13/08/2026
I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request aggregate information about complaints involving Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decisions. For each financial year from 2017/18 to 2025/26, please provide: 1. The number of complaints identified by PHSO as involving a DNACPR, DNAR or DNR decision. 2. Of those complaints, the number that were: a. accepted for detailed investigation; b. fully upheld; c. partly upheld; d. not upheld; e. resolved or closed without a final investigation decision. 3. The number of upheld or partly upheld complaints involving a failure to inform or consult the patient, their relatives, carers or representatives about the DNACPR decision.
This request seeks only current corporate documents — policies, procedures, casework guidance, standards, training materials and written instructions in force on the date this request is received. It does not seek legal advice, legal opinions, emails, case files, or information relating to individual complaints or investigations. Please provide copies of the following documents, if held. 1. Any current casework guidance, policy, procedure or written instruction used by Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman caseworkers when investigating complaints that include an allegation that an organisation within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction failed to comply with the Equality Act 2010, or failed to identify or provide reasonable adjustments for a disabled person. 2. Any current guidance, policy or written instruction describing how compliance with the Equality Act 2010 (including the public sector equality duty under section 149) is taken into account when the Ombudsman applies its Principles of Good Administration, its Principles of Good Complaint Handling, or its test for maladministration or service failure. 3. Any current training material provided to caseworkers concerning the Equality Act 2010, disability discrimination, or reasonable adjustments, as these issues arise in casework. 4. The Ombudsman's current policy or procedure on the identification and provision of reasonable adjustments for disabled people who bring complaints to, or correspond with, the Ombudsman's own service.
I would like to make a freedom of information request. I am doing a research project investigating call-off contracts in the public sector. I have identified twelve potential call-off contracts awarded by Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman, but I can't find details of the framework agreements they were awarded from, or which lots were used. I have attached an Excel file that contains the information I am looking at. The last two columns ("Title of framework used" and "Further framework info") is where I am missing information. Please could you provide the name of the specific framework agreement or DPS/Dynamic Market used here, as well as the lot used if the framework was divided into lots. If there is any further info which you think would help me locate the framework agreements (e.g., a link to the framework's Contract Finder or FTS listing, the framework provider, or a widely-used reference number such as CCS's RM codes), please use the final column for this. Please use the second column for the relevant lot information. Please note that I have identified these contracts as possible call-off contracts, so some of them might not be. Some could be, for instance, procured directly (without being called off from a framework agreement), or could be themselves notices of the establishment of a framework agreement. Therefore I would kindly ask you to specify in these incidences what kind of procurement was used in the "Title of framework used" column. I have provided the title, description, the publication date, and procedure type used to award each potential call-off, as well as a URL link to the call-off in question and a unique reference ID for each potential call-off. Please let me know if there is anything else you need to complete the request.
10/08/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request non personal information relating to how my complaint was handled, including: 2.1 Internal Policies and Guidance • The exact version of the PHSO Discretionary Time Limit Policy used by (redacted) • Any internal guidance or instructions issued to staff on handling time limit waiver requests. • Any internal guidance on assessing digital exclusion or vulnerability. • Any internal guidance on handling complaints where HMCTS has destroyed records. 2.2 Internal Training Materials • Training materials provided to caseworkers on applying the time limit policy. • Training materials on discrimination, fairness, and vulnerability assessment. 2.3 Internal Review Procedures • The internal process for second tier review of caseworker decisions. • Any internal documents explaining when a review must be provided. 2.4 Internal Communications Policies • Policies governing internal communication between caseworkers and the Feedback Team. • Policies governing escalation when a caseworker leaves their post.
07/08/2026
I would if it would be possible to have information about the children's heart surgery practices and wards at Leeds General Infirmary West Yorkshire
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information in relation to complaints concerning Cafcass that have been investigated by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). For the period covering the past 20 years, please provide: 1. The total number of complaints received by the PHSO relating to Cafcass. 2. The total number of those complaints that were upheld, either in full or in part. 3. For each complaint that was upheld, please provide: o the date the final decision was issued; and o the PHSO case reference number. If it is not possible to provide the information for the full 20-year period, please provide the information for the longest period for which records are held. If any part of this request is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the remaining information and specify the exemption(s) relied upon for withholding any information.
