Guest blog from phso-thefacts member
In 2013 PHSOthefacts formed and has grown significantly since that time, with the influx of more and more disgruntled and distressed complainants searching for answers. Complainants who did not receive justice through PHSO and were left more harmed, through taking their complaint to that final stage, in an attempt at redress. In discussion, PHSOthefacts members have discovered over time, that the same communication tactics have been used by not only the body they complained about but PHSO itself. There is clearly a format to fobbing off and side-lining complainants and some of these stock tactics are listed below.
The new Ombudsman, Rob Behrens, promises improvement and change, we want to test these promises and see if people continue to receive the same stock handling, as we continue this journey to justice. This post, therefore, constitutes an open letter to the new Ombudsman, who we will benchmark for his performance against these communication tactics:
- discrediting you – this can take the form of the following type of phrases “I do not find your point/claim relevant” (implying you are being frivolous or confused), “I disagree with your opinion” (implying you are incorrect or deluded), “it is unreasonable/impossible to expect” (self-explanatory and we don’t have to deal with this expectation because we have labelled it thus) or “please do not make false statements” (you are lying/being unprofessional/vexatious, which is a thinly-veiled threat to cease communications and they have now documented the excuse), “Person X’s expert opinion is” (you are a dumb Joe Public and cannot possibly know more than the alleged expert so you are clearly delusional);
- statements of I/we are willing to listen/learn/be transparent – you won’t get the resolution/response you are seeking, I/we want to look good in the public eye or when a third party oversees me/us, so a show will be made of holding meetings or seeking your feedback in writing and thanking you for it (but summarily disregarding it) so I/we can document it was done (i.e. a process was followed) and you just need to get over it and move forward, because this is a firmly closed door;
- ignoring evidence from reliable sources – you may have done Freedom of Information requests or gone over documented information with a fine tooth-comb and can prove what you say, but the facts you present will be glossed over, explained away, or most likely, simply strategically ignored in the response;
- padding and diverting – the communication will expend a minimum of one lengthy paragraph and often more, to pad out the response by stating the exceedingly obvious, such as what the body’s purpose is and what it does, in an attempt to divert from the fact that they have paid lip service to their remit and may include a paragraph telling you to approach someone else/another body in the ‘not in my remit’ game;
- strength in numbers/intimidation/bullying – stating that x, y, z person/body/group (especially those with alleged stature or kudos) ALL think differently than you, so you are just an insignificant little nobody and no-one else will agree with you. Otherwise known as circular assurance as each body closes your case down without proper investigation;
- apportioning blame/psychological warfare – apologising for YOUR opinion, view or feeling on the matter, so at first glance appearing conciliatory, but in fact denigrating YOU as being at fault for having said opinion or feeling, because clearly they have done nothing wrong and you are at fault for whatever it is you are communicating with them about;
- promises of changing/improving – this is another deflection, trying their arm at telling you things will be better in future, in the hope you will forget the issue YOU are contacting them about, because really you should just be satisfied with their glossy promises;
- taking control – authoritative statements about what will happen next, making it clear they have all the power and you just have to go along for the ride, may also include their version of minutes of any meetings that have taken place which you know to contain incorrect statements as you were present, designed to confuse and outrage you and make you feel it’s a battle not worth fighting;
- making false statements – sometimes this is simply incompetence, but more often this is to document factually incorrect information and has the added bonus of making you despair still further, so are more likely to give up or expend more time and effort responding to the inaccuracies which deflects you further and further from your initial point. Once it’s documented, the falsehoods grow and the runaway train is harder to stop;
- copying in third parties as a threat – gives the illusion that the author of the communication is ultra-confident in their missive and that they have friends (often in high places) who will back them up so you had better back off as their army is oh so much bigger than you.
PHSOthefacts are a group of valid complainants who seek reasonable outcomes. Learning can only truly come, when cases have been fully and honestly reviewed, to identify what went wrong and remedy what can still be put right. PHSO made the decisions not to investigate or not to uphold and only PHSO can correct those actions. PHSO needs to gain credibility, this won’t happen until it admits its own wrongdoing and provides redress, only then can it criticise and become an exemplar for the bodies it investigates. We await your future communications with interest (and score chart at the ready), Mr Behrens.
We who have outstanding issues with PHSO have heard for years how things will improve, well now we need to see this in action. In order to ‘try out’ the new service charter I brought a new complaint to PHSO, but it was the same old same old…. So marks out of 10…..personally I note nothing has changed. The clock is ticking.
Whatever way they play your complaint/case it always ends with their work of fiction to ensure dismissal of your complaint. Upon requests for a change in this protocol the answer is always jam tomorrow, with the PHSO’s assurance of learning lessons and trying to understand why complainants complain despite the fact that their procedure has been made clear prior to accepting their offer, then you realise you are being taken for a merry go round pr ride. Peggy
Experts in misunderstanding plain english. Promises of change but the only thing that changes are the staff and when their misdemeanours can no longer be covered up even those at the top leave. Mr Behrens needs to quickly show the changes he mentions are implemented, we have lived though too many nice words but no action.
Let’s hope RB sees this and realises that he (and his staff) will be benchmarked accordingly in all future communications.
It is all true. I am currently experiencing the same problems as detailed from two G.P.s who have both told me to take my concerns to the PHSO… I have told them both I will not waste my time and will see them in court.
Look forward with great interest to the reply from Mr. Behrens with more waffle and promises he cannot keep.