Email this site to a contact

 

[ ]

Parliamentary and health service Ombudsman

 

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) (http://www.ombudsman.org.uk), headed by Mrs Ann Abraham, is at 'the end of the line' in terms of complaints against government departments.

The PHSO Annual Report 2007-08 states that "although the Ombudsman's findings are not binding on Government, the relevant Minister must either accept them or alternatively establish good reason for not doing so"

An individual like me can only approach the PHSO through his/her Member of Parliament. (Based on my experience: with the aim of preventing / making it as difficult as possible to refer a complaint). Breaking the rule, I went over the head of my then MP, Michael Portillo, by contacting the PHSO directly in November 2004 - but it was an indirect 'cry for help', as well as a very naiïve gesture on my part 'to inform' the PHSO of "The true face of the landlord-tenant sector" by reporting some of my experience to date.

in 2009, following a four-month battle with my Tory MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind (see section), I finally managed to force my access to the PHSO for the purpose of filing my (12 July 2009) complaint against the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, West London County Court in 2002-04 and 2007-08, and Wandsworth County Court.

Sections

(1) PHSO publications

In her Annual Report 2007-08 (at www.ombudsman.org.uk/pds), the PHSO states the role of her department as

"Providing a service to the public by undertaking independent investigations into complaints that government departments... have not acted properly or fairly or have provided a poor service"

"Our aim and vision - To provide an independent, high quality complaint handling service that rights individual wrongs... Our values shape our behaviour... and incorporate our Principles of Good Administration"

"Excellence - We pursue excellence in all that we do in order to provide the best possible service: …We operate thorough and rigorous processes to reach sound, evidence-based judgments…”

“Leadership – We lead by example so that our work will have a positive impact: We set high standards for ourselves and others. We are an exemplar and provide expert advice in complaint handling…”

“Integrity – We are open, honest and straightforward in all our dealings, and use time, money and resources effectively: We are consistent and transparent in our actions and decisions. We take responsibility for our actions and hold ourselves accountable for all that we do. We treat people fairly”

The second page of the Foreword to the 2007-08 Annual Report states:

"At the same time, the Principles help clarify the expectations against which I will judge performance. In short, the principles of legality, flexibility, transparency, fairness and accountability are what I regard as the necessary ingredients of good administration; and if good administration is in part an attempt to humanise the workings of bureaucracy, remedial action is the attempt to restore that sense of human value to those who have been denied it. Principles of Good Administration and Principles for Remedy are different sides of the same coin"

Statistics in the report give the number of complaints received. Among others, against:

  • (1) HM Courts Service: 152
  • (2) Tribunals Service: 100
  • (3) Ministry of Justice: 25

Leaflets

(1) 'Ombudsman's Principles' (overview), states, among other:

"Central to our assessment of the seriousness of any complaint is the impact of a public body's actions on the individuals or organisations concerned. This means that we focus on the individual's experience as a human being as we look at what happened in each case.

In applyng the Principles, we will also have regard to the human rigths context. Taking account of basic human rights principles of fairness, respect, equality, dignity and autonomy may, in certain cases, add weight and gravity to our findings"

The leaflet states that the same set of 'Principles'

  • (1) Getting it right
  • (2) Being customer focused
  • (3) Being open and accountable
  • (4) Acting fairly and proportionately
  • (5) Putting things right
  • (6) Seeking continuous improvement

...applies to each of the following three:

(2) 'Principles of Good Administration' - Comprises of six Principles:

(3) 'Principles of Good Complaint Handling'

(4) 'Principles for Remedy'

(NB: (leaflets located at http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_services/leaflets/index.htm)

Among other, s.9 of the Act states "Obstruction and contempt 1) If any person without lawful excuse obstructs the Commissioner or any officer of the Commissioner in the performance of his functions under the Act, or is guilty of any act or omission in relation to an investigation under this Act which, if that investigation were a proceeding in the Court, would constitute contempt of court, the Commissioner may certify the offence to the Court"

Back to sections list

(2) 2009-10 complaint

On 26 May 2009, in the televised part of one of his speeches, David Cameron, Tory Leader, said: “Voters are furious… Attitudes have to change big time. Politicians have to change”
“There needs to be a massive redistribution of power – from the powerful to the powerless"

By then, I had been battling for three-months with my Tory MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind (see section) to get him to help me, including refer my complaint to the PHSO.