06/08/2026
I request an internal review of PHSO’s handling of FOI case /00004735. I recognise that my three requests were submitted on the same day and that PHSO aggregated them for the purposes of its response. I also recognise that Section 12 may apply where the statutory cost limit would genuinely be exceeded. However, I ask the reviewer to reconsider whether the refusal adequately demonstrates that the Section 12 estimate applies to all distinct categories of information requested, and whether PHSO discharged its duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance under Section 16. The refusal explains that searches across certain broad terms generated 1,198 complaint results and estimates approximately five minutes per case, producing an overall estimate of approximately 99 hours. However, substantial parts of my requests did not ask PHSO to review individual complaint files. They separately requested existing: • guidance and policies; • training materials and procedures; • briefing documents and briefing notes; • reports, reviews and assessments; and • general institutional material concerning AI, data rights, accountability gaps and the adequacy of complaint mechanisms. The response does not explain how the 1,198-result complaint-search calculation applies to those separately identifiable categories of institutional information. My requests also expressly distinguished general information from individual case material. In particular, I stated: “This request relates to general information held by the PHSO and is not a request for information relating to any specific individual complaint or case file.” I also stated: “This request is made under the Freedom of Information Act and is not a request for information relating to my personal complaint.” I therefore ask the reviewer to consider whether reliance on statutory restrictions concerning case-related information adequately addressed the separate requests for general, non-case-specific information. I further request review of the search methodology. The response states that searches for “AI”, “SAR” and “FOI” would generate excessive false positives. However, my requests contained more specific search terms, including: • OpenAI; • ChatGPT; • Generative AI; • Large Language Models / LLMs; • Apple; and • iCloud. Please confirm whether those terms were searched individually and, if not, whether they could reasonably have been used to identify a narrower body of potentially relevant information. I ask the reviewer to clarify: • the number of results generated by each search term actually used; • whether the stated 1,198 results contained duplicate or overlapping search hits; • whether the five-minute-per-case estimate was based on a sampling exercise and, if so, the methodology and sample size; • which specific parts of my requests were assessed as requiring examination of all 1,198 results; • whether searches for existing policy, guidance, training, briefing, report and review material were undertaken separately from complaint-record searches; and • whether general, non-case-specific correspondence was considered separately from information protected by statutory restrictions applying to individual investigations. Finally, I ask the reviewer to reconsider the Section 16 position. The refusal states that PHSO cannot suggest any way in which the request could be reduced. Given the distinct information categories and specific search terms above, please reconsider whether reasonable advice and assistance could identify a narrower request capable of being answered within the appropriate limit. I am not asking PHSO to exceed the statutory cost limit. I am asking for sufficient explanation and practical assistance to understand which specific parts of my requests create the estimated burden and how the requests may reasonably be narrowed.
I further request review of the search methodology. The response states that searches for “AI”, “SAR” and “FOI” would generate excessive false positives. However, my requests contained more specific search terms, including: • OpenAI; • ChatGPT; • Generative AI; • Large Language Models / LLMs; • Apple; and • iCloud. Please confirm whether those terms were searched individually and, if not, whether they could reasonably have been used to identify a narrower body of potentially relevant information. I ask the reviewer to clarify: • the number of results generated by each search term actually used; • whether the stated 1,198 results contained duplicate or overlapping search hits; • whether the five-minute-per-case estimate was based on a sampling exercise and, if so, the methodology and sample size; • which specific parts of my requests were assessed as requiring examination of all 1,198 results; • whether searches for existing policy, guidance, training, briefing, report and review material were undertaken separately from complaint-record searches; and • whether general, non-case-specific correspondence was considered separately from information protected by statutory restrictions applying to individual investigations. Finally, I ask the reviewer to reconsider the Section 16 position. The refusal states that PHSO cannot suggest any way in which the request could be reduced. Given the distinct information categories and specific search terms above, please reconsider whether reasonable advice and assistance could identify a narrower request capable of being answered within the appropriate limit. I am not asking PHSO to exceed the statutory cost limit. I am asking for sufficient explanation and practical assistance to understand which specific parts of my requests create the estimated burden and how the requests may reasonably be narrowed.
I make a freedom of information request on PHSO to be provided a copy of the HMCTS Complaints Handling Guidance you used to assess complaint
Provide me with your complaints policy, that explain how your processes and procedures are handled when one makes a complaint specifically about the PHSO and it's conduct. And a copy of your "Respectful Behaviour policy (the Policy)".
03/08/2026
Where does a member of the public go to report and present credible and substantial evidence of serious fraud and corruption committed by a police force and government institutions when the IOPC refuses to act or accept the evidence ?
Under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to know by each year for the past 10 years from 2016: • How many appeals against IRP Continuing Health Care funding decisions the PHSO received each year • How many of these appeals were upheld each year • How many of these appeals led to a change in the original IRP original decision each year If recorded I would also like to know a single line of the reasons for the PHSO decision, although I appreciate this may not be recorded.
