Email this site to a contact


Another one in 'the 'Andrew David Ladsky camp' - pandering to the diktats of 'the Brotherhood'

HER MAJESTY'S Parliamentary and health service Ombudsman (PHSO) - Re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX


(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:


If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: '' and click 'Add').


Sections list (below)


In reading this page on Her Majesty's Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman remember that the ROOT CAUSE for her actions and lack of action is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

...- deciding, with his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

and related works - for which we are NOT liable...

(1) Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard has been in the driving seat

(2) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Gerrard # 30.

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005 that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6.5m (US$11.5m)

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom Her Majesty's Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because... do what Ladsky did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it?

So: why the across-the-board unfailing support?

Firstly, because this island-Kingdom is controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime - resulting in its being "fantastically corrupt".

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

Secondly, because he is 'Jewish' and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his own actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him.


In reading this page, remember also the claims by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron - in Jan 12:

"...Britain...[has a] well regarded legal systems and...a long and exemplary record on human rights..."

"We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust"

(But then, the UK's Human Rights Act excludes 2 critical articles: Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy = the Act is a sham).



(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

My 2009-10 complaint

2004-05 correspondence




The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) (, then headed by Mrs Ann Abraham (term of office ended in Dec 11), 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"

As defined in the European Court of Human Rights case, Silver v UK (1983) 5 EHRR 347 (paras 115-117),

"...the Parliamentary Commissioner is NOT an effective remedy, since the Office has NO POWER to render a binding decision".

The European Court determined the same thing in relation to the Local Government Ombudsman.

In her 2015 speech, (The Guardian) Her Majesty The Queen announced a "Draft public services ombudsman bill":

"This will merge the existing parliamentary and health service ombudsman with the local government and potentially the housing ombudsmen’s offices." (1)

"The ombudsman is where the public can appeal over the way their complaint has been handled by local services." (2)

(1)- Making it easier to share the 'Get lost' template for the 'replies' to complainants; or, as succinctly summed-up by the epitome of the British Establishment, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, in his reply to a taxi driver, on 18 Jun 15: "Fuck off and die!"

(2)- Oh! Yeah! "They can appeal"

= Waste their time and money, not to mention, add to their anguish, distress and sense of being treated, in this island-Kingdom, like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - there to used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL...

....- as undeniably demonstrated by my experience with the parliamentary ombudsman (i), and with the local government ombudsman (ii).

(i)- And the experience of others (below)

(ii)- And the experience of others.

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, in Nov 04, I went over the head of 'my' then Tory MP, Michael Portillo, by contacting the PHSO directly - but it was an indirect 'cry for help', as well as a very naïve 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. (Case summary)

In 2009, following a 4-month battle with 'my' then Tory MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind (see page), I finally managed to force my access to the PHSO for the purpose of filing my 12.07.09 complaint (below).

Back to sections


(1)- Her Majesty's Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)'s publications on its role, its 'standards' - and how it 'expects' government departments to behave = as demonstrated by my experience - ALL of it are more examples of window dressing - in 'The island-Kingdom of Make-Believe'.

In her Annual Report 2007-08 (at, the then PHSO stated 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 2nd 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


(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 applying the Principles, we will also have regard to the human rights 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"

(BUT: see my above Note)

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 6 Principles:

(3) 'Principles of Good Complaint Handling'

(4) 'Principles for Remedy'

(NB: (leaflets located at

The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967

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


(2)- My 2009-10 complaint - After an initial, typical 'Get lost!' of 29.07.09, demonstrating that collusion and conniving had taken place between Her Majesty's PHSO, Ann Abraham, and 'my' then MP, Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind -... clearly unexpected challenge (they had closed down the file), led the mafia to go back to the drawing board - issuing, 1 year later, a typical 'Get lost!' of 29.07.10 - using different excuses from that given initially.

In the process, the psychological harassment and victimization tactics entailed a typical prolonged silence, as well as using 3 different caseworkers - (or were they just 3 different 'contact names'?).


