Nicholas Wheatley
If you have experienced poor complaint handling by the PHSO then join us to fight for change at phso-thefacts@outlook.com
How many people actually make complaints about the way the PHSO have handled their case?
We don’t actually know the answer to this question because people complain in many different ways.
Some people complain to their MPs, especially if the MP has been involved in their complaint, as is necessary for non-NHS complaints. But people also involve their MPs in their complaints about the NHS, especially when the PHSO mishandle the complaint, as often happens. However MPs tend to lose interest very quickly after receiving complaints about the PHSO, once they discover that there is nothing they can do.
Others make service complaints to the PHSO. A Freedom of Information request from PHSOtheFACTS in 2019 revealed that there were 1,013 service complaints in 2017-18 with 355 upheld, and 212 service complaints in 2018-19 with 147 upheld. The decrease in the number of complaints may have more to do with changes to their process than with an increase in customer satisfaction.
Still others request reviews of the way their complaints have been handled but do not lodge a service complaint. A review request implies dissatisfaction with case handling. On page 44 of the 2019-20 PHSO Annual Report it states that the PHSO carried out 1,199 reviews of decisions in 2018-19 and 942 reviews of decisions in 2019-20. There are likely to have been more actual requests for reviews than these figures suggest as not all requests for reviews translate into actual reviews.
Another way in which people complain about the way their case was handled is by submitting evidence to the annual scrutiny of the PHSO by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC). People spend long hours writing out the details of the dreadful service they have received at the hands of the PHSO but sadly this evidence is almost always ignored. 41 written submissions were made to PACAC for the 2020-21 scrutiny of which 26 were published. Of these, 19 were submissions made by members of the public.
Still other people complain directly to PACAC. The Committee does not reveal how many complaints about the PHSO it receives. However, in the 2020-21 scrutiny report PACAC did reveal that they
“…receive a significant amount of correspondence from the public, much of it negative”.
The report then proceeds to speculate, without evidence, that,
“any feedback giving praise or alternative positive views are sent directly to the PHSO, or posted in different form, rather than being provided directly to the Committee”.
Such is the standard of so-called “scrutiny” by PACAC!
Details of “feedback giving praise” are difficult to find but a Freedom of Information request by PHSOtheFACTS in 2017 revealed that in 2016-17 the PHSO received 3,306 feedback request of which just 8 were recorded as compliments.
Page 44 of the 2019-20 PHSO Annual Report reveals that the PHSO received 110 pieces of positive feedback. However this number was padded out to include positive feedback from organisations the PHSO investigate. The amount of positive feedback from people who bring complaints to the PHSO is not known.
As was mentioned previously, every year members of the public submit written evidence to PACAC detailing the poor service they have received from the PHSO. No doubt their intent is to bring to the Committee’s attention the dreadful failings of the PHSO. However, the Committee appears to be blind to this evidence and fails to pay any attention to it. The sad fact is that the Committee members are well aware of how poorly the PHSO performs. They just don’t want to do anything about it. The despair and distress of the public appears to mean little to them
How do we know that the Committee members are aware of the PHSO’s failings? We know from a Freedom of Information request that there were 2,669 cases referred to the PHSO by MPs in 2019-20. The vast majority of these cases would be complaints about non-NHS public bodies which must be referred through an individual’s MP.
We also know that for non-NHS public bodies only 78 cases were accepted for detailed investigation and 49 cases upheld in 2019-20. That amounts to about 2.9% of cases referred by MPs being accepted for investigation and 1.8% being upheld.
Looking at MPs who sit on the PACAC select committee which claims to “scrutinise” the PHSO we find that they made the following number of referrals.
William Wragg 9
Jackie Doyle-Price 3
John McDonnell 5
Tom Randall 4
Karin Smyth 3
Beth Winter –
Ronnie Cowan 6
David Jones 4
David Mundell 3
Lloyd Russell-Moyle 2
John Stevenson 2
Total 41
If only 2.9% of cases referred by MPs lead to a detailed investigation then we can assume that only 1 of the 41 cases referred in 2019-20 by MPs who make up PACAC was actually given a detailed investigation with a 62% chance of being upheld.
So the MPs sitting on PACAC are fully aware of the failure of the PHSO to investigate or uphold complaints about non-NHS public bodies. They will also be aware from interactions with their constituents that the same failings exist for NHS complaints. And yet they choose to do nothing.
The Ombudsman is clearly not interested in providing a good service to MPs who refer complaints to him as he showed in his answer to Q61 of the PHSO scrutiny 2020-21.