As he had evidently decided that this Ombudsman should not consider my complaint (and had gone into 'silent mode' since my 8 May 2009 letter), I opted to kick-start the implementation of David Cameron's 'vision' by going over Sir Rifkiknd's head by sending this 15 June 2009 letter to the PHSO, heading my letter with "I, "the powerless", am opting to "to take the power from the powerful" by directly referring my complaint to your Office".

With this, I supplied a copy of all my letters to Sir Rifkind, starting with my 7 March 2009 letter. I copied Sir Rifkind, as well as David Cameron on my letter, asking the latter to get his Office "to liaise with Sir Rifkind (copied on this letter) to ensure that the necessary steps are taken so that Mrs Abraham’s Office (copied on this letter) can consider my complaint against the Court Service and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal"

It led to a shameless reply of 17 June 2009 from Sir Rifkind's Office claiming "Sir Rifkind has not refused to take your issue to the Parliamentary Ombudsman because he believed you had already done so..." (See Sir Rifkind for detail)

In my 1 July 2009 reply, I informed Sir Rifkind that I would be "sending [him] the pack for the Parliamentary Ombudsman by the end of next week". His Office replied on 3 July 2009, saying that he would forward my complaint to the Ombudsman.

Events by then with Sir Rifikind, added to, among others, my very extensive experience of complaining against various parties in the public (as well as private) sector - led me to immediately note the last sentence in Sir Rifkind's letter of 17 June 2009 "The Ombudsman will also need confirmation that you have followed the appropriate formal complaints procedures" - and conclude that an attempt would be made by the PHSO to use this as an excuse to reject my complaint. I WAS RIGHT! (see below)

On Monday 13 July 2009, I hand-delivered to:

(1) Sir Rifkind's Office at the House of Commons:

(2) The PHSO: a 13 July 2009 letter informing the Ombudsman of the delivery of my complaint and bundle to Sir Rifkind - and enclosing a copy of my reply to Q5 "What are you complaining about?" stating, "in case Sir Rifkind wishes to keep the copy I am supplying him with".

In reply to Q6 of the complaint form, "What do you want the Ombudsman to do?", I wrote:

  • "(1) Get the departments to reimburse me the £50,000 costs they forced me to incur as a direct result of their outrageous conduct .
  • (2) Obtain very substantial compensation from the departments for the horrendous and extremely traumatic treatment they have subjected me to - over a period of FOUR WHOLE YEARS.
  • (3) Recommend / ensure that disciplinary action is taken against the relevant individuals.
  • (4) Demand that the departments submit - to your Office - the steps they are going to take to prevent others from being subjected to the same treatment (I know they are continuing to do the same thing to others i.e. leaseholders in other blocks)"

In ‘her’ 29 July 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind, Pamela Micallef, 'Customer Services' Officer, stated that she had “carefully considered the papers you sent” and followed this by “I have made enquiries with both organisations and it is clear that Ms Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawe has not completed HMCS and RPTS complaints procedures” BINGO! As I had anticipated! (see above) (see below for their treacherous response to my challenge)

'Fortress public sector'

ALL of them are SO predictable: as soon as you complain against 'one of their own', the drawbridges in 'public sector fortress' are immediately pulled-up and they retreat to their communal bunker. (See Home page) As I wrote in my 27 August 2009 reply to the PHSO (page 7, lines 12-18) in relation to the 'response' to my complaints from the London LVT and HMCS 'Customer Service':

"...the objective is to make me give up - and always amounting to the same response: ‘get lost!’. As very amply demonstrated by my experience, that’s the end game. The auto-pilot is switched on as soon as a complaint is received, and is programmed with tactics aimed at refuting any wrongdoing, responsibility and accountability, supported by automatic self-exoneration – in the process resorting to deceit, denials, cover-ups, misrepresentations, fabrications, etc"

As it stands (in spite of the claims): it ALSO APPLIES to the PHSO. Hence, like her successor as the Legal Services Ombudsman - so far - the PHSO 'talks the talk, but does not walk the talk'...

...Like the rest of the public sector e.g. The Sunday Times article of 28 Feb 10, by the guest contributor, Harriet Sergeant "The state sector's big evil: it does not sack" (triggered in part by the death, through neglect, of up 1,200 people in the Stafford Hospital - and subsequent events) who wrote "However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked... those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish"

Sir Rifkind chased a reply from me in his 24 August 2009 letter clearly demonstrating an expectation that their ploy had worked i.e. that I had been fobbed-off by "Pamela Micallef's advice" in 'her' 29 July 2009 'response'. The letter ends with "With kind regards and best wishes". Yeah! Right! "Best wishes" indeed! They are SO false, treacherous, underhanded.

