16/09/2026
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning the processing, classification, and internal handling of my complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This request does not pertain to personal data (which is subject to a concurrent Subject Access Request) but relates to procedural frameworks, institutional decision-making, and non-personal documentation used in or applied to or reflective of how my case was assessed. Please provide the following requested information in machine-readable electronic format (e.g., PDF, DOCX, or CSV). Should any part of this request be refused under a statutory exemption, please identify the exemption applied and provide your reasoning. 1.0 Legal Compliance & Transparency 1.1 Scope: This request is limited to recorded information under FOIA s.1(1). I exclude: • Personal data of staff (beyond role titles). • Information exempt under FOIA s.40(2). 2.0 Internal Decision-Making Frameworks Copies of internal operational guidance, policy documents, and analytical frameworks or classification rules used by investigators to interpret the content of complaints with reference to the Equality Act 2010, including but not limited to: a. Documentation showing the step-by-step protocol or sequence of decisions used to assess and categorise my complaint under the Equality Act framework and the thresholds considered. b. Internal analysis, meeting notes, logs, or decision records that document how my complaint was interpreted and assigned an Equality Act 2010 classification. c. Any documents setting out the level of evidential certainty required for such a classification to be made, including percentage thresholds, heuristic frameworks, or classification tolerance ranges. d. The level of certainty or percentage of tolerance applied in the final assessment of whether a complaint falls under the Equality Act. e. The final internal analysis and rationale that led to the Equality Act classification, including all institutional justifications recorded for doing so. f. Any risk analysis frameworks, risk evaluations, mitigations, and supporting rationale used in making this determination. g. Operational guidance, manuals, and training materials provided to investigators for assessing discrimination-related complaints. Page 2 of 4 h. Standard criteria, matrices, or decision trees used for classifying complaints as Equality Act-related. i. Guidelines for interpreting ambiguous terms such as “discriminate” or “discrimination” in complaints. 3.0 Complaints Triaging and Categorisation Process a. Internal classification schema or taxonomy used to categorise complaints at intake or review stages. b. Internal logs, classification schemas, or databases used to tag or classify complaints, specifically relating to the Equality Act. c. Audit trails or logs showing when and by whom my complaint was classified under the Equality Act. d. Internal emails or meeting notes (with personal data redacted) discussing the categorisation of my complaint (with threshold criteria or similar classification or some evidence–based rationale clearly shown). 4.0 Escalation and Rectification Procedures a. PHSO policy or guidance governing the rectification of factual or legal errors in published complaint determinations. b. PHSO policies regarding the handling of complaints about investigator misrepresentation or errors. c. Criteria or triggers for senior-level review or escalation following allegations or incidents of misrepresentation. d. The number of times PHSO decision summaries have been retracted or amended in the past five years due to errors in legal classification or complaint content. e. Confirmation whether this challenge to Case Ref: {redacted} triggered senior-level intervention by management. 5.0 Evidentiary Basis for Classification Decision a. A description of the evidentiary process followed by the PHSO in concluding that my complaint involved a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. b. Identification of the specific documents, excerpts, or language used as the basis for making this classification. c. Internal criteria or evidentiary thresholds used to determine the relevance, authenticity, and sufficiency of evidence for assigning statutory labels to complaints. d. Disclosure of any internal review, corroboration, or secondary verification undertaken before finalising the Equality Act classification. e. Explanation of why no clarification or confirmation was sought from me before recording and publishing this mischaracterisation. f. Copies of any decision logs, risk notations, or correspondence that reflect the evidence-based rationale leading to this conclusion. Page 3 of 4 6.0 Statistical Performance Data a. Number of cases flagged with an 'Equality Act 2010' tag in the past three years. b. Number of those cases where complainants explicitly used statutory Equality Act terminology. c. Number of complaints received involving GP referral delays between NHS and private pathways in the last three years. d. The number of complaints in the last three years related to mischaracterisation of the original complaint. e. The number of complaints amended due to misclassification or factual errors in the last three years. f. The total number of cases categorised under the Equality Act 2010 in the last three years, specifying how many stemmed from actual discrimination allegations versus mischaracterisation. g. The average investigation time for rectifying complaints found to be mischaracterised. 7.0 Oversight of Investigators a. Any quality assurance reviews, audits, or learning evaluations involving misclassification or mischaracterisation of cases over the last three years (inclusive). b. Number of cases misclassified or corrected post-publication in the last three years (inclusive) and the procedural grounds cited for their correction. c. Internal audit reports or quality assurance reviews of discrimination-related decisions made over the past three years (inclusive). d. Any internal or external legal advice or policy review documents relating to the classification of complaints under the Equality Act 2010 (last three years, inclusive). e. Any lessons-learned reports, internal reviews, or audits since 2020 addressing misclassification or misrepresentation of complaints (last three years, inclusive). f. Any changes to policy or procedure in response to complaints about mischaracterisation of discrimination allegations (last three years, inclusive). g. If any part of this request is unclear, or if you believe any information falls outside the scope of the FOIA, please contact me promptly so that I may clarify or refine my request. Where information is withheld, please provide the specific statutory exemption relied upon and the rationale for its application. I look forward to your acknowledgement of this request within the statutory timeframe and to your full response within 20 working days, as required by the Act.