(2.1) - After a 6-week silence, I went over the head of 'my' then MP, Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind - by approaching the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

On 26 May 09, in the televised part of one of his speeches, David Cameron, Tory Leader (prior to becoming Prime Minister), 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 3 months with 'my' then Tory MP, Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind (see page) to get him to help me, including referring my complaint to the PHSO e.g. I headed my 08.05.09 letter: "Why are you refusing to refer my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?" (Rifkind # 3)

As Rifkind (et. al. in 'the Brotherhood') had evidently decided that this Ombudsman should not consider my complaint, and had gone into 'silent mode' since my 08.05.09 letter, I opted to kick-start the implementation of David Cameron's 'vision' by going over Rifkind's head - by sending this 15.06.09 letter to the PHSO. I headed 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 Rifkind (7 enclosures), starting with my 07.03.09 letter (Rifkind # 1). I copied Sir Malcolm 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 17.06.09 from Rifkind's then Office claiming

"Sir Rifkind has not refused to take your issue to the Parliamentary Ombudsman because he believed you had already done so..." (Rifkind # 4)

In my 01.07.09 reply, I informed Rifkind that I would be "sending [him] the pack for the Parliamentary Ombudsman by the end of next week". He replied on 03.07.09, stating that he would forward my complaint to the Ombudsman (Rifkind # 5).

Events by then with Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind, 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 Rifkind's letter of 17.06.09:

"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. No points for guessing that I proved to be right!

= Rifkind and the PHSO had conspired (see below)

In my 01.07.09 reply, I also exposed his deceitfulness in his letter, as he claimed to "not refusing to take [my] issue to the Parliamentary Ombudsman because [he] believed [I] had already done so" - which, as I explained in my letter, would have been impossible (Rifkind # 4).

Back to sections

(2.2)- My 12 July 09 complaint to the PHSO against Her Majesty's Courts Service and then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

On Monday 13 Jul 09, I hand-delivered to:

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

  • (3)- a 390-page bundle of 164 supporting documents - with a 4-page index;

(2)- The PHSO: a 13.07.09 letter informing the Ombudsman of the delivery of my complaint and bundle to 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)"

Back to sections

(2.3)- The 1st 'Get lost!' of 29.07.09 (that had been planned), claiming that it had "carefully considered the papers" - leading me to challenge it in my 27.08.09 letter.


In ‘her’ 29.07.09 letter to Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Pamela Micallef, 'Customer Services' Officer, stated that:

[she had] carefully considered the papers you sent" (NB: OF NOTE, given what took place subsequently),...

...and followed this by:

“I have made enquiries with both organisations and it is clear that Ms Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé has not completed HMCS and RPTS complaints procedures

Bingo! As I had anticipated following Rifkind's letter of 17.06.09 (above) (the 'Frustrate and Discourage Tactics' (header 2)) - clearly demonstrating conniving and conspiring from the start.

(NB: I captured this in my 19.10.09 letter to Rifkind, stating that, from his letter, I had anticipated this outcome).

The policy of keeping 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed" / "the Lobbyists" on the treadmill, and, for the fun of it, sending them from pillar from post - until they finally give-up their 'outrageous' belief of 'having rights'.

(See below how they then switched tactic, following my below challenge).

'Fortress public sector'

ALL of them are SO predictable: as soon as you complain against 'one of their own / 'the tribe', the drawbridges in 'public sector fortress' are pulled-up immediately and they retreat to their communal bunker (Overview # 7).

As I wrote in my 27.08.09 reply to the PHSO (pg 7, lines 12-18) in relation to the 'response' to my complaints from Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs (LVT # 7) and Her Majesty's Courts '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"

(See another example in the Note, below)

Hence - in spite of her claims (above) - like her successor as the then Legal Services Ombudsman - the PHSO 'talked the talk, but did 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 appalling 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".


In his 24.08.09 letter, Rifkind chased a reply from me - clearly demonstrating an expectation that their ploy had worked i.e. that I had been fobbed-off, by stating:

"Pamela Micallef's advice" in 'her' 29 July 2009 'response'.

The letter ended with: "With kind regards and best wishes".