In my 27 August 2009 reply (on which I copied Sir Rfikind), I demonstrated that ‘Pamela Micallef’ very clearly did NOT “consider” my complaint – stating “Your assertion is quite extraordinary considering that it is blatantly obvious from the information contained in my reply to section 5 of your form – with evidence in support from the bundle - that I have gone through ALL the stages of this “3 tier system”.

Costing me several hours of my life, ‘her’ ‘response’ forced me to refer to the very specific detail I provided in my 12 July 2009 complaint – by, among others, identifying the page and line numbers that refute ‘her’ assertions, as well as, as relevant, the supporting document number and name, from the bundle of 164 documents I supplied with my complaint.

In my letter I also quoted from the PHSO's “Introduction to the Principles” by stating that “the evidence overwhelmingly qualifies for your taking action for “maladministration, nor acting properly or fairly”

I also referred to the PHSO claim in the same overview document, that “we focus on the individual’s experience as a human being… we will also have regard to the human rights context. Taking account of basic human rights principles of fairness, respect, equality, dignity…”

After this, I quoted from the Equality and Human Rights Commission website (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain ) - under the Human Rights Act 1998:

“Being treated fairly and with dignity… means that everybody should have access to public services…and the right to be treated fairly by those services. This applies to all public services…

…UK law includes a range of human rights which protect you from poor treatment and prejudice, and which require you to have equal and fair treatment from public authorities”

I followed this with: "The horrendous, inhuman and very traumatic treatment I have been subjected to by the courts, and the subsequent treatment by HMCS following my complaints - very clearly stems from prejudice and bias: because..."

It led to a 22 September 2009 'reply' (= three weeks to figure out 'the reply' to my 27 August 2009 response) ‘from’ Pamela Micallef stating, among others

“We have carried out a preliminary assessment of your complaint and have concluded that it now needs more detailed consideration before can decide whether the Ombudsman should carry out a formal investigation”

versus what she wrote in ‘her’ 29 July 2009 ‘response’

“We have carefully considered the papers…”

(NB: In the process, my complaint was given “a new reference number”)

Translation: 'Damn! The 29 July 2009 ploy did not work'

As I wrote in my 19 October 2009 letter to Sir Rifkind “As my complaint has not changed since the 12 July 2009 complaint, it follows that, contrary to 'her' claims, in 'her' 29 July 2009 letter, of having “carefully considered the papers”, Ms Micallef opted to totally overlook my complaint – and hoped to get rid of me and put me back on the treadmill by stating that I needed to get back to “HMCS and RPTS to complete the complaints procedures””

I also wrote: “And I can tell from the 22 September 2009 letter that more excuses are yet to come to avoid dealing properly with my complaint – with the aim of protecting the parties from which I have suffered wrongdoings – and by extension, Andrew Ladsky and his aides”

In my 2 February 2010 letter, headed "When am I due to be killed?" to Sir Rifkind, Mrs Ann Abraham, the PHSO (as well as to Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson, Home Secretary) I wrote, under the section addressed to Mrs Abraham:

"At the date of writing i.e. SEVEN MONTHS since filing my 12 July 2009 complaint, my prediction has yet to materialise, as the other typical public sector tactic (e.g. the MPS – as detailed above; West London County Court between September 2007 and January 2008, following my 2 October 2007 letter) - has kicked in: TOTAL SILENCE. Indeed, the only contact since 22 September 2009 has been a message on my mobile from Michelle Robinson, on Friday 20 November 2009, asking me to phone her. I did this on Monday 23 November and was told that it was “her day off”. The following day, Tuesday 24 November, I was told “She is off-sick”. Recognising my voice from the previous day, her colleague said that she would leave a message for Ms Robinson to phone me back. She did not"

I follow this by: "That’s your interpretation of what you wrote in your Annual Report 2007-08 Mrs Abraham?" - and quote some of the above extracts.

I then ask: "For how long will you remain silent Mrs Abraham? What are you counting on? My “not having long to live”? (NB: Death threat - My Diary 15 Jun 09) What’s the consensus in the communal bunker?"