11/09/2026
Please provide: 1. The current policy, guidance or procedures relating to the award of financial remedies or consolatory payments following upheld service complaints. 2. The criteria used to determine what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" for such payments. 3. The number of upheld service complaints involving administrative delays in each of the last five financial years. Of those, how many resulted in: • an apology only; - a financial or consolatory payment. 4. The value or payment bands of any financial remedies awarded (anonymised). 5. Any internal guidance, training materials or decision-making framework used by staff when deciding whether to award a financial remedy following an upheld service complaint.
Dear Information Access and Assurance Team, Please find attached my request for information made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this request. I look forward to your substantive response within the statutory time limit. Should you consider that any part of this request requires clarification in order to comply with your obligations under the Act, please contact me at your earliest convenience. This request relates only to complaints concerning NHS England, NHS Trusts, NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs0, NHS hospitals and GPS Services. It does not include complaints concerning other organisations within the PHSO's jurisdiction. Please provide the information separately for each calendar year 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 to date of the response, where available. 3. Complaints involving allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual violence against women Please provide the number of complaints made by women concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by NHS healthcare professionals, including complaints recorded under categories such as: • sexual assault; • sexual abuse; • rape; • inappropriate sexual behaviour; • unwanted sexual touching; • sexual harassment. For each year, please provide: • the total number of complaints; • the number that progressed to Stage 2; • the number accepted for investigation; • the number not accepted for investigation, together with the recorded reason(s) for refusal; • the outcomes of those investigations. 4. Complaints concerning intimate examinations or procedures without informed consent Please provide the number of complaints made by female patients alleging that an intimate examination or intimate medical procedure was carried out without informed consent. Please also provide, where recorded separately, the number of such complaints involving female patients who required interpretation services or whose first language was not English. For each year, please provide: • the total number of complaints; • the number that progressed to Stage 2; • the number accepted for investigation; • the number not accepted for investigation, together with the recorded reason(s) for refusal; • the outcomes of those investigations. 5. Complaints concerning failure to provide an interpreter Please provide the number of complaints where it was alleged that: • an interpreter was not provided despite being required; or • the absence of translator prevented the patient from understanding their treatment, proposed procedures, or from giving informed consent. For each year, please provide: • the total number of complaints; • the number that progressed to Stage 2; • the number accepted for investigation; • the number not accepted for investigation, together with the recorded reason(s) for refusal; • the outcomes of those investigations. 6. Complaints involving complaint handling and clinical assessment For each calendar year, please provide: • The number of complaints that were investigated without assessment of the clinical aspects of the complaint. • The number of investigations in which the PHSO obtained independent clinical advice. • The number of complaints in which the complainant requested that the PHSO investigate NHS complaint handling, but the PHSO declined to investigate the complaint handling on the grounds that the NHS had already considered the clinical issues. • The number of complaints in which the PHSO declined to investigate because the matters complained about had already been investigated or reviewed by the General Medical Council (GMC) or the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). For each year, please provide: • the total number of complaints; • the number that progressed to Stage 2; • the number accepted for investigation; • the number not accepted for investigation, together with the recorded reason(s) for refusal; • the outcomes of those investigations. If the requested information is not held exactly in the format requested, please provide the closest recorded information available. If any part of the requested information is not held, please confirm that the information is not held.