30/07/2026
Unless otherwise stated, please provide information for the last five completed financial years and the current year to date. 1. Child Maintenance Service (CMS) complaints Please provide: a. The number of complaints relating to the Child Maintenance Service referred to the PHSO. b. The number accepted for investigation. c. The number investigated. d. The outcome of those investigations (for example, upheld, partly upheld, not upheld or resolved by other means). e. The number of findings of maladministration and/or service failure. f. The number of recommendations made to the Department for Work and Pensions arising from CMS complaints. 2. Timeliness Please provide: a. The average time between receipt of a CMS complaint and a decision whether to investigate. b. The average duration of CMS investigations. c. Any internal targets or service standards relating to the handling of CMS complaints. 3. Governance and Performance Please provide copies of any: performance reports; management information reports; governance reports; dashboards; or board papers produced within the last two years that monitor the handling or performance of complaints relating to UK Government departments, including (where available) CMS complaints. 4. Learning and Systemic Issues Please provide copies of any reviews, lessons learned reports, thematic reviews or assessments produced within the last five years concerning: a. Delays in investigating complaints. b. The effectiveness of the PHSO's oversight of complaints concerning the Department for Work and Pensions. c. Any systemic issues identified in complaints relating to the Child Maintenance Service. 5. Exceptional Circumstances Please provide copies of any policies, operational guidance, service guidance or internal procedures concerning: a. Requests for complaints to be considered urgently or exceptionally. b. Consideration of ongoing or irreversible harm when determining how complaints should be handled. c. Circumstances in which the PHSO may depart from its usual complaints process or prioritise a complaint. 6. Public Interest Please provide copies of any policies, guidance, criteria or internal documents that refer to: public interest considerations; systemic issues; wider public benefit; or exceptional circumstances when deciding how complaints should be handled or prioritised. If any of the requested information is already publicly available, I would be grateful if you could direct me to the relevant publication rather than withholding the request.
Section B — Complaint Volume and Categorisation B1. In the period from 1 December 2025 to the date of your response, how many complaints in total has the PHSO received about the Pensions Ombudsman — across all subject matters and irrespective of whether they relate to the Civil Service Pension Scheme? B2. Of those total complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman, how many were categorised as relating to: (a) delay in handling a complaint; (b) refusal to accept jurisdiction; (c) failure to investigate; (d) procedural irregularity; (e) any other category, and if so what categories? B3. Of the complaints falling within category (b) — refusal to accept jurisdiction — how many related to the Pensions Ombudsman declining to investigate on the grounds that an Internal Dispute Resolution procedure had not been completed, whether or not the underlying pension complaint concerned the Civil Service Pension Scheme? B4. Does the PHSO maintain a subject matter coding or tagging system for complaints received about the Pensions Ombudsman? If so, please describe the coding categories in use and confirm whether any category exists that would capture complaints arising from occupational pension scheme administration failures or from the transfer of pension scheme administration between administrators. B5. Please confirm the total number of complaints received by the PHSO about the Pensions Ombudsman in each of the five preceding calendar years — 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 — and the number upheld in each year, for comparison with the post-December 2025 period. Section C — The PHSO's Oversight Role in Relation to the Pensions Ombudsman C1. Please confirm the precise statutory basis on which the PHSO has jurisdiction to receive and investigate complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of complaints, including the specific Act and section under which that jurisdiction is exercised. C2. Has the PHSO received any formal or informal communication from the Pensions Ombudsman, the Cabinet Office, or any other government department or public body between 1 December 2025 and the date of your response, concerning the volume or handling of Civil Service Pension Scheme complaints received by the Pensions Ombudsman following the transition to Capita? If so, please describe the nature of that communication, the parties involved, and the date or dates on which it was received. C3. Has the PHSO published or produced any internal guidance, briefing, or policy document since 1 December 2025 relating to complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of Civil Service Pension Scheme matters? If so, please provide a copy or confirm where it is publicly available. C4. Is the PHSO aware of the Pensions Ombudsman's published statement of 30 January 2026 acknowledging the impact of the MyCSP to Capita transition on Civil Service Pension Scheme members and the Pensions Ombudsman's own caseload? If so, did that statement prompt any review or assessment by the PHSO of whether affected members were likely to seek recourse to the PHSO regarding the Pensions Ombudsman's response to those complaints? C5. What is the PHSO's published or operational position on complaints made to the PHSO about the Pensions Ombudsman's exercise of its discretion not to investigate a complaint, specifically where the reason given for non-investigation is that the complainant has not completed a statutory Internal Dispute Resolution process that the relevant administrator has itself failed to operate in accordance with its statutory obligations? Section D — Accessibility and Awareness D1. What steps has the PHSO taken since 1 December 2025 to make Civil Service Pension Scheme members aware that complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of their cases may be referred to the PHSO? Please identify any specific communications, publications, or outreach activities directed at that membership group. D2. Is there any published or publicly accessible guidance on the PHSO's website or in any PHSO publication that specifically addresses the right of Civil Service Pension Scheme members to complain to the PHSO about the Pensions Ombudsman? If so, please provide the URL or reference. If not, please confirm whether such guidance is under consideration. D3. Has the PHSO received any enquiries — as distinct from formal complaints — from Civil Service Pension Scheme members or their representatives since 1 December 2025 raising concerns about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of CSPS complaints? If so, how many, and how were those enquiries handled? Section E — Systemic Issues E1. Does the PHSO have any mechanism for identifying and responding to systemic failures in the Pensions Ombudsman's operations, independent of receiving individual complaints? If so, has that mechanism been applied in relation to the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of Civil Service Pension Scheme complaints since 1 December 2025? E2. If the PHSO were to receive a significant volume of complaints about the Pensions Ombudsman's handling of a single category of cases — such as Civil Service Pension Scheme complaints arising from the Capita transition — what threshold of complaints, if any, would trigger a formal systemic review of the Pensions Ombudsman's conduct in that category? E3. Is the PHSO aware that the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee are conducting an active joint inquiry into the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme, with an oral evidence session scheduled for 8 July 2026? Has the PHSO made any submission to or communication with those committees in connection with the Pensions Ombudsman's role in receiving complaints from affected scheme members?
