I thought it was time that this audio recording saw the light of day. The meeting I had with my PHSO caseworker (Catriona) and witness (Johnathan) to discuss the issues with my draft report was recorded (with their permission) some time in 2015.
The recording is two hours and thirty-four minutes long so pour yourself a drink and settle down. The facts of the case – which was not upheld to any degree – emerge throughout the discussion (if you are patient). But a little background information might be useful to get you started.
In 2010 I suffered an injustice whilst studying for a level 7 award at the Helen Arkell Dyslexia centre. I was at that time a specialist dyslexia tutor. I made a complaint to the centre that the marking of my DAR (diagnostic assessment report) was inconsistent and failed to give me the opportunity to meet success criteria. That the IV (internal verification process) fell below professional standards to the point that it was ‘malpractice’ and after reading all the policy documents, that I should have been provided with an IAP (individual assessment plan) to support the fact that my previous level 5 course was out of date.
Over the years this complaint moved from the centre, to OCR – the awarding body, to Ofqual – the regulator and finally in 2012 to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. My complaint was originally rejected but as part of PHSOtheFACTS it was investigated under the close supervision of Mick Martin, the deputy ombudsman. My final report arrived on Christmas Eve 2015 and it bore no resemblance to any of the points raised in this meeting.
You do not need to understand all the intricacies of my complaint, made much more complex by the multi-agency coverup. Just listen to the reasoning of the caseworker as I present the evidence (reading from printed documents). It is a shame that I did not record video evidence as poor Johnathan had eyes on stalks at some of the responses I was given. Full marks to me for staying calm.
So settle down and listen to PHSO logic in action. Your comments afterwards will be greatly appreciated.
phsothetruestory 
Dreadful. A marathon stitch-up. The recording starts to get interesting at 17.00 so maybe a good place to start for anyone who doesn’t have time to listen to all of it. The really jaw-dropping part starts at 1.56.00 when the mask slips as Catriona gives away what she really believes but you really need to have listened to the rest of the recording to appreciate it.
Anyone unfamiliar with the way PHSO approach complaints might think that Catriona’s arguments have some merit, but those of us who have been through similar discussions will appreciate their deliberately misleading nature. The purpose of these meetings from the point of view of the PHSO is simply to close the case. It is a box ticking affair. They have no intention of listening reasonably and impartially to the complainants, considering points raised with a view to thinking again about their decision. So Catriona’s only intention is to defend the indefensible decision with irrational reasoning and circular arguments. Many complainants are lambs to the slaughter at these meetings believing they will be given a fair hearing when the case worker has no intention of providing it.
I found Catriona to be profoundly irritating. She constantly interrupted and spoke over your comments and refused to answer simple questions, actually stating at the beginning that she didn’t want to answer questions. But worst of all were the dishonest mental gymnastics she engaged in to explain that black is white and up is down. This is how the PHSO operate and shows what a disreputable organisation they are.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments , Nicholas. Yes, if you have the stamina, you need to listen from the beginning to appreciate the many twists and turns as I continually ask to see the evidence which supports their decision. Of course, there was no evidence. Ofqual and OCR were lying.
LikeLike
Was it a Catriona Granger you spoke to at the PHSO ?
LikeLike
I think so. She introduces herself at the start of the recording.
LikeLike
Did she make it clear she was a solicitor ? Contrary to the rest of the unaccountable crew at the PHSO she would be answerable and accountable to the SRA for any conduct which breached the SRA principles and codes. It may be that the SRA could consider that – for example – at the very least she took unfair advantage of you and that she should have disclosed to you that she was a solicitor. I have listened to some of the recording and she does not appear to have disclosed that she was a solicitor; if she did not then that would arguably be consistent with her wanting to take unfair advantage as well as unethical and underhand.
LikeLike
If this made difficult listening, it must have been hard for you to listen to again . I don’t think Catriona gave any straight answers and said although
she appreciated you would have lots of questions, she did not consider a “questions and answers” format would be appropriate. It was clear from the beginning you were never going to get anywhere. I needed to lie down after listening to this, and when I heard Mick Martin’s name come up… of Course Mick Martin was the Ombudsman who was found to have colluded with Derbyshire NHS Trust’s CEO, Steve Trenchard, to cover up complaints. Mick had to be removed from his position when he was found not fit and proper for public office. I too experienced Mick Martin’s deception first hand:
LikeLike
Thanks for taking the time to listen. The reason I’ve left it eight years is because it would have been too difficult to revisit sooner. Yes, Catriona was very contradictory and changed her story every time I hemmed her in. I spent a lot of the meeting time trying to get to the bottom of who had investigated my complaint. That was because I was continually told by all authorities that my complaint had been fully investigated. When I asked to see the investigation report, nothing came back. It was interesting to see Catriona convert investigated into considered. This really is a game of linguistics.