10/09/2026
I would like to make the following FOI request please: 1.Please confirm the number of complaints received which relate to avoidable harm in NHS acute hospitals in England? 2. How many of these concerned fluid management as an aspect of that complaint?
09/09/2026
1. Section 9(4) – the one-year time limit Please provide the current guidance, policy, manual, decision-making framework or other internal guidance used by PHSO caseworkers when applying section 9(4) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993. In particular, please provide information setting out: • how PHSO determines the date on which a complainant "first had notice of the matters alleged in the complaint"; • how PHSO distinguishes between a complainant having general concerns about care and having notice of the specific matters alleged in a subsequent complaint; • the factors considered when deciding whether it is reasonable to investigate a complaint made more than one year after the complainant first had notice of the matters alleged; • whether the length or delay of the NHS organisation's own complaints process is considered; • whether delays caused by the organisation complained about are taken into account; • whether significant information or evidence which only becomes available during the organisation's complaints process is taken into account; • whether the seriousness of the alleged harm or injustice, including alleged avoidable harm or death, is considered when deciding whether to exercise the discretion under section 9(4); and • whether there are circumstances or categories of case in which the one-year period may ordinarily or exceptionally be set aside. 2. Requirement to exhaust the NHS complaints procedure Please provide the current guidance concerning the requirement for a complainant to have invoked and exhausted the complaints procedure of a health organisation before PHSO can investigate a complaint. In particular: • what criteria are applied when determining whether the NHS complaints procedure has been sufficiently exhausted; • how this requirement is reconciled with the one-year time limit in section 9(4) where the NHS organisation's complaints process is lengthy; • how PHSO deals with cases where significant information relevant to the complaint emerges during the NHS complaints process; and • the circumstances in which PHSO may consider it unreasonable for the complainant to have invoked or exhausted the organisation's complaints procedure. 3. Complaints concerning NHS complaint handling Please provide the current guidance, policy, manual, decision-making framework or other recorded information used when PHSO decides that a complaint concerning an NHS organisation's handling of its own complaints process will not be investigated. In particular, please provide information setting out: • the criteria used to determine whether inadequate or defective complaint handling has caused sufficient injustice, hardship or impact to warrant investigation; • whether there is a defined threshold of hardship, injustice or impact which must be met; • how the severity or significance of the impact on the complainant is assessed; • how PHSO distinguishes between ordinary dissatisfaction with a complaint outcome and a failure by an NHS organisation to properly investigate, answer or resolve substantive concerns; • whether the nature and seriousness of the underlying concerns are considered when assessing the injustice arising from complaint handling; • whether PHSO considers cases where poor complaint handling has left substantive concerns about patient safety, clinical care, governance, avoidable harm or death unresolved; • whether PHSO will investigate complaint handling where the organisation has failed to answer material questions raised by the complainant; and • whether there are circumstances in which PHSO may investigate the handling of a complaint even where it does not investigate the underlying substantive complaint. 4. Alleged avoidable harm, avoidable death and serious injustice Please provide the current guidance or criteria used to determine whether cases involving alleged avoidable harm, avoidable death or significant injustice should be investigated. In particular, please clarify whether the assessment framework distinguishes cases involving potentially avoidable harm or death from cases involving less serious dissatisfaction with NHS services or complaint handling. Where an NHS organisation has failed to properly investigate or answer concerns relating to potentially avoidable harm or death, please provide the criteria used to determine whether the resulting injustice is sufficiently serious to warrant PHSO investigation. 5. Decision-making and recording of reasons Please provide any current guidance concerning: • what information or evidence caseworkers are expected to consider when making decisions under section 9(4); • whether caseworkers are required to record the reasons for deciding that it is not reasonable to exercise the discretion under section 9(4); • whether caseworkers are required to record the factors considered when deciding that the injustice caused by complaint handling is insufficient to warrant investigation; and • whether such decisions require review, authorisation or oversight by a manager or another member of staff. 6. North West Anglia foundation Trust • Please provide confirmation of the number of complaints made to the PHSO against NWAFT from 1 January 2023 until to date? • How many of these concerned fluid management as an aspect of that complaint? • How many concerned issues with complaint handling as an aspect of that complaint? • How many concerned patient safety learning failures / lack of governance investigations / external escalation? If the requested information is contained within larger documents, I would be grateful if you could provide those documents or the relevant sections. If any information is considered exempt from disclosure, please provide the non-exempt information and identify the exemption relied upon. Thank you in advance,