28/07/2026
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide the following recorded statistical information held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for the period 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2025. This request relates to complaints concerning NHS services or NHS organisations providing services in Blackpool where the recorded subject matter included the response to alleged or suspected sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, grooming, sexual misconduct or other sexual safeguarding concerns involving a person under the age of 18. For each calendar year, please provide: The number of complaints received falling within the scope of this request. The number of those complaints that proceeded to investigation. The number resulting in an upheld or partly upheld finding. The number resulting in recommendations or agreed actions relating to child safeguarding practice, policy, procedure, training or case handling. I am requesting aggregated statistical information only. I do not seek names, addresses, medical information, case details, decision summaries or information capable of identifying any child, complainant, family member, witness, healthcare professional or other individual. I am not asking the Ombudsman to manually review individual complaint or investigation files or to create new information. If the information is not held in the exact categories requested, please provide the closest equivalent categories available from existing searchable or reportable records. If annual figures cannot be disclosed because of small-number identification risks, please provide combined figures for the full period from 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2025 or apply appropriate suppression rather than withholding the entire dataset. If any part of this request would exceed the appropriate cost limit, please provide the information that can be supplied within the limit and provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I write to request an internal review of your decision to refuse my Freedom of Information request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I respectfully submit that section 14(1) has been incorrectly applied. My request was a genuine request for recorded information concerning the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's statutory role, published procedures and governance arrangements. It did not seek opinions, legal advice, explanations or case-specific information. The request was clearly limited to recorded information. Public interest The PHSO's published purpose is to provide an independent complaints service, investigate maladministration and service failure, improve public services through learning, and help ensure accountability across government and public bodies. My request concerns the Ombudsman's own recorded policies, procedures and governance relating to the handling of allegations involving maladministration, corruption, systemic failure and access to justice. These matters fall squarely within the broader public interest in transparency and accountability. It is therefore difficult to understand how a request seeking recorded information concerning the Ombudsman's own governance arrangements can properly be characterised as vexatious. Previous requests Your refusal appears to rely primarily upon the fact that this is my ninth request in eight months and that an ICO complaint is currently outstanding. Neither of those matters automatically engages section 14(1). The ICO's published guidance makes clear that repeated requests are not, of themselves, vexatious. A public authority should consider the purpose and value of the request together with the burden of compliance and should not rely simply upon the number of requests made. My request seeks recorded information that has not previously been identified or disclosed. Failure to explain the burden Your response states that the request demonstrates unreasonable persistence but provides no explanation of the burden that complying with this specific request would impose. In particular, the response does not explain: - what searches would be required; - which business areas would need to be consulted; - why the request would impose a disproportionate burden; - why any burden would outweigh the clear public interest in transparency concerning the Ombudsman's published functions. Statutory role The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is established to investigate complaints of maladministration and service failure and has powers to make recommendations, publish reports and, in certain circumstances, lay reports before Parliament. Given those statutory functions, it would be reasonable to expect that recorded information exists describing: - the Ombudsman's role and responsibilities; - internal guidance; - governance arrangements; - referral mechanisms; - operational procedures; and - relevant decision-making frameworks. My request sought only the identification or disclosure of such recorded information. Request for clarification If the PHSO maintains that section 14(1) has been correctly applied, I would be grateful if the internal review would explain: 1. Why this specific request, considered on its own merits, is considered vexatious. 2. How the public interest in transparency concerning the Ombudsman's statutory functions was balanced against any alleged burden. 3. Why the request could not have been answered by identifying existing published policies or recorded documents, where appropriate. 4. Whether the decision was based upon the wording of the request itself or principally upon my previous correspondence with the PHSO. I respectfully request that the internal review be conducted by someone independent of the original decision-maker and that the decision be reconsidered afresh in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Information Commissioner's guidance on section 14. If the refusal is upheld, I would be grateful if the review addressed each of the points raised above, as I intend to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office.