In response Lloyd Russell-Moyle gave the game away.
So there we have it. The Ombudsman was set up to alleviate MPs from the awkward and time consuming duty of referring constituents’ complaints directly to the Minister responsible. It wasn’t set up to provide a useful service for the public. And it has the added bonus of making most of these complaints disappear – just like that – without any undue stress on either the Minister responsible for government departments or the constituents’ MPs. And by making the Ombudsman responsible to no-one, Parliament ensures that the public are not able to complain effectively about the way their cases are handled.
Heads they win, tails you lose!
phsothetruestory 
Only your website provided me with anything positive regarding the abhorant PHSO. I recorded all my calls, which was my only saving grace, but only meant that the next corrupt employee would enter the scene, who again would attempt to do harm, rather than anything else. They shouted at me, laughed at the passing of friends, refused to look at any evidence, and ignored all pre-made adjustments. They lied throughout the farce of a process, and had you not made me aware of how awful this was going to be (I’m not allowed to say what I truly want) I would have been in much worse despair. These aren’t an Ombudsman, this is a cabbal of friends, who operate like a local gang, out to inflict as much harm as possible. How can something positive be done about these crooks? reading PCAC report, this is just another farce, as Amanda A. was cc’d in, all the time, and clearly enjoys this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m afraid there is no mechanism to hold them to account and they know that. They are indeed a cabal of crooks. I’m sorry you suffered at their hands but at least you knew what was likely to come your way.
LikeLike
PHSO tops the list!
‘The ombudsman[legal] has the second-worst record of all ombudsman services on the reviews website TrustPilot. Of its 185 reviews it has 178 with one star. It is only bested in being the worst service by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.’
https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/england-legal-ombudsman-rubbished-by-public-as-wait-times-reach-two-years
LikeLike
PHSO boasts it has the approval of its stakeholders but then the stakeholders are the public organisations let off the hook
LikeLike
Latest Annual Report 2021/22
Click to access HC%20526_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2021_2022.pdf
Rob Behrens is all ears:
‘Our role is to give a voice to those who are let down by the system when no one
listens.’
‘Not able to consider further’ 26,043 complaints out of 36,614. (p31)
‘We will listen to you to make sure we understand your complaint’ – down from 71% in 2020/21 to 65% in 2021/22.
‘We will gather all the information we need, including from you and the organisation you have complained about, before we make our decision’ – down from the low of 51% in 2020/21 to 48% in 2021/22.
‘We will explain our decision and recommendations, and how we reached them’ – 47% (p34)
‘Decision review requests upheld’ – 37 (97 in 2020/21) (p35)
Record of positive feedback in 2021/22 – 86 (p35) Context: Total complaint decisions 36,614 (p31)
LikeLike
Because of some similarities in the way in which the PHSO treat complainants who express dissatisfaction with the PHSO then I do not think it too far fetched to consider that the PHSO have a policy (no doubt unwritten) to deliberately provoke such complainants by the use of a set of examples of behaviour by PHSO staff which have been found to result in bringing about a response from complainants which the PHSO know they can use to shut down any further contact with a complainant and also be used by the PHSO to smear a complainant at the same time. I do not put anything beyond the PHSO and its staff and they probably have a team of staff who monitor online criticism and if they do have such a team then as a public authority they would find it hard to justify the legality in having such a team to do that.
LikeLike
Yes they monitor negative feedback all the time.
LikeLike
Della do you have any evidence that they do monitor online criticism such as an e mail from the PHSO admitting that they do ? If so then it would be interesting to ask them to explain the number of staff and costs of such monitoring and the legal basis on which they seek to justify such monitoring and the retention of the information they obtain. Like any public authority they would have to be able to legally justify such actions and a direct question asking for such legal justification could be pursued by making a FOI Act request and if they come up with an objection to providing the information then pursue that with a complain to the ICO combined with a request that the ICO issue a Decision Notice against the PHSO for non compliance
LikeLike
I don’t have the energy to chase them Neil to be honest.
LikeLike
Della here is where I managed to get the ICO to issue a Decision Notice against the PHSO: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2020/2618662/ic-62249-t4d1.pdf
LikeLike
Well done Neil and did the PHSO ever release the information you requested?