Yeah! Right! "Best wishes" indeed! They are SO false, duplicitous, underhanded.

In my 27.08.09 reply (on which I copied Rifkind), 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 12.07.09 complaint (form) – by, among others, identifying the page and line numbers that refuted ‘her’ assertions, as well as, as relevant, the supporting document number and name, in the bundle of 164 documents I supplied with my complaint. (No doubt, helping to feed their sadistic needs).

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's claim in the same overview document, that we focus on the individual’s experience as a human beingwe 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 ( ) - 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” (*)

(*) BUT: see my above Note.

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..."

Back to sections

(2.4)- My 27.08.09 challenge led to a 22.09.09 reply that it was now "sending my complaint to one of our assessors for consideration" - followed by a prolonged silence...

... that led me to, among others, send a 02.02.10 letter to the PHSO - headed: "When am I due to be killed?" - prompting a 09.02.10 letter from 'a 2nd caseworker'.

My above, 27.08.09 response led to a 22.09.09 'reply' (= nearly 4 weeks to figure out 'the reply') ‘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.” (1)

"I will arrange for your complaint to be passed to one of our assessors, for that further consideration". (2)

However, as I explained in my letter to Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP, of 29 July 2009 the Ombudsman is only able to consider complaints about the administrative actions of HMCS and RPTS, and cannot consider complaints about decisions on cases, or the way in which a committee or tribunal conducted proceedings" (3)

"Please note that we have given your complaint a new reference number..." (4)


In 'her' 22.09.30 letter to Rifkind, (on which he copied me with his 30.09.09 letter), 'she' wrote:

"We are now in a position to send her complaint to one of our assessors for consideration." (1)

(1) Versus what 'she' wrote in ‘her’ 29.07.09 ‘response’:

We have carefully considered the papers you sent …” (Perhaps these "papers" were a brief from Masons?)

(2) "further consideration" is very clearly NOT TRUE.

(3) = Warning sign that this will be used as excuses - predictably proven to be a correct assumption on my part - see below, 1 year later.

(4) They had closed down my file in anticipation that they had fobbed me off.

Translation: 'Damn! The 29.07.09 ploy did not work'!

As I wrote in my 19.10.09 letter to 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

(No points for guessing that I turned out to be right - as detailed in the rest of this section).

As detailed under Rifkind # 5, I sent him a 19.10.09 letter (also referred to above), headed: "Considering that you are my Member of Parliament: why are you colluding with the parties from which I have and continue to suffer wrongdoings - and by extension with Andrew Ladsky"

The 23.10.09 'reply' from Rifkind was:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 19th October addressed to Sir Malcolm. Your case is now with the Ombudsman and we will have to await her decision. Yours sincerely”.

I replied on 07.11.09, heading my letter “Since when has Andrew Ladsky been ‘ruler of Kensington & Chelsea?”, and supported my statement by providing numerous examples (Rifkind # 5).

The 10.11.09 'reply' from Rifkind's then Office was:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th November addressed to Sir Malcolm. Yours sincerely".

Total silence since the above 22.09.09 'reply' 'from' the PHSO (added to the SAME POLICY used by the police, with which I was concurrently battling in relation to the so-called "crime reports" it unlawfully holds against me: police # 5.5 ; QB # 4)...

...(NB: Going into 'silent mode' is typical of the English public sector mafia (controlled by Masons) when its conniving and conspiring has not worked / it refuses to take action.

Other examples: (1)- as I reported in my 08.06.09 and 15.06.09 letters to Rifkind, he did the same thing for 6 weeks ; (2)- West London County Court did this in Oct 07, and continued afterwards). (To this is to be added its, equally typical response, of coordinating its victimization and criminal psychological harassment of those who 'dare' stand-up to their 'tribe'), ...

...led me to send a 02.02.10 letter - headed "When am I due to be killed?" (referring to the 15 Jun 09 death threat: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - about which, of course, the police took NO action) (*) - to Rifkind, Ann Abraham, (then) PHSO (as well as to Paul Stephenson, then Met Commissioner, and Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary: police # 5.2).

