms of how long you have to deal with complaints, how often you should keep the other party up to date and what not. Also, your colleague today told me that he needs my grandmother's consent before even registering the complaint but the complaint was registered ages ago and then a colleague rang me on my personal phone and they did not need it and then your colleague rang me last week and today as well so I need to understand your entire process from beginning till end like what you can do in terms of dealing with a complaint and what you cannot do and what paperwork is needed what consent is needed, etc because when your colleague rang me a few months ago she told me what she could do but today your other colleague rang me and said well no we do not do that we only do this so I do not know which one is correct and which one is not so I need to understand your processes from beginning to end so you must have a flowchart or a policy or something in place to resolve a complaint.
11/11/2025
Thank you for your detailed response of 21 October 2025. I appreciate the legal outline of your remit; however, it does not address the core question I continue to ask: Where can a UK citizen report credible evidence of corruption, collusion or cover-up involving multiple public bodies, including regulators, police forces, and oversight institutions, when all standard complaint routes fail? Your reply states that the PHSO “does not hold” guiding documents or referral frameworks because the organisations listed fall outside your remit. However, please allow me to clarify and highlight some important corrections and observations: 1. Incorrect Citation of Excluded Bodies You cite Section 4(5)(c) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (PCA) as excluding “bodies whose main activity is to regulate conduct of members of a profession” (e.g., the Solicitors Regulation Authority). While technically accurate, your position overlooks the fact that the underlying issue is malpractice and corruption, not ordinary professional regulation. This is acknowledged in your own Annual Report as “injustice or hardship” caused by public bodies failing to act properly. A deliberate fraud involving regulated solicitors merged with institutional collusion arguably falls within a public interest oversight role. 2. Effective Remedy Obligation – Article 13 & Public Trust Under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, every individual must have access to an effective remedy when their rights are breached. When every other body, police forces, regulatory agencies, oversight offices, refuses jurisdiction or declines investigation, the public is left without any functioning route of redress. Your acknowledgment that you “identify if another organisation is suitable to help” without naming one fails to meet the standard of transparency the public needs. 3. No Holding of Referral Documents ≠ No Responsibility You state you do not hold documents relating to referral or oversight of corruption for bodies listed. Yet refusal to hold such documents raises a question of systemic accountability gap. When no public body holds or publishes referral guidance for corruption allegations involving multiple oversight institutions, citizens are left in jurisdictional limbo. 4. Lack of Advice & Assistance (FOIA Section 16 Duty) Under Section 16(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 you have a duty to provide advice and assistance where you refuse or cannot comply in full. Your statement that you “are unable to offer any advice and assistance as to how the request could be reframed” is inconsistent with that obligation and effectively leaves citizens without guidance. My Request to You I request that you issue, within 14 days, a clear official statement (publicly posted and provided to me) that addresses: • Which statutory body can receive and act upon credible allegations of corruption, regulatory misconduct or collusion involving police, legal regulators and oversight bodies when standard complaint mechanisms have failed; • Whether the PHSO considers the absence of such a route a breach of public accountability and access to justice; • Whether the PHSO will undertake or initiate any wider review or recommendation to Parliament of the systemic failure of jurisdictions and accountability routes. If you maintain that no such body exists, please confirm this explicitly so I may take the matter to Parliament’s oversight committees, the Home Office, the Attorney General’s Office and international human-rights institutions. The public cannot continue to be left in a position where neither professional regulators nor police oversight nor Parliament’s ombudsman provides any meaningful route of recourse for institutional corruption. I await your formal receipt confirmation and a substantive response.
05/11/2025
Underwhelming really, if I have to review performance so far, and I must request under the FOIA, what is your departments budget, and how much does HM Treasury give your department from the public purse? Follow-up question to that, is there a training budget for your department or the PHSO as a whole? If so what is it please? Obviously under the current legislation, your department have 28 days to respond to the correctly addressed FOIA request contained within this email