LikeLike
Della. They did provide a response albeit one which was not credible; however since their response they have done those many u turns that it has become clear that those u turns are deliberate in that they are meant to confuse as well as deliberately meant to provoke exasperation and frustration in complainants. I may yet make another information request and ask the PHSO to choose which of their responses is the true one. The use of FOI Act requests can sometimes be a useful way of exposing the behaviour of the PHSO and its staff as they leave the door open to scrutiny by the ICO and the possible issue by the ICO of a formal Decision Notice upholding a complaint against the PHSO
LikeLike
If only they put the same effort into recording negative feedback as they do for positive:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/positive_feedback_received_from#incoming-2076979
‘Reminder – Recording positive feedback on CMS
Here is a quick recap on the benefits of the process of recording positive feedback on CMS:
Caseworkers can easily filter all positive feedback they have received in a specific time period, on their cases, for
PDRS purposes.
Ops managers could also export this information for their whole team.
If we got an FOI request about positive feedback, then all the evidence can easily be pulled directly from Dynamics.
Positive Feedback can be exported easily for Internal communications purposes (such as Feelgood Friday), PACAC,
Quality Committee and external publications.
Full details of this process can now be found in the CMS User Guide’
Example of positive Feedback:
’17/02/2022 15:38
Positive Feedback
Complainant rang initially to let her ICW know that UC/DWP are still messing her around, and Received
wanted to discuss this with her. Complainant was chasing up as had been informed ICW on holiday but was back now. Complainant wanted me to pass on her gratitude for the work her ICW had done for her so far, but also extended this to the whole team and encouraged us to “keep up the good work”. Complainant enjoys speaking with her ICW as it is “always lovely to talk to her”.’
They keep an eye on Truspilot:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_to_trustpilot_to_remove#incoming-2023228
LikeLike
Very interesting. They hate negative press.
LikeLike
Like the NHS then.
LikeLike
Still pushing the line that:
‘Of the complaints we investigate each year, we uphold, in full or in part, around 50%.’
Click to access PHSO_Overview_Leaflet_2021.pdf
A complainant aware of the 50% claim (56% for NHS complaints 2020/21) would likely think that this is based on complaints received.
Go to the bottom of the table and look at the totals:
Click to access NHS_Organisations_Tables_2020_21.pdf
Complaints received – 19,475
I’m not sure how the figures of 14% (upheld) and 56% (upheld or partly upheld) are calculated (tell me if you know), but if the figures were expressed as a percentage of complaints received – 19,475 – I reckon they would be closer to 0.4% and 1.5%. respectively (please tell me if I’m wrong).
Click to access PHSO_Overview_Leaflet_2021.pdf
Complaints about UK government and public organisations 2020/21
Click to access UK_Government_Departments_and_Agencies_Tables_2020_21.pdf
Complaints received – 5,330
13% upheld and 48% upheld or partly upheld
Like the NHS complaints, the percentages are not based on the number of complaints received. They are based on very small numbers (see totals in the bottom row).
LikeLike
Smoke and mirrors. Easy to make percentages look good on low numbers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The figures seem to be taken from the values for 2019-20 on pages 32 and 33 of the 2020-21 annual report.
Click to access Parliamentary_and_Health_Service_Ombudsman%27s_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2020-2021.pdf
Funnily enough they seem to have “forgotten” to tell people in the Overview Leaflet that only about 15% of complaints that make it step 2 are actually investigated. I wonder how that slipped their mind!
LikeLike
Could anyone post on here a copy of whatever they received from the PHSO stating that the PHSO will not engage with anyone associated with PHSO the facts and if a reason has been given by the PHSO for that stance then please include it. I understand that there may be personal information that you may not wish to include in any such post so you could redact that if you wanted to. It might just help to see if any or different reasons are being advanced by the PHSO for their stance in relation to persons associated with PHSO the facts.
LikeLike
Hello Neil. Please see blogpost on PHSOthetruestory dated 25th June 2021 entitled “Who do you think you are kidding Mr. Behrens”. It is a transcript of the correspondence from PHSO
LikeLike
I could dig out the outrageous response I waited eight months to receive from the NHS, after fighting every inch of the way to finally have them agree to take my case progressed to the next level, whatever level that was.
The next level kicked of in the first sentance with abuse and insults, with no foundation to them. I had told them eight months earlier following their advising me that they were taking my case forward, that their conduct towards me had been ‘textbook. Della Reynolds’s textbook, not yours’.
I knew that telling them such would likely intensify their abuse and victimisation of me, but it was already obvious that the PHSO saw engagement with me as a welcome opportunity to finish the job of destroying me the NHS had started three minutes into my first outpatient appointment nearly two years earlier. I’d already decided I could not take any more.