27/07/2026
Follow-Up to FOI Response — Reference FOI2026/00004663 — Request for Clarification and Further Information Thank you for your response to my Freedom of Information request, received following my chaser of 2 July 2026. I note the PHSO's position that after searching all complaints received relating to the Pensions Ombudsman from 1 December 2025 to the date of your response, no complaints were found matching the specified criteria. I am grateful for that response but I have a number of detailed questions arising from it, each of which I ask to be answered specifically and in writing. I make these requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and under the PHSO's duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of that Act. I ask that each question below be addressed individually and that the response identify, for each question, whether the information is held, and if held, provide it, or if not held or exempt, identify the specific basis for non-disclosure under section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section A — Search Methodology A1. Please describe in full the search methodology used to identify complaints matching the criteria in my original request. Specifically: which databases, registers, or complaint management systems were searched; what search terms were used; and whether the search was conducted by keyword, by subject matter category, by date range, or by some other method. A2. Please confirm whether complaints received about the Pensions Ombudsman in general terms — for example, complaints about delay, failure to engage, or refusal to accept jurisdiction — were included in the search, or whether the search was limited to complaints that expressly referenced the Civil Service Pension Scheme, Capita, or the MyCSP to Capita transition by name. A3. Please confirm whether complaints received verbally by telephone or in person, rather than in writing, were included in the search, and if not, why not. A4. Please confirm the date on which the search was conducted and the date up to which complaint records were searched. If the search was conducted before the date of your response, please confirm whether any complaints received between the search date and the response date were included. A5. Please confirm whether complaints that were logged initially under a general category and subsequently reclassified would have been captured by the search, and what quality assurance process was applied to ensure the search was comprehensive.
16/07/2026
2. Disclosure of the internal policies relied upon when applying the Respectful Behaviour Policy in my case.
14/07/2026
I am requesting the following recorded information held by the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) relating to the Bretton Medical Practice, Bretton, Peterborough for the period 31 June 2025 to 31 June 2026 - please see additional information to support your search at the end of this email, thank you: 1. All complaints received by the PHSO in the last 12 months (31 June 2025 to 31 June 2026) that name or concern Bretton Medical Centre, including: ◦ Complaints relating to administration, practice management, communication, or access to services. ◦ Complaints relating to clinical practice, clinical decision making, prescribing, diagnostics, or patient safety. ◦ Complaints relating to staff behaviour or professionalism. 2. For each complaint, please provide: ◦ Date the complaint was received. ◦ Whether the complaint was accepted for investigation, closed at assessment, or referred back to the local resolution stage. ◦ Summary of the issues raised. ◦ Outcome of any investigation (upheld, partially upheld, not upheld). ◦ Any recorded recommendations, service improvement actions, or learning points issued to the practice or the ICB. 3. Any PHSO case summaries, decision notices, or published investigation reports produced in the last 12 months (31 June 2025 to 31 June 2026) that reference Bretton Medical Centre.
13/07/2026
I refer to your recently-published report with the heading above and generally. As you know, section 4 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 precludes an investigation where the aggrieved person has a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law. At first sight, the injured child could have brought a claim for damages for personal injuries in a court of law. Even if there is a remedy by way of proceedings, the complaint may still be investigated if the Commissioner is satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect that person to resort or have resorted to it. The information I seek under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is: 1. Any information and documentation in the case of the child that led the Commissioner to conclude that it was not reasonable to expect the child (through a Litigation Friend such as her mother) to resort to bringing a claim for damages. 2. In relation to this case, did the Commissioner have regard to the likelihood that any claim would have been settled by professional indemnity insurers without the need for court proceedings to be issued? 3. Any policy document(s) related to decision-making generally about whether to conduct an investigation when where it is apparent that the aggrieved person has a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law.