LikeLike
The word ‘considered’ was used often. It’s very different from ‘taken into account’. All considered and anything helpful to you was discounted.
I listened last night, so please clear up any errors I make.
On the individual assessment plan, Catriona’s view was that your course was different from NVQ courses; therefore, despite all the evidence supporting the need for students to have IAPs, it was not a ‘requirement’ that the centre provide them. The centre could choose to provide them. Also, there was something said that had all students complained about not having IAPs, then Ofqual would have been responsible for investigating the matter.
Did you get to see any additional information held by the centre that had not already been disclosed to you at the time of the recording?
LikeLike
Thanks for listening, Jeff. Catriona played both sides into the middle on frequent occasions. Ofqual informed me that the NVQ code of practice which was a statutory code was the one used to regulate the centre. When I found evidence in the NVQ code of practice which could hold the centre to account then it was decided by somebody that it didn’t apply to my level seven course. It was what Catriona called a framework. Which apparently gives them the right to pick and choose which aspects to follow. So the numbers don’t really matter if the centre have no obligation to provide IAPs. I know that none of the people on my course had one. No, I didn’t get any more information from the centre from ocr or ofqual after the final report was released.
LikeLike
I have listened to the whole conversation Della (albeit in two sessions). I was intrigued to hear the caseworker say, about 25 minutes from the end, that she would be referring issues back to her manager. One would have thought that, with such complex issues, the manager would have been present in the room to get a direct handle on your case. Instead, she was left to flounder alone. Someone other than this caseworker signed off on the publication of the final report.
What also clearly comes across is that the caseworker did not conduct what I would consider to be an investigation but merely made an assessment. There is a vast difference between the two.
Towards the end she stated she wanted you both to be on the same page. That was always going to be impossible as you were reading different books!
Thank you for posting such an important conversation.
LikeLike
Thank you for listening David and for your insightful comments. It was quite interesting to listen again after eight years. The caseworker continually says she doesn’t want to have to defend the report or to have the to and fro yet how can you come to agreement without doing just that? If I could have that conversation again, I would ask very different questions with the benefit of hindsight. As you say, we could never be on the same page when we were reading from different books.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing this conversation which provides insight. For any unfamiliar with PHSO complaint handling there will be cognitive dissonance..why if the case worker recognises shortcomings..’clearly you were let down’..’it causes you an injustice’..is she helpless to address it? The evidence of your barrister seemed too readily dismissed and unfortunately may serve as a warning to future complaints not to waste their money on legal reports.
Repeated requests for material evidence..over 5 years ..fell on stoney ground. It is as if minds have been made up and there is no budging. The offer of this interview may signal an act of openness and an opportunity to backtrack but could it be instead a token to tick a final box before case closed?
Few could be as well prepared as this complainant. Being prepared, articulate, alert and having total grasp of the issues is not sufficient. The case worker had the power.
LikeLike
So true. The decision was made and the caseworker simply delivered the verdict. She had no room to do otherwise knowing her superiors would hang her out to dry. Truth, justice, evidence based decisions all totally irrelevant.
LikeLike
So cringe-worthy. A thoughtful & prepared delivery from Della to nonsensical replies from the gibbering mouthpiece for PHSO – who wants to avoid the ‘definitive’. Typical PHSO evasiveness & backpedaling.
LikeLike
I started listening, went to make some lunch then came back to more of the same. I’d usually have some pity for anyone so hopelessly ill prepared and out of their depth. I’d usually find this painful, toe-curling…, but this is the PHSO. They create so much misery, anguish, despair… They destroy lives. So I enjoyed every bit of that I’ve listened to. Thank you Della.
LikeLike
Della what progress on ending the PHSO farce? Real progress as this farce has been going on for far too many years. Best Trevor P-C.
LikeLike
There is no political will to end the PHSO farce even though it is becoming more obvious to the public that the Ombudsman is a failing organisation. Neither is there media interest. PHSO is a scandal waiting to break.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow ! Listened to some of the recording and the rambling and incoherent statements made by the PHSO caseworker Catriona and they beggar belief !
LikeLiked by 1 person
I expect that I’m the only person who will sit through the whole thing but as the discussion goes on we come back round to the same key issues. As I disprove her argument or seek evidence to support her argument she changes the story and gives different reasons for her decisions. Interesting to see it in action with a clear mind all these years later.
LikeLike