Public Administration Select Committee: Have your say on the complaints process

pennypincher3

What an interesting thread. It would seem that everyone is dissatisfied with the Ombudsman service so how much evidence does PASC need before it starts taking some action. There is a campaign running to reveal the truth about this service which you can find at phsothefacts.com

Swingle

I note in yesterdays publication of Ann Clywd's report, she too was not altogether happy with the Ombudsman either. I hope that also goes before the PASC.

oneye14

• Performance: does the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) make enough of a difference?

No and never will until attitudes change

• Purpose: does PHSO exist primarily to provide redress for individuals, to achieve broader, systemic improvement, or both? and

PHSO primary purpose is to assist Gov't & Health Service Departments in evading complaints made against them, and can & will operate in secrecy with them if deemed necessary. I offer no apology in repeating this point admitted by the PHSO. What does the PASC intend to do about it ?? ..

• Powers: Does PHSO have the right set of tools to do the job?

It has the power equivalent of the High Court - so Yes it has

oneye14

Swingle wrote: »

I note in yesterdays publication of Ann Clywd's report, she too was not altogether happy with the Ombudsman either. I hope that also goes before the PASC.

Thanks for that -
have you a link for it

Swingle

oneye14 wrote: »

Thanks for that -
have you a link for it

gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-hospitals-complaints-system-review

UKParliament

For those interested in the responses to the questions asked during today's evidence session we will make sure to post a link to the transcript as soon as it becomes available.

Thanks
DOT

UKParliament

We can now post up a link to the transcript of the most recent evidence session discussing the work of the PHSO for those who are interested in it's contents - it covers a number of the topics discussed within this thread and elsewhere:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/3293

(A PDF version is also available via http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-administration-select-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/complaints-handling/parliaments-ombudsman-service/)

The recording of the evidence session is also still available to watch at
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14054

We hope those who have discussed the topic on this thread find this document of interest.

Thanks
DOT

oneye14

It came as no surprise the 'evidence session' was inept and IMO came to no serious conclusion.
And unless I am mistaken the chair of the Committee wanted the witnesses to return with a justified increase in spending public money on the Ombudsman.

cheapskate101

1. Do you understand the current PHSO complaints process? If not, how could it be made clearer?

It isn't that understandable as it gives a complainant no idea that 98.6 precedent of complaints will end up dismissed.

The PHSO should tell complainants the chances of their complaint being investigated upfront.


2. Should you have to go through your MP before you can make a complaint to PHSO about a government service? From your experiences, why?

No. Most MP's would be happy to pass the complainant in to someone else. A vote is a vote.... It would be interesting to know what percentage if complainants were turned away by their MP's. If it's less than 5 percent, why waste their valuable time in being a human rubber stamp?

3. PHSO can only investigate something when there has been a specific complaint. Should PHSO have powers to investigate any suspected problem, even where there hasn’t been a complaint? Why do you think this should be allowed?


No. The PHSO should put its own house in order before extending to other areas. It's extraordinarily antiquated. For instance, if you complain about an employee, they 'organise' the complaint. And choose the investigator. In addition, the paperwork us organised by the employees responsible to them.

If you complain about this strange procedure you are basically told to go to judicial review. It is the most 'bent' complaints system that I have ever encountered.... And I have some in-depth knowledge of complaints systems.

In addition, from an FoI enquiry, it seems that the PHSO has no record of any bullying or thefts in house. If it has no record, how does it deal the problems? It has no ethics officer, as employees are 'supposed to be ethical'. The current organisation seems to belong in the early 1980's.

It's arrogant, a characterisation which has seemingly built up over the years by not being monitored by Parliament- and non-friendly to users to the point of rudeness and dismissiveness.

And this us the pinnacle of our complaints system.

For which we pay £34m a year. The most expensive that I could find amongst 10 random Ombudsman abroad. And from the amount of investigations, per person....the most willing to dump complainants files files in the Wastepaper basket.

On my own case, the PHSO has spend a year defending its decision not to investigate my case.. Then from internal files, I find out they've refused to investigate the wrong thing. Not what I complained about.Really..you couldn't make it up.

As Oliver Letwin's secretary states.....she just wouldn't use the Ombudsman.

And if I'd had any knowledge if just how scarily incompetent this organisation is..neither would I.

cheapskate101

I'd state what I would do to remedy this massive scale failure but it really needs to be redesigned to answer public need and it would take several hours to do so.