I am writing about two related but separate matters. First, am seeking clarification of the general standards which the ombudsman recognises and would apply when considering the adequacy of section 117 aftercare. I am deliberately not asking you in this letter to determine the facts of my son's individual case. My purpose is first to establish the objective benchmark applicable to any person entitled to Section 1 l7 aftercare. Secondly, I wish to clarify the position where access to the ombudsman is being delayed because the local complaints process continues for a prolonged period without producing a comprehensive final resolution. lndeed, I understand that the ombudsman's own published guidance recognises that exceptionally the Ombudsman may become involved before the final-response stage where an organisation is clearly not making progress within a reasonable timescale. I would therefore be grateful for a clear answer to the following: 1. ls a formal statement from KMMH and the lcB that they have "nothing further to add" an absolute requirement before the Ombudsman can consider the complaint? 2. lf not, what criteria does the Ombudsman use to determine that the local complaints process has continued sufficiently and is no longer making reasonable progress? 3. Does that consideration take account of: o the overall period which has elapsed; o repeated partial responses; o material questions remaining unanswered; r repeated correspondence required simply to obtain answers; . failures to adhere to promised timescales; o the vulnerability of the person affected; e whether the alleged shortcomings in care are continuing; and o the burden placed upon family carers by prolonged complaint handling? 4' where several organisations are involved, are they expected to coordinate their complaint handling rather than requiring the complainant to pursue a succession of separate and potentially inconsistent processes? 5' Can the Ombudsman determine that local resolution has effectively been exhausted even though an organisation has not issued a document expressly headed "Final Response,,? I am not seeking to bypass reasonable local investigation. I am seeking to ensure that protraction, avoidance or repeated inconclusive correspondence cannot itself become an indefinite barrier to independent review. I would be grateful if this procedural issue could be considered in relation to my existing Ombudsman registration. I would appreciate a substantive written response.
08/09/2026
I request an internal review of your response to FOI 00004851. Your reply is incomplete, does not address the specific numbered items in my request, and does not comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 1. Failure to identify or disclose held information: You stated that you “do not hold information about this caseworker,” but I did not request personal data. I requested internal policies, guidance, and training materials used by caseworkers when applying the discretionary time limit policy, assessing vulnerability, and handling cases involving destroyed HMCTS records. These documents are held by PHSO, as evidenced by internal training materials such as Fairness and Managing Casework Risk – Vulnerability Assessment. Your response did not acknowledge or disclose these materials. 2. Misapplication of Section 21 FOIA: You relied on section 21 (“reasonably accessible”) without identifying the specific documents, providing links, or confirming that all requested items are publicly available. FOIA requires you to specify the exact documents relied upon. You did not do so. 3. Failure to answer multiple FOI questions: Your response did not address the following items: • internal guidance on digital exclusion • internal guidance on vulnerability assessment • internal guidance on destroyed HMCTS records • training materials on applying the time limit policy • training materials on discrimination and fairness • internal review procedures • criteria for when a review must be provided • internal communication policies between caseworkers and the Feedback Team • escalation policies when a caseworker leaves post Please provide a complete response to all numbered items in sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of my original request. 4. Requirement for a lawful, complete response: Please conduct a full internal review and provide: • the specific documents requested, • or the lawful FOIA exemptions relied upon, • or confirmation that the documents exist but are exempt, • or confirmation that they do not exist.