The PHSO don’t give reasons or explanations. They don’t need to.
Police, regulators and other filth including charaties such as Rethink Mental Illness, CALM, even Victim Support, on the rate occasions they permit me to describe the ill treatment and wilful neglect, wilful neglect in its entirety – no treatment at all, brutal hostility whenever I tried to engage to receive my treatment for which I’d been invited to return to by Wolverhampton CCG upon the ‘conclusion’ if my formal complaint – invariably would ask ‘Did they explain why they have blacklisted/wilfully neglected you?’
Come on!
We all (the public and some of us emerged in ‘the fight’ need to recognise that the PHSO et al…they are not organisations who ultimately do seek to hold the NHS to account, ‘but bless them they’re just not very good at it, and if only we all work with them to show them the light, the way forward, the error of their ways’.
One may point to the occasional upheld complaint (Allyn Condon for example). Butnof course they, very reluctantly have to be seen to be doing their job occasionally, otherwise their corruption by design would be indisputable in an instant.
Several high profile names in ‘the fight’, after many years and only if they have seen some of that rare, oh so rare, justice themselves, tend to start deluding themselves that these regulators, trusts and hospitals, CEOs just need our hugs, compliments, support and encouragement.
Not Della and her team. Not one bit and bless you. But others…. Look and you shall find some of our ‘leaders’ openly supporting the PHSO and even UHMBT.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to too, but only when that will assist in improvements and reform and assist in reducing harm and death. Currently it does not.
Oh, and my hostile, caustic neighbour next door at no12 (not no10. They are wonderful), whom I have mentioned before as having not a word I say about my ordeal, the one who just will not accept that the NHS could or would conduct themselves towards me the way they have. The one who has always been odd and difficult, but the HATRED towards me since my ordeal began…
Chris Pincher’s sister. I kid you not.
LikeLike
Sorry, correction: In my first sentence I meant “receive from the PHSO”.
LikeLike
Formal complaints: I would have benefitted from effective healthcare just over three years ago. I absolutely did not need to embark on a complaints process that leaves people broken. The diagnosis of me was long-term major depression, after all. That is why I withdrew and left well alone when failed in gobsmacking fashion with three minutes.
But many months later having been subjected to more, much more ill-treatment/abuse in secondary care; having been given no choice by my GP and the two secondary care colleugues he sent to my house to assess me but to receive it, I did serk local resolution.
Nearly three years later, having exhausted all formal routes to justice, accountability etc, would anyone seriously suggest I now embark upon formal complaints against Police, Stuart Anderson MP, the PHSO, Hourglass, The Patients Association, a NHS staff whistleblower charity I reached out to also in desperation for just some advice, Rethink Mental Illness Crisis Line they operate for the NHS, Rethink Mental Illness head office, CALM, MIND, Healthwatch Wolverhampton, Health head office, CQC, CCG, four distinct private law firms, Action Against Medical Accidents, Wolverhampton Magistrates Court, Penn Hospital and their Mental Health Team, BCPNHSFT, PALS, West Midlands Ambulance Service, and others organisations Ithatnhave doubtless slipped my mind just now.
I can’t take any more. And what’s the point? It’ll achieve nothing but further damage to me and the destroying of my life.
I have about thirty years left if I’m lucky. I’ve been in a trough for ten years. A very deep one for the past three. Awful. And if I develop/contract a potentially deadly condition but that is curable with modern medicine by the NHS, I’m a dead man. I’ve tried to kid myself otherwise, but…
I simply cannot, it’s not humanly possible, there are not enough hours in the day to pursue complaints with all the above, even if I wanted to.
Given that doing so to the best of my capacity would be futile, I would rather instead try to find some quality in the time I have left.