And state "I conclude that, as in the case of the police, the silence is due in part / mainly (?) to the ‘mountain’ of very damning ‘black on white’ evidence I have against various parties in the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and the courts"

My letter of 2 February 2010 triggered a 9 February 2010 letter from what is now the second caseworker , stating that the previous caseworker had "recently left this Office". Triggered' as my 'inconvenient' 2 February 2010 letter is NOT referred to in this letter. Evidently, the intention was to keep on going with the silence. But, claiming the appointment of, yet another caseworker, will buy more time, claiming that the person needs to familiarise herself with the case.... in the expectation that I am not going to be around for much longer??? (e.g.: Death threat - My Diary 15 Jun 09)

Status at early June 2010? NO CONTACT! = NEARLY 11 MONTHS SINCE I FILED MY COMPLAINT.

Contrast that with the claims in the Annual Report and in the leaflets. That's the treatement under "A Britain Fair for All"!

(2.1) Exactly ONE YEAR AFTER the initial 'Get lost!', the predictable 29 July 2010 final 'GET LOST!' 'from' the PHSO

I anticipated this final 'GET LOST!' outcome (to be added to the other 40+ I have received since 2002) due to the following:

[ ]

[ ]

Parliamentary Commissioner Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1967/cukpga_19670013_en_1)

[ ]

The Human Rights Act 1998 which OMITS two critical Articles from the European Convention on Human Rights:

Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights

Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

[ ]

Back to sections list

(3) 2004-05

Although I can only approach the PHSO through my MP, given that the outcome of my contacts with my then MP, Mr Michael Portillo, had been three "get lost" , I saw no point approaching him.

I nonetheless wrote a letter to the PHSO on 22 November 2004 explaining my reasons for by-passing Mr Portillo by relating events and concluded the section by stating

"In light of this experience - and given the nature of what I have to report - I know there is no point my contacting Mr Portillo"

With my letter, I also supplied 27 supporting enclosures (list attached at the end of the letter).

My objectives were two-fold:

•  to communicate the main points of my case and events with the various government departments in the hope that, somehow, remedial action would be taken, as I also highlighted the horrendous consequences of the nightmare I had and continued to endure

•  to raise awareness in this Ombudsman department as to what is actually taking place in the residential leasehold sector.   (I headed my letter "The true face of the landlord-tenant sector" )

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: I know!   How naïve of me!

Of course they ALL know what is going on in the residential leasehold sector, but prefer to turn 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to suit the powerful lobbies with a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

As Mr Barry Gardiner, MP, stated during his 8 January 2002 speech to the House of Commons:

"In the 118 years that have elapsed (since 1884). (of the) 31 different Bills dealing with leasehold reform. All but two of those 31 Bills have been defeated. Such has been the power of property and the landed classes in this country."

However, at the time I still had - stupidly I will admit - a 'tiny bit' of hope, thinking, at least, I am giving those 'in power' yet another opportunity to take remedial action. Well, THEY DID NOT.

My letter led to a phone call from somebody in this Ombudsman Office. The person asked me whether I was a law student because of my comprehensive legal knowledge, as well as the way in which I had written the letter - to which I replied in the negative.

(I did not tell him that it took me c.40 hours to get to the final letter - in part because I kept breaking down in tears as it made me relieve the horrendous nightmare)

The person asked me to explain my situation, leading me to ask whether he had read my letter and supporting enclosures. "Yes" was the reply, but he nonetheless wanted me to relate the main points. In the process of doing this, I broke down in tears - which led him to feel embarrassed and say there was no need for me to continue to explain.

Among others, the events I related in my 22 November 2004 letter included my experience with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Rightly, or wrongly, it 'seems' to me that my letter filtered down to what I nicknamed the 'little dictator' i.e. the Local Government Ombudsman Investigator as, suddenly, he became rather keen to assist. (See Local Government Ombudsman for further detail)

In addition, five months later, I also copied this Ombudsman on my 6 April 2005 letter to Mr Michael Howard, then leader of the Conservative Party - with the objective of, yet again, providing those 'in power' with the opportunity to take remedial action.  

It led to the 27 April 2005 reply of 'nothing to do with us'.

My conclusion at the time of launching this website was:

My impression is that this Ombudsman is a highly competent person, with moral values (a rarity in government), screaming to get out of the shackles preventing her from doing her job as she believes it should be done.

(In 2005, I attended a talk by this Ombudsman and remarked to my friend that she did not depart from her text.

When asked a question, it felt to me as though she was 'bursting' to give 'her', rather than the 'party line' answer. Well... these are my impressions)

IMy experience to date (at April 2010) in relation to my 2009 complaint leads me to now feel that my assessment was wrong.

Back to top