(*) An implied death threat was also delivered to my apartment on 14 Jun 14.

Under the section addressed to Ann Abraham, I wrote:

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

I then asked: "For how long will you remain silent Mrs Abraham? What are you counting on? My “not having long to live”? What’s the consensus in the communal bunker?"

And stated: "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 (above) letter of 02.02.10 triggered a 09.02.10 letter from what was, now, the '2nd caseworker'

"I write further to my colleague, Ms Pamela Micallef's letter of 22 September 2009 and your letter of 27 August 2009 regarding your complaint against the HM Courts Service and the Residential Property Tribunal." (1)

"I would like to inform you that the previous assessor of your complaint, Ms Michelle Robinson, has recently left this Office. Accordingly, your complaint has now been passed to me for assessment." (2)

"I will contact you shortly to speak about your complaint in order to clarify my understanding of your concerns and the outcome you are seeking" (3)

(1)- NO mention of my above 02.02.10 letter! (The same thing happened with the Met Commissioner / Directorate of 'Professional Standards' - see police # 5.3. My conclusion that I had guessed the plan: the version of the "crime reports" I received in July 11)

(2)- Evidently, the intention was to keep on going with the silence. But, claiming the appointment of, yet another caseworker, would buy more time, claiming that the person 'needs to familiarise herself with the case'.... in the expectation that I was not going to be around for much longer??? (e.g. Death threat) (NB: Another one, implied, was added on 14 Jun 14).

(3)- As can be seen from my above complaint, the answer to that is glaringly obvious. Hence: = more of the 'Frustrate and Discourage Tactics' (header 2).

Back to sections

(2.5)- The next communication, 3.5 months later, was a 28.05.10 letter 'from' a '3rd caseworker' - clearly demonstrating that no action had been taken.

The next letter, dated 28.05.10 = 3.5 months later, was 'from' a '3rd caseworker', stating:

"I write further to Sharon Hosten's letter to you of 9 February 2010 [above], regarding your complaint to the Ombudsman about HM Courts Service and the Residential Property Tribunal Service.

Since sending you that letter Ms Hosten has left the employment of this office, and your complaint has now been passed to me to assess whether it raises issues that the Ombudsman can and should investigate" (1)

"...I would like to assure you that I will now treat your complaint as my highest priority..."

"I note that in your letter to the Ombudsman of 13 July 2009, you mention that you had hand delivered to Sir Malcolm Rifkind a bundle of supporting documents for your complaint." (2)

I am unclear whether your intention in doing so was for this office to be able to ask Sir Malcolm's office for those documents if we required them. I ask because I have not seen the bundle of documents in question...believe they may be helpful to my assessment" (2)

"I hope to have the opportunity to speak to you on the telephone, so that we can discuss your complaint in detail in more detail. If there is any particular time for doing this that would best suit you, please let me know" (3)

(1)- 10 months since I submitted my (above) 12.07.09 complaint - and, in spite of the claims made in the: (1) above 29.07.09 letter ; (2) above letter of 27.08.09 letter, and (3) above letter of 22 Sep 09 - attached to Rifkind's letter of 30.09.09 - they 'still' had not determined that??? (The (alleged) previous 2 caseworkers should have placed their notes in the file).

(2) = The 'Frustrate and Discourage Tactics' (header 2) gone into overdrive.

10 months since I had submitted the supporting documents - and it is only THEN that they were asking about the bundle of 164 documents! I don't buy that - and view it as another example of the criminal psychological harassment regime.

Further, note that:

  • (1) In the (above) 29.07.09 letter 'from' the 1st caseworker, to Rifkind, 'she' wrote that "['she' had] carefully considered the papers you sent".
  • (2) In my (above) 27.08.09 reply to her i.e. 9 months previously - in the process of challenging 'her', I referred extensively to the supporting document number and name, included in the bundle.

This, added to, among other, allocating a '3rd caseworker' (or 3rd name as 'contact'?), was a continuation of a clear '1 finger up' communication: we are dealing with your complaint.

