House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee WORK OF THE OMBUDSMAN Written Evidence List of written evidence 1. M B Wright (PHSO 1) 2. Alan Vaughan (PHSO 2) 3. C N Rock (PHSO 3) 4. Alison Pope (PHSO 4) 5. Helga Warzecha (PHSO 5) 6. Brenda Prentice (PHSO 6) 7. Alan Reid (PHSO 7) 8. Which? (PHSO 8) 9. Dee Speers (PHSO 9) 10. James Titcombe (PHSO 10) 11. Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA) (PHSO 11) 12. Anonymous (PHSO 12) 13. Uncaged Campaigns (PHSO 13) 14. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO 14) 15. Patrick Cockrell (PHSO 15) 16. W Morris (PHSO 16) 17. D R Tweedie (PHSO 17) Written evidence submitted by M.B.Wright (PHSO 1) 1) Although we understand the PASC cannot look at individual cases, we have a long outstanding and legitimate grievance against the PHSO case which highlights very serious failings by various senior members of that organisation, and they have resisted all attempts to get them to explain and/or justify their unsustainable position. Given the role they nominally perform, their reluctance – indeed their determination –not to even try to substantiate their indefensible position is very worrying – and suspicious. 2) We have submitted full detailed information of this travesty – with photocopies of all salient documents – to the PHSO, yet they negligently and unprofessionally overlooked the undisputed facts and merely nodded through the unsustainable status quo, presumably believing they would never hear of it again. When we quite properly questioned their flawed decision – sending copies of various letters and emails confirming our position and drawing attention to the errors in their findings – they simply clammed up and refused to explain themselves. 3) We believe this is because they realised they had been caught out. They could hardly admit they had nodded it through without the inconvenience of bothering to read the file, yet they could not claim that they had read it either, for how could they conceivably have arrived at such an absurd conclusion, given the undisputed facts? 4) So, what to do? They did nothing! Nothing! No explanation! No retraction! No nothing! Knowing full well the monstrous injustice they were condoning, they all sat back and did nothing, ignoring our many pleas for justice, in the forlorn hope that we would eventually give up, and they would get away with it. 5) Notwithstanding Oral Evidence 29th November 2011 (Q45 to Q62 and particularly Q49) the PASC itself is also guilty of treating us with contempt. In that evidence the PASC clearly pours scorn on the PHSO’s stock get-out of recommending a judicial review – a wholly impractical course for individuals to take – yet this is the very same advice given to us by the PASC itself (PASC letter to me dated 14th June 2012). We are entitled to ask whether the PASC is any better than the PHSO! 6) It is impossible to fully describe the utter frustration and disappointment we feel for all the incompetent and unprofessional people involved in this scandal – at the very highest level at both the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Public Administration Select Committee. On the indisputable evidence of this case – and there is no reason to believe it is untypical - negligence is rife throughout both pitiful outfits. Is it right that we should be denied justice simply because we cannot afford to take it further? This was the gamble the useless Parliamentary Ombudsman made when caught out. Is this justice? No, it is not! Is the PASC just a waste of time, like the PHSO? November 2012 Written evidence submitted by Alan Vaughan (PHSO 2) I wish to bring to the committees notice my views of the failings of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman fails to serve and protect the General Public for the following reasons. 1. Refuses to undertake full investigations into complaints made by the General Public. 2. Refuses to undertake full investigations into complaints when requested to do so by an M.P. (Dr Julian Lewis) on behalf of one of his constituents. 3. Fails to get independent opinion on cases and only uses Doctors and other people with health service background therefore only having biased views on which to make her decisions. 4. Suggests that members of the public seek satisfaction to their complaint by seeking a Judicial Review this would only be available to people with very deep pockets. So therefore antagonistic. Observation. It appears that the Ombudsman's office is only interested in pushing around a few letters and not fully investigating legitimate complaints. Employing one or two consultants who are no doubt handsomely rewarded for what I would suggest are biased opinions as they neither fully investigate the complaint. December 2012 Written evidence submitted by C N Rock (PHSO 3) The main points I am making 1. Ombudsman is failing to deal with NHS complaints to satisfaction of complainant—too presumptuous of PHSO aims and purposes. 