Written evidence from Elisa Holton (PHS 30)
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Scrutiny 2019-20 inquiry
In October 2019 a Mental Healthcare Professional requested PHSO on my behalf to either finally proceed or close my case providing a ‘Sign Off letter’ as a matter of urgency indicating clarity would go a long way in improving my mental state. PHSO have not proceeded investigating the Entirety of my case as agreed in 2014 nor provided me with a Sign Off letter ensuring closure. I am stripped of Justice from the organisation complained of, PHSO and the opportunity to proceed to Judical Review. I am trapped with the Truth. I am one of many people who have suffered such detriment from the PHSO.
Mental Health difficulties Exacerbated by the uncertainty created by my open and unresolved case with PHSO have been identified to PHSO from the Community Mental Health Team to no avail.
Valuable psychologist and psychiatrist time consumed treating those further affected vulnerable PHSO complainants who have not been listened to can be freed up at a saving to the country and those most vulnerable. No healthcare worker should spend weeks discussing contradictory, confusing PHSO written responses and use their valuable time drafting letters to urge much needed fairness & Transparency from the PHSO.
It is paramount for any service organisation leadership not to block members of the public on Twitter for absolutely no reason other than having an open and unresolved case and asking a question. One that claims to ‘listen to the public’ is damaging each and every vulnerable person who has been affected by being blocked.
4. Clinical advice is said to be a crucial part for many complaints within the 2018 -2019 strategy. In October 2019 PHSO ignored written information and advise from a Community & Mental Health Team identifying this practise is not in place as they currently claim.
5. I would like to highlight evidence of a PHSO claim of strength made at Public Scrutiny in 2019 which would reinforce a good quality of service provided by PHSO, overall impact and value for money. Upon M.P questioning Rob Behrens was asked if he had ever named and shamed public bodies should they refuse to comply?
In Rob Behrens own words: “Absolutely, I mean this is fundamental to our credibility, if you don’t deliver when the body of jurisdiction does not accept your recommendation then you have to take action to make it publicly known these bodies are not implementing recommendations. I’m absolutely committed to that”
Unfortunately, facts dispute these words spoken on behalf of PHSO at 2019 Scrutiny.
6 A PHSO Case
In 2014 PHSO instructed HMCTS to respond to the Entirety of my case within 25 days and the body of jurisdiction did not accept the recommendation and comply.
Since that time I have dealt with an overwhelming amount of unnecessary stress, irregularities and a dispute in the original decision made in 2014 from PHSO.
In 2018 PHSO finally provided written confirmation the PHSO irregularities following the original and original decision was for HMCTS to respond to the Entirety of my HMCTS 2014 complaint within 25 days. I had fought for this unnecessary factual PHSO error which had caused an overwhelming amount of stress and deteriation to myself to be rectified for 3 years.
Communication between PHSO and HMCTS was confirmed in 2015 following the failure to respond despite PHSO false claims otherwise.
In 2019 PHSO have confirmed there is no intention of taking any future action in compliance with their original decision. A clear dispute of PHSO words spoken at 2019 Scrutiny.
How can this identify an improving quality of service and assurance they are independent, impartial and fair?
There has been absolutely no further engagement with the organisation they were supposed to investigate in my case resulting in further breach of my Human Rights.