LikeLike
Absolutely Clive. The odds are stacked against you so enjoy the time you have left in defiance of their disinterest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another telling quite from Behrens (see quote from DavidC in this topic) “we” make “serious and unfounded” allegations. So first RB dismisses the allegations without investigation then blocks the sources to ensure they don’t get to be evidenced. As long as Behrens keeps banging the drum publicly re ‘PHSO Excellence’ then I have right to request PHSO to respond to serious and founded complaints about his (and previous officers of PHSO) disgraceful performance and that of his disciples and confederates, whether still employed or past escapees. I mean… there are potential criminal aspects to PHSO operations imho, re not just making no allowance for disability, then making gain of personal difficulties, and then applying abusive and discriminatory pressures on top of them. No acceptance. No investigations. Silenced. Sorry, I have to say it, but this guy is a fool. Petards and eventual hoisting spring to mind. Why can’t he step up to the plate and start being the part instead of acting it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Della and Colin. Thanks for letting me know. It is a deplorable tactic used by some public bodies to stop them receiving any further criticism which they do not want to hear and to get rid of complainants. As regards the Times article about what Behrens says then he is clearly a hypocrite who seems to want to complain about faults of other organisations but which are the very same faults that his own organisation regularly exhibit. The trouble with Behrens and the PHSO is that they know they are in a position of what appears to be unchallengeable power and that they can get away with practically anything. One of the best ways to is if one of us could get a sympathetic investigative reporter from a newspaper such as the Times to take an active interest in doing an in depth story about the catalogue of the awful decision making and treatment of complainants by the PHSO and how it is an organisation that is not fit for purpose as is its head Behrens.
LikeLiked by 2 people
PHSO protects the establishment and in return the establishment protects them, including the media unfortunately.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The majority of the population will have no idea about the PHSO’s hypocrisy. It has a well-staffed PR machine. Of its approximate 600 staff, only 300 are caseworkers:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_caseworkers_employed_b_2#comment-106495
Besides stopping negative criticism from being received, it also seeks to maximize positive feedback:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/happiness_of_complainants_with_p#comment-106990
‘Stakeholders’ are also useful in this regard:
‘Stakeholders were asked how positively or negatively they felt about PHSO.
58% gave a positive response, 42% gave a neutral response but none gave a negative response.’ (p22)
Click to access PHSO_Stakeholder_Surveys_2021.pdf
Seems like a simple question all complainants could be asked.
Stakeholders include the Cabinet Office and the International Ombudsman Institute (p41).
LikeLiked by 1 person
PHSOtheFACTS used to be valued ‘stakeholders’ at PHSO until we kept turning up to meetings and speaking the truth. We were then redefined as ‘troublemakers’ and dismissed. The stakeholders surveyed consisted largely of people who benefitted from PHSO covering their backs. I’m guessing the large number of neutral responses was due to the delay in PHSO getting them off the hook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
New person in charge of feedback of some sort:
Outreach and Engagement Manager (Closing date 4 July 2022)
‘You will also be responsible for ensuring the capturing and measuring of feedback from the public and stakeholders on how to improve access to PHSO’s service. This includes advising senior managers on what action to take to shape and influence future service improvements.’
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/jobs-and-careers/current-jobs/outreach-and-engagement-manager
LikeLike
Outreach and engagement – oxymoron when related to PHSO.
LikeLike
Examples of hypocrisy?
Published 30/6/22:
‘The MP filter is a hurdle to accessing justice for members of the public when they have been failed by the public services that should be supporting them.
In a well-functioning democracy, there must be accountability when things go wrong in public services.
It causes additional delay to a complaint journey. This could affect our ability to look at a complaint, as there are time limits for making a complaint to us.
There is an opportunity to further improve accessibility and access to justice for victims.’
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/phsos-written-submission-pre-legislative-scrutiny-draft-victims-bill
LikeLike
Telling odd also, that Messrs. Behrens and Amroliwala – very cynically in my view – have voiced pointed opinion about Services seeing complainants as a nuisance; worthy of dismissal and cover-up; but pointed at all the other Govt. Services.
They do not appear to have listened-to or recognised the failings in PHSO design and operation itself. This, despite 14 years of abusive tactics and behaviours to my knowledge; beginning with avoidable and negligent deaths being “not worthwhile investigation” and, subsequently getting worse to what must be a new high under Behrens, failing to respond to complainant abuse and cover-up of lies – provable by any basic research – then, further, where a complainant can be PHSO blacklisted to prevent the value of their experiences being appreciated and learned-from with, just may-be, some thanks, some acceptance, some apologies, and some accountability for the harm to complainants and services, for the insights lost to the detriment of later victims.
And such cases of further harm, even death, exist; many very prominent and troublesome, in the media attention attracted. Services continue-on in abusive manner, preserved by the PHSO, their ‘champion’ of protection… lest status-quo be upset. #
People are dying for better treatment, and the PHSO finds time to be cynical about what’s going wrong with other government services. It’s time to call time on Behrens, Amroliwala and the ‘Model’ of unassessable, unassailable and unaccountable PHSO, in my own evidence-based assessment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite right Colin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How many of you have effectively had your access to the PHSO restricted or terminated by the PHSO simply because the PHSO consider you have complained too much about their service
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As was I after Behrens response to Oct 2017 disguised offer of personal investigation taking 6 months yet no evidence of investigation apparent – just his conclusion, avoiding critical failures – still outstanding.