07/09/2026
Please note details, from the Ombudsman site, regarding secure emails Please reply, asap, with status/details, as requested. Thanks
04/09/2026
1. Apple search PHSO states that it did not search the term “Apple” because it may generate false positives and because Apple is outside PHSO’s investigatory remit. Please review whether this adequately addresses my request. I was not solely seeking complaints against Apple. Parts of my request sought general institutional records, discussions and material concerning regulatory accountability, data-access disputes and situations involving large technology companies. The fact that PHSO cannot investigate Apple directly does not necessarily establish that PHSO holds no records mentioning Apple. Please therefore review whether a reasonable targeted search for “Apple Inc”, “Apple UK” and/or combinations of “Apple” with relevant terms such as “ICO”, “data protection” or “iCloud” could be undertaken without disproportionate false positives. 2. OpenAI and ChatGPT complaints PHSO has confirmed that one complaint was identified for ChatGPT and one for OpenAI, with neither progressing to investigation. I am not requesting information identifying either complainant. Please review whether PHSO can provide any non-personal, non-case-identifying statistical information held about these complaints, including: • year received; • whether the OpenAI and ChatGPT results represent two separate complaints or the same complaint; • broad closure category for each; and • whether either complaint concerned another public body’s handling of an issue involving OpenAI/ChatGPT rather than a request for PHSO to investigate the company directly. 3. Training materials concerning the ICO PHSO confirms that it holds training materials relating to cases involving the ICO but relies upon section 44 because those materials contain case examples. Please review whether redaction or extraction of the non-case-specific portions of those training materials has been considered, rather than withholding the materials in their entirety, and identify the precise statutory basis if PHSO considers the entirety of each document prohibited from disclosure. 4. Legal briefing concerning the ICO I acknowledge PHSO’s reliance on section 42 in relation to privileged legal advice. I am not requesting disclosure of privileged legal advice through this review. However, please confirm, without revealing privileged content, the date, title or general subject matter of the identified legal briefing where that information can lawfully be separated from the privileged advice. 5. Search methodology For the categories where PHSO states that information is “not held following a reasonable search”, please review whether the response provides sufficient information to understand what records/systems were searched and what search terms were used. This internal review is deliberately narrower than my previous requests. I am not asking PHSO to disclose personal information, investigation material prohibited from disclosure, or legally privileged advice.
. OpenAI and ChatGPT complaints PHSO has confirmed that one complaint was identified for ChatGPT and one for OpenAI, with neither progressing to investigation. I am not requesting information identifying either complainant. Please review whether PHSO can provide any non-personal, non-case-identifying statistical information held about these complaints, including: • year received; • whether the OpenAI and ChatGPT results represent two separate complaints or the same complaint; • broad closure category for each; and • whether either complaint concerned another public body’s handling of an issue involving OpenAI/ChatGPT rather than a request for PHSO to investigate the company directly.
28/08/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like to request the following information covering the period from 1 January 2022 to the date this request is processed. Please provide: 1. The number of complaints received in which the complainant stated they suffered a financial loss after acting on investment advice or recommendations found on social media. 2. Where possible, the number of complaint records that contain any of the following terms: • social media • influencer • finfluencer • TikTok • Instagram • YouTube • X • Twitter • Facebook • Reddit • Telegram • Discord 3. Where this information is available, please provide: • the financial product involved; • the outcome of the complaint; • whether compensation was awarded; and • the platform mentioned. If this request exceeds the appropriate cost limit, please prioritise Part 1 and provide as much of the remaining information as is reasonably possible within the statutory limit.
27/08/2026
REQUEST 1: CHIEF EXECUTIVE COMPLAINT HANDLING 1.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing formal complaints addressed directly to the Chief Executive, as in force on 20 June 2025, including acknowledgement timeframes, logging requirements, escalation procedure, and response timeframes. 1.2 Recorded information showing whether the formal complaint addressed to the Chief Executive dated 20 June 2025 was: (a) Received and logged, and if so on what date (b) Acknowledged within the procedure at 1.1, and if so on what date (c) If not acknowledged within the standard procedure, the recorded reason for this and the role responsible for that decision REQUEST 2: COMPLAINT CATEGORISATION 2.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing how complaints are categorised upon receipt, including the criteria for determining whether a complaint raises issues of administrative process, clinical care, or statutory discrimination. 2.2 The recorded procedure or guidance specifying whether the categorisation process produces a retained case-file output, and if so the form that output takes. 