Thanks to the very public airing of the Post Office Horizon scandal we all know what a cover-up looks like.  It involves nobbling the evidence by either destruction, manipulation, or a failure to disclose.  Maintaining a false narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence and of course plenty of denial. 

Those in positions of authority who are ‘economical with the truth’ should be shamed out of office, but in fact, they often make remarkably quick recoveries, suggesting that they are indeed, a valuable asset to the establishment. 

Enter the new (interim) Ombudsman, Rebecca Hilsenrath, previously CEO of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).  In January 2021 Hilsenrath was put on ‘gardening leave’ while Baroness Falkner, Chair of EHRC carried out an investigation into reported breaches of the Covid regulations submitted by a Welsh County Councillor.

The complaint said that Hilsenrath took a 220-mile drive from her home in Elstree, Hertfordshire, to Llanegryn, Gwynedd, in North Wales, during the first Coronavirus lockdown last March.

She was also accused of undertaking the same journey again overnight on 19 December – on the day both Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford simultaneously announced new lockdown restrictions in London and Wales. https://bylinetimes.com/2021/02/01/human-rights-watchdog-boss-boss-accused-of-double-lockdown-breach/

By April 2021, prior to the findings of the investigation, Hilsenrath resigned from EHRC and walked straight into the job of Director of Strategy at PHSO. She became CEO by July 2023 and in April 2024 took on the top job of Ombudsman (interim).  Her rapid rise is documented on her LinkedIn profile. 

Mark Benney, a retired Civil Servant, has a problem with this appointment as he is currently pursuing a complaint through PHSO against Hilsenrath who he believes obstructed a fair investigation while she was CEO at EHRC.   He believes that her appointment as Ombudsman presents a conflict of interest.   

Thanks to FOIA requests carried out by Benney we can see how Hilsenrath described her previous misdemeanour to her new employers.   Does her account of events show signs of a cover-up mindset?  

This line, in particular, is classic Ombud-speak.  

“The reports were inaccurate (denial), any breach was unintentional (she went twice) and legal advice was that there was at most a technical failure to comply, (not an actual failure then) which the police declined to enforce (authority validation).”  

So next time you get a speeding ticket, simply say it was unintentional and only a technical breach then see if the police back up your version of events.  

Benney, an ex-government lawyer, complained to EHRC that civil servants, in particular BAME members and the disabled were suffering indirect discrimination under the Equality Act. This complaint was escalated to PHSO by his MP when no satisfactory outcome was provided by the commission.  He believes that Hilsenrath, ‘economically’ omitted to inform PHSO that there was a complaint about her currently being investigated by the Ombudsman.  

He is struggling to achieve confirmation on that point as the paperwork has gone missing. How very careless.  

Should an individual with a somewhat murky background be considered an appropriate candidate for the role of Ombudsman given the requirements of the Venice Principles?

“The essential criteria are high moral character, integrity and appropriate professional expertise and experience…”  (p 4 point 8)

Well, of course, she would be perfect for the role.  When a previous Ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor was informed by Helen Marks that her Deputy Ombudsman Mick Martin had colluded to cover up her complaint of sexual harassment whilst in the employ of Derbyshire NHS Foundation Trust, Dame Mellor’s initial response was to cover it up. 

After resigning as Ombudsman she soon bounced back as Chair of Demos, a Westminster think tank. 

And what of the outgoing Ombudsman, Sir Rob Behrens?  Anyone paying attention will have seen that he publicly derided the cover-up culture he had witnessed in the NHS.  He must have seen first-hand complaint handlers manipulating the facts to avoid sanctions.  So why didn’t he uphold more NHS complaints, given that such manipulation would be clear maladministration?  He should have overseen a continual increase in upholds as he strove through his seven-year tenure to stamp out a culture he purported to abhor.  Yet we see the very opposite of that.  A marked decline that allowed the cover-up clan to get away with it. 

This report from Trust Pilot describes how PHSO caseworkers dismiss evidence from the complainant demonstrating that PHSO is part of the cover-up culture. 

When those who tell the truth (whistleblowers) are vilified and those who cover up are promoted we are living in dark days.