LikeLike
I have been told that PHSO will not engage with me, as a member of PHSOthefacts. In 2017 Mr. Behrens put, in writing, his reasons being we make ‘serious and unfounded allegations’. Whilst the allegations against PHSO are serious (something he and I can agree on), he has NEVER expanded on why he considers them unfounded. One can only assume that he holds sole autocratic power to do as he likes, judging by the Cabinet Office responses to MP’s written questions recently, coupled with the insipid scrutiny of PHSO by PACAC
LikeLike
Yes. It’s impossible not to challenge the PHSO surely. They leave us no alternative, right from the start. And it goes downhill from there. You cannot win however much tact and diplomacy you can call on (don’t laugh. You be surprised).
And yes to answer another question if yours, I have complained about the PHSO to my MP Stuart Anderson. I don’t need to go into it here, you can guess how that turned out. I ended up in such despair and anguish at the ferocity of the retaliation from a sitting MP with full unquestioning support of the police who were nit the slightest bit uncomfortable with their open, blatant further failing of me, on top of all that they know, they KNOW, I’ve suffered already.
I was in a right state a few weeks ago over it all. The fapae allegations. So absurd and outrageous. I proved them to be exactly that. Didn’t put police off from comming after me regardless over an expletive they found I’d infixed into the word ‘surprise’. The dirty tricks and lies from the police too.
Thank you Della for I was in a state, and I reached out to you. It’s not fair on you. But bless you. You helped me enormously. I’ve returned to Twitter and there’s a community on there. And without it, where would I be now. It’s far from perfect but we know.. we’ve established it’s hopeless, the whole mare’s nest if NHS/regulators/police… even charities.
On Twitter the community is a loose amalgamation of groups. Loose, because each group is coming at it from their own perspective and interest. Patients, staff, and good people from the press and charities etc. Even staff can be split into front line, consultants/surgeons, ambulance/paramedics. And I can tell there is not sufficient desire/imputus to pull together as a cohesive force.
And being Twitter, people voice all sorts if opinions on all sorts of issues. So what happens is further alienation, fragmentation because while all agree pretty much on what we want to see happen in healthcare and policing in the UK, tensions arise through disagreements between pro and anti vax, abortion, immigration etc. And my goodness some of the crackpots!
They say ‘never meet your heroes…’
Well, they might also say ‘never find your heroes on Twitter…’
Racism, mysogyny, prejudice of all sorts from amongst our own in the good fight!
I know I’m off topic but how do we all work together? Or do we just hope that there’ll come a tipping point regardless. I do sense we’re heading for one, but feel the NHS, police, regulators et al are bringing it upin themselves. I might be wrong and often am.
I don’t want to give up the fight but I go on complaining, it’s definitely not working for me and it would seem for anyone else either.
LikeLike
I’m glad I could help Clive. Just sharing my experience of the reality we are faced with when we make a complaint. Twitter is a mixed bag. I found much useful information there and support but also personal attack from those who were fighting the system like me unfortunately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How many people actually make complaints about the way the PHSO have handled their case?”
We don’t actually know because (a) there is not a complaint system for this as proven by many FOIs on this matter (b) complaints are only regarded as ‘feedback’ and disregarded as serious issues with process or staff (c) there is no complaint log so that complaints can be tracked or analysed or reported-on in a way that might be accountable (d) there is no external standard or reference accepted commercial Quality Systems avoiding the need for inspection hence accountability in that respect (e) many complaints in my experience and through personal investigation have been about actual abuse of complainants in the way ‘guidance’, ‘principles’, material fact or even UK law is interpreted by lay (amateur) staff with a deadline and an agenda for closure no matter what the cost to complainant in terms of purpose of complaint, financial cost or impact on health and livelihood; and none of those factors of potential harm to the complainant are assessable or made accountable through trusted or reliable sources such that any accountability can be seen or claimed.
LikeLike
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61909143?fbclid=IwAR3bJvkpyLmV2WBXJim9CVaD-nNkTxWriMX6faFLm9ZWrqZPZNBmNDtq0rE&fs=e&s=cl
I’ve been trying to get as many signatures as possible for this, to get a public inquiry. As part of the Facebook group this news has been welcomed but it seems so similar to the phso and how it reviews itself, it’s something but not great
I don’t know if you can do anything or write a comparison blog?