2.3 The policy document or procedural guidance governing re-categorisation of a complaint during investigation, including supervisory approval requirements and complainant notification obligations. REQUEST 3: EQUALITY ACT ANALYSIS 3.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing when investigating officers may introduce Equality Act 2010 analysis into investigation reports. 3.2 Recorded quality assurance and supervisory sign-off requirements applicable to investigation reports that include Equality Act 2010 analysis, and whether such sign-off produces a retained record in the case file. 3.3 Institutional training materials, guidance, or requirements applicable to investigating officers regarding the distinction between administrative process complaints and statutory discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010, including whether such training was mandatory and whether completion was recorded. REQUEST 4: CLINICAL INFORMATION VERIFICATION 4.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing verification of clinical information used as evidence in investigation reports, including the steps required to cross-reference clinical assertions against source records, whether verification produces a retained record in the case file, and the role responsible for conducting verification. 4.2 Policy or guidance specifying whether clinical assertions in investigation reports are required to be independently verified before inclusion, and if so by whom and in what recorded form. REQUEST 5: PUBLICATION QUALITY ASSURANCE 5.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing approval of investigation reports for publication on the PHSO decisions website, including all fact-checking and accuracy verification steps required before publication approval, as in force at the time of publication assessment for Case (redacted). 5.2 The recorded reason for the decision to withdraw Case (redacted) from publication, and the role responsible for that decision. REQUEST 6: DATA PROTECTION OFFICER INVOLVEMENT 6.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing when the PHSO Data Protection Officer must be consulted during investigations involving disputes about the accuracy of personal data, and whether DPO involvement produces a retained record in the case file. 6.2 The policy document or procedural guidance governing the DPO's role when a complainant raises a formal rectification request under UK GDPR Article 16 or DPA 2018 Section 46 during an active or concluded investigation. REQUEST 7: INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATION LOGGING 7.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing communications between PHSO investigating officers and healthcare providers during investigations, including requirements for logging and recording such communications, the format in which logs are retained, and their location within the case file. 7.2 Disclosure policy or guidance specifying whether communications between the PHSO and healthcare providers during an investigation are required to be disclosed in response to a Subject Access Request, and if not, the procedural basis on which such communications may be withheld. REQUEST 8: SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST COMPLIANCE 8.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing SAR responses, as in force on 14 May 2025, including: (a) The criteria for applying exemptions (b) Any requirement to identify the specific statutory provision relied upon for each individual document or category withheld (c) The supervisory review process applied before a SAR response is issued REQUEST 9: SERVICE COMPLAINT HANDLING 9.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing complaints about the PHSO's own service, as in force between 11 June 2025 and the date of this request, including acknowledgement timeframes, escalation criteria, and response timeframes. REQUEST 10: COMPLAINT RECTIFICATION 10.1 The policy document or procedural guidance governing requests to rectify factual inaccuracies in investigation reports after the decision date, as in force between April 2025 and the date of this request, including the published response timeframe, the criteria for determining when a new decision is required versus an amendment to the existing decision, and the seniority level responsible for making the rectification decision.
21/08/2026
Dear Information Access and Assurance Team, Please find attached my request for information made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this request. I look forward to your substantive response within the statutory time limit. Should you consider that any part of this request requires clarification in order to comply with your obligations under the Act, please contact me at your earliest convenience. This request relates only to complaints concerning NHS England, NHS Trusts, NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs0, NHS hospitals and GPS Services. It does not include complaints concerning other organisations within the PHSO's jurisdiction. Please provide the information separately for each calendar year 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 to date of the response, where available. 1. 9Overall complaints submitted to PHSO Please provide: the total number of complaints received by PHSO: the number of complaints accepted for investigation: the number of complaints not accepted for investigation, together with the recorded reason (s) for refusal: the outcomes of complaints, broke down into the following categories where recorded: upheld partly upheld Not Upheld Resolution Closed after Initial enquiries; and any other recorded outcome categories. 2. Complaints involving non-native English speakers Please provide the number of where: the complainant or affected patient was not a native English speaker reasonable adjustments relating to translation services were requested in order to access the PHSO complaints process.