2. Patient or Complainant is left battered and reeling from inappropriate language and terms used by PHSO, especially in case rejections - especially where known facts are denied by PHSO without first gathering all relevant information. 3. NHS Complaints Procedures have in most cases already failed, even before case is made to Ombudsman. Even this is not followed-up. 4. I cannot understand why PHSO or NHS could not gain by finding out why my son died without receiving NHS best efforts for treatment – and to allow PHSO to be able to recommend appropriate action and changes to services. 5. An injustice was served by PHSO consideration not to investigate evidence or question anybody involved in the bad treatment and death of my adult son, but this simply was not appreciated under their terms. No amount of explanation would make up for that. There was a failure of management which needed addressing. 6. In seemed patently obvious to me that the Ombudsman’s advisors—and who, I understand, may not even be in Practice—were out of touch with procedures, NICE guidelines, and available interventions. About me 7. My son died as a result of what to me was clear incompetence and negligence by NHS, and problems for which I tried to get attention, without success. 8. Trying to get reasonable answers on my son’s death has consumed my life for four years without real satisfactory outcome. The Ombudsman saw nothing amiss in services. 9. The event left his sister, myself and my wife permanently traumatised. No support was offered except by charitable organisations. Any approach to question the NHS was traumatic in itself. We have been scarred mentally, and have been unable to work normally, with loss of income and future outlook. Factual information I would like the committee to be aware of My Case: 10. My son took his own life after I had been trying to get attention for him for five years. He was ignored by the GP; was left-out by Mental Health services; was harassed by careless NHS behaviour, then ostracised because he was not able to understand his illness. 11. Neither the Trust involved or the GP were competent at investigating themselves—the GP was actually deceitful. 12. After the very unsatisfactory NHS responses, I approached the PHSO then under Ann Abraham, who rejected the case with inappropriate language; then on Appeal, responded with more unsound reasoning; and without interview or requesting further evidence of my claims. 13. I had to deal with 5 or 6 PHSO correspondent name changes over 9 months of waiting (this after 6 months NHS investigation delay). The final response made no sense and cut off seeing evidence. NHS Complaints - Reasons given in defence: 14. The GP felt bound by Confidentiality not to communicate my son’s problems (my concerns expressed abundantly to GP) to Mental Health services for advice or peer specialist consultation. 15. The Psychiatrist felt bound by other rules to get my son Sectioned before any intervention such as Family Work could be offered or used to engage him in understanding his illness (even though the Trust had an established service available for this). NHS Problems: 16. Patient Confidentiality was interpreted as “Can’t help”. 17. GP and Mental Health operatives both interpreted Patient Confidentiality to their own advantage, not the patient’s. They were oblivious to NICE Guidelines for dealing with family in cases such as this. 18. There is no Complaint Investigation Procedures for GPs (GP could not provide their own). I was refused being given any evidence that an investigation was actually carried out. 19. GP could not be trusted to investigate herself honestly. There were 5 years of neglect to investigate: GP only covered one month of action, in less than half an A4 page. GP lied, and misled subsequent interested parties including the Coroner. No evidence of contributory effects of prescribed drug use was submitted. 20. PCT(Contracting) would not get involved in GP Complaints (their stated policy). 21. No common complaint system for NHS. Fragmentation of NHS services – i.e. disjointed case research and disconnected responses in own interest – not patients. No sense of urgency for complaints (I made a complaint before my son died— pointless). Recommendations that I would like the committee to consider including in its report PHSO needs to be asked to: 22. Take an empathetic and broader view of cases to achieve what is being sought by complainant—not as interpreted by Ombudsman in order to reduce the PHSO’s workload (“no worthwhile outcome for whom”, exactly). What is the PHSO really for? Why are so many people (98%?) rejected (dissatisfied). Where do PHSO Customer Satisfaction statistics come from? (I was never consulted.) 23.