Thanks J
LikeLike
Do you have a link for signatures?
The IOPC does seem to operate in a similar way to the PHSO. All these organisations seem to be there to give the impression that there is a route to justice when in fact there isn’t and they are just facades. At least in the Stephen Port case there is media interest which tends to make them sit up and take notice.
I think it would need someone with a good knowledge of this case and the way the IOPC handled it as well as the IOPC itself to write a comparison blog though.
LikeLike
Rob Behrens, the public would say the same about you and the PHSO. Making out the PHSO is a paragon of virtue is a joke right? What dribble this man speaks you just need to look at Trust Pilot reviews to see the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could someone please post on this thread the article by Oliver Wright which appeared in The Times 23rd May 2022 with the headline “Officials accused of ‘fobbing off’ public” as I can only access a few words of the online article and for those of us who do not have the Times or cannot now access that article then this would be a great help as I would love to be able to read what was stated
LikeLike
A copy of the Oliver Wright article is now attached to the bottom of the article. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Mr Behrens interview.
LikeLike
I have come to the conclusion after eight years of this corrupt journey.This machine that turns and is capable of murder and paralysis needs to be stopped.Evil is not even the word to describe it. I have grasped the nettle, so have you because you have knowledge. The power to stop it is the requirement.
This also stands for the recent article regarding the government and their pals
the highest judges in the land.
LikeLike
An article by Oliver Wright appeared in The Times 23rd May 2022 with the headline “Officials accused of ‘fobbing off’ public”. I pick out the following paragraphs:
In a scathing attack on Whitehall, Rob Behrens accused officials of regarding people who complained about their treatment as a nuisance.
He called for ministers to overhaul Whitehall’s complaints system and to treat citizens with the ‘respect they deserved.
I would like to remind Mr. Behrens of Minute 3.6 of the PHSO Board meeting held on 30th June 2020 which states:
“Alan Graham (Board member) asked about external perceptions of the organisation and whether these had changed. Amanda Amroliwala (PHSO Chief Executive) said that there remained a small group of vocal and challenging critics who are unlikely to ever be supportive”.
There is no Whitehall department better at fobbing off the public than PHSO.
Mr Behrens has been retained in post for a further two years from 1st April 2022, yet a press release dated 23rd March 2022 by ARU Peterborough, a partnership between Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, Peterborough City Council and Anglia Ruskin University, informs us that Mr. Behrens will be come chair of the Board of Governors when the organisation opens its doors to students this coming September.
One must question whether this appointment is conducive to him maintaining an impartial role as Ombudsman when complaints relating to Education fall within the PHSO remit and, also, whether his time should fully focus on his day job at PHSO.
“
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good points well made David.
LikeLike
Business as usual then! Swiz continuing to run smoothly as intended.
LikeLike
It is difficult to obtain accurate information on how many complainants feel the PHSO handled their complaints badly or well.
Trustpilot offers a flavour:
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.ombudsman.org.uk
PHSO used to record information on compliments received over the phone:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/complaints_about_phso_service_an#comment-58253
As you see, not too many were received:
‘ii. We only started collating the requested data from December 2014; I am unable to provide you data prior this date. Please find below the number of callers to 0345 015 4033 who chose option 3:
December 2014: 183
January 2015: 406
iii. Between December 2014 and January 2015, we recorded two calls where the call handler considered that the call was about where we had done something well. Collecting data regarding the nature of the call relies on members of staff recording call correctly, the call handler and not the caller will select the option / outcome at the end of the call.’
183 + 406 = 589 calls
2 compliments = 0.34%
Is this not the sort of information PACAC are looking for?
LikeLike
Unfortunately PACAC are not interested in information which refers to the public. The ombudsman protects them and vice versa
LikeLike
To be honest, unless ministers take this issue seriously nothing will happen!
Ministers have no concern regards the PHSO
Until this changes PHSOthefacts can bark up as many deaf trees as they like
Nothing will make a difference!
There is no Justice! Only what the rich and powerful can fight for!!
LikeLike
That’s true, but ministers are more likely to pay attention to a group that is thousands strong than a group which is a hundred strong.
LikeLike
Ministers and those on PACAC would have the red carpet rolled out if they were on the wrong side of NHS care. They would never have to fight like the public do. My Con party MP doesn’t even respond to communication he that arrogant.
LikeLike
I am struck by the low number of referrals from MPs – an average of 3 or 4 a year. The term ‘referral’ may mean nothing more than an MP signing a form.