18/08/2026
I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning complaints recorded by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in relation to Abbey Field Medical Centre, Colchester. I understand from the PHSO's published NHS complaints data that complaints concerning Abbey Field Medical Centre have been recorded in recent reporting years. I am not requesting the identities of complainants, copies of correspondence, medical information, or any other information capable of identifying individual patients. For the reporting years 2023/24 and 2024/25, please provide, for each complaint concerning Abbey Field Medical Centre: 1. The broad complaint category or subject matter recorded by PHSO. 2. Whether the complaint concerned any of the following: o access to GP appointments; o telephone access to the practice; o reception or care-navigation staff; o online or telephone triage; o refusal or failure to assist a patient with a triage/appointment request; o a patient being advised that no appointments were available; o signposting to NHS 111, an urgent treatment centre or another service instead of arranging GP assessment; o delay in obtaining medical assessment or treatment. 3. The broad outcome of the complaint, for example: o upheld; o partly upheld; o not upheld; o resolved without investigation; o not accepted for investigation; o discontinued; or o any other outcome category used by PHSO. 4. Where a complaint was investigated or otherwise resulted in recommendations, whether PHSO identified: o service failure; o maladministration; o inadequate complaint handling; o problems with appointment access or triage; o communication failures; or o failures involving reception or administrative staff. 5. Whether any recommendation, remedy, service improvement, staff training, policy/procedure change or other corrective action was requested or agreed as a result. Where exact details cannot be disclosed because of the confidentiality requirements applying to PHSO complaint information, I would be grateful if the information could instead be provided at the highest level of anonymised aggregation that can lawfully be disclosed. For example, if individual complaint categories cannot be supplied, please provide the number of Abbey Field Medical Centre complaints falling within each broad category, together with aggregate outcomes. If any part of this request is considered exempt from disclosure, please provide the remaining non-exempt information and identify the exemption relied upon. If the requested information is already publicly available, please provide the precise publication, dataset or webpage where the relevant Abbey Field Medical Centre information can be found.
Dear Information Rights Team, I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For each year from 2021/22 to 2025/26, please provide the following recorded information relating to complaints about CAFCASS, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. 1. The number of complaints or enquiries received concerning CAFCASS. 2. Of those, the number accepted for investigation, and the number declined or closed before a decision was reached, with reasons if recorded. 3. Of those investigated, the number upheld, partially upheld, and not upheld. 4. Any recorded criteria or threshold used to decide whether a complaint about CAFCASS proceeds to investigation. If any of this information is not held in reportable form, please confirm that in writing. If you consider any part exempt, please release the remainder and set out the exemption you are relying on for the rest.
Can you provide me a copy/information about your complaints policies, to explain what the processes and procedures are when the complaints are specifically about the PHSO, and how they should be handled.
I would like information and details about how to make a formal complaint about the experience with the Phso. So far my complaints about the Phso have gone ignored by management. Otherwise can you please tell me how to contact the CEO/Managing Director of Phso, as to make my complaint aware with them. And finally, what other (external) organisations can I contact about complaint about the Phso, or would it be expected to contact our local MP and make them aware of the complaint.
17/08/2026
Has any other complaint investigated by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman taken this length of time to complete? If so, how many?
14/08/2026
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please provide the following information relating specifically to complaints made about Cafcass for the five most recent completed financial years, namely: • 2021/22 • 2022/23 • 2023/24 • 2024/25 • 2025/26 If the information for 2025/26 has not yet been finalised, please provide the data for the most recent five completed financial years for which the information is held. For each financial year, please provide: 1. The total number of complaints received concerning Cafcass. 2. The number of complaints accepted for investigation. 3. The number of complaints not accepted for investigation. 4. Where recorded, the reasons complaints were not accepted for investigation, broken down by category and the number within each category. 5. The number of investigations completed. 6. The outcome of those investigations, showing the number that were: o Upheld; o Partially upheld; o Not upheld; o Resolved, discontinued or otherwise closed without a determination (if recorded). 7. The number of recommendations made to Cafcass following investigations. 8. Where recorded, the number of cases in which Cafcass accepted and implemented the Ombudsman's recommendations. 9. The average time taken to conclude investigations relating to Cafcass. 10. The number of complaints concerning Cafcass that were declined because the complainant had not completed the Cafcass complaints procedure. 11. Where recorded, the number of complaints concerning Cafcass that were closed without investigation for reasons other than jurisdiction, together with a breakdown of the recorded reasons. 12. Details of any published investigation reports, case summaries or thematic reports relating to Cafcass issued during the period requested, or links to where these are publicly available.
I am seeking to research how many PSHO decisions that are reviewed with legal assistance are upheld following an initial adverse decision. This is to assist me with research work on UK compliance with Art 13 of the ECHR. I would like to work with you to find a way for you to provide this information without undue use of your time or resources.