In 2016/17 the PHSO initially refused disclosure of information regarding MP referrals (similar information for previous years was provided):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mp_referrals_for_the_year_201617?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow
Could the figure of 128 referrals from Ian Murray be correct or are PHSO stats badly out?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/752184/response/1835386/attach/3/Copy%20of%20MP%20referrals%202019%2020.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
Referrals for 2020/21:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mp_referrals_for_the_year_202122#comment-106683
It is perhaps surprising that in 67 constituencies not a single person had a complaint referred to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman is seeking the removal of the MP filter:
Click to access PHSO_response_to_MoJ_Victims%27_Bill_consultation.pdf
I don’t think its removal will result in more parliamentary complaints being upheld. We’ll just no longer see the small number of referrals MPs would have made.
LikeLike
‘Referrals for 2020/21’ should read ‘Referrals for 2021/22’.
LikeLike
Both William Wragg and Bernard Jenkin as the previous chair make quite a lot of referrals on behalf of their constituents, 20 last year by William Wragg. They can’t pretend they don’t know how these complaints are treated. The complaint is forwarded by the MP and the decision is copied to the MP.
LikeLike
Nicholas,
Did William Wragg make the 20 referrals on behalf of his constituents?
The convention is that a person must get the approval of their own MP before the Ombudsman will look at their complaint. William Wragg may have been contacted by complainants whose MPs for either good or bad reasons did not sign their forms.
Clearly, Mr Wragg wants to see more positive feedback:
’31. … It is likely that any feedback giving praise or alternative positive views are sent directly to the PHSO, or posted in different form, rather than being provided directly to the Committee…’
Published 20 May 2022 HC 213 Report
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/1503/parliamentary-and-health-service-ombudsman-scrutiny-202021/publications/
Evidence of positive feedback received by PHSO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rob_behrens_boast_about_receivin#comment-106681
‘This year our review and feedback team received 110 pieces of positive feedback from people who had used our service and organisations we investigate.’
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/positive_feedback_evidence_prese#comment-106680
Engineering positive feedback figures?
”Do you remember the names of the individuals from last night who said that they had a positive experience of PHSO? I am keen to ensure that we keep their details as further down the line PHSO may want to ask them if they would like to be involved in another activity going forward.’ (p.65)
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/remark_by_unidentifed_member_of#comment-86044
LikeLike
I’m sure you’re right Jeff. It probably explains why both Wragg and Jenkin have a fairly high number of referrals. It shows how poor some MPs are as well!
LikeLike
Graph showing MP referrals for year 2020/21 (annex):
In total 2,653 complaints were referred to PHSO by MPs during 2020-21.
Just under three quarters of MPs (73%/473) referred five or fewer complaints to PHSO during 2020-21 (including MPs who did not refer any complaints to PHSO). Just under a quarter of MPs (22%/144) referred between 6 and 10 complaints.
71 MPs did not refer a single complaint.’
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/phsos-written-submission-pre-legislative-scrutiny-draft-victims-bill
The figure of 2,653 is quite lower than the figure of 5,330 (complaints received):
Click to access UK_Government_Departments_and_Agencies_Tables_2020_21.pdf
If a parliamentary complaint requires the approval of an MP to get the ball rolling, does this mean that for thousands of complaints received the PHSO simply had to ask complainants to get an MP’s signature?
The figure of 2,653, however, is higher than the figure of 1,645 provided in this response (see grand total in at the end):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/752184/response/1835386/attach/4/Copy%20of%20MP%20referrals%202020%2021.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
The PHSO believes it is ‘vital’ that the MP filter is removed (page 1):
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/phsos-written-submission-pre-legislative-scrutiny-draft-victims-bill
I don’t think its removal will help transparency.
LikeLike
MP filter is a total distraction. PHSO pretending they want greater access to complaints when they turn the vast majority away due to lack of resources.
LikeLike
I have had cause to make a number of complaints about HMCTS but the standard of the education and decision making of PHSO staff is so poor that they are unable to understand short simple sentences and in a recent decision a PHSO caseworker decided she was not going to investigate what the actual complaint was about but instead what she decided it was about and then come to a conclusion which was favourable to HMCTS; when this is subsequently pointed out to the PHSO caseworker then there is a wall of silence put up by HMCTS. Unaccountable and a danger to a complainants health.
LikeLike
I couldn’t have said it better.
LikeLike
Parliamentary Health Service is corrupt by design and protects a stealth privatised fragmented NHS which is being used as a political football and party politics being a illusion of choice
LikeLiked by 1 person