(3)- The psycho Masonic mafia - in collusion with the mobile phone provider, O2 - had (typically) planned on having fun - as I explain under Persecution # 3 - Phones # 7 - by totally disconnecting my phone (other examples of criminal psychological harassment under 'Phones').

Back to sections

(2.6)- Exactly 1 year after the initial 29.07.09 'Get lost!' (above), the predictable - because typical - 29.07.10 final 'Get Lost!' - using different excuses from that used initially.

In the light of what had taken place, as detailed above, added to:

...- I knew, before opening the 29.07.10 letter, that it would also be another typical 'Get Lost!'.

As my (above) 27.08.09 challenge knocked down their initial 29 Jul 09 'Get lost' (above) excuse that: "it is clear that Ms Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé has not completed HMCS and RPTS complaints procedures”... the 29.07.10 'Get lost', they i.e. Rifkind in 'the Brotherhood' changed their tactic...

...- by using the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 - as a prop for their excuses - and by manipulating it to suit their needs. (In fact, the warning had been given, 10 months previously, in the above 22.09.09 letter).

When they could not use it, they (typically):

  • misrepresented my complaints;
  • sided with the miscreants by finding excuses for their actions / lack of action e.g. "the costs [I] claim to have incurred do not appear to have arisen as a consequence of those potential failings";
  • concluded that "an investigation would almost certainly not result in [my] receiving any reimbursement of the professional costs [I] incurred, or the "very substantial" compensation [I] seek"...
  • ..."Nor do we consider those potential failings to be serious enough, even if proven, to warrant payment of substantial compensation"

"Not serious enough" !?!?!?!?!

See e.g. Kangaroo courts ; Overview # 2 , # 3 , # 4 ; HM's 'Customer Service' - for what that mafia did to me (events that were captured in my (above) 12.07.09 complaint - and supported by 'black on white' evidence in my 12.07.09 bundle of 169 documents.

(Note in the letter that 'they' "also looked on [my] website for additional documentary information" !!!!).

I did not bother to reply, because I was not going to waste any more of my time and money with that mafia.

Hence: yet again, the mafia's 'Frustrate and Discourage Tactics' (header 2), and concurrent criminal psychological harassment regime had worked.

= The above Annual Report and the leaflets: another con in 'The island-Kingdom of Make-Believe' - that claims to "[have] a long and exemplary record on human rights" - but where the Establishment will go to any length to protect itself and its cronies and hangers-on (Media page).

(See the complaints about Ombudsmen on Ombudsman Watchers (

Back to sections




(3) - 2004-05 - My very naïve 22.11.04 letter to the PHSO.

Although (as explained above), I can only approach the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) through my MP, given that the outcome of my contacts with 'my' then MP, Michael Portillo, had been 3 "Get lost" , I saw no point approaching him.

I nonetheless wrote a 22.11.04 letter to the PHSO, explaining my reasons for by-passing 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"

In the context of the impact that the, by then, 5-year horrific nightmare was having on my health, I wrote:

"maybe my tombstone will read: "She died because the British government opted to not only turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, it actually helped a greed-ridden bunch of people who wanted to make her pay for the construction of a penthouse flat and enlargement of flats on 4 floors [NB: one of the eventual outcomes was the addition of 3 other apartments] - all in the name of the leasehold system. She fought for all she had: a flat which was going to be her pension fund". What an epitaph!"

To prove that I was not making it up, 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" )

I know! How extremely 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 i.e. the 'Great Estates' and their lesser mates.

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 - because their value system and mine are light years apart.

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 22.11.04 letter included my experience with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Rightly, or wrongly, it 'seemed' to me, at the time, 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, 5 months later, I also copied this Ombudsman on my 06.04.05 letter to Michael Howard, then leader of the Conservative Party (Howard # 1) - with the objective of, yet again, providing those 'in power' with the opportunity to take remedial action.  

It led to the 27.04.05 reply from the PHSO of: 'nothing to do with us'.

My conclusion at the time of launching this website, in Sep 06, 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)

My experience in relation to my above 2009 complaint leads me to now feel that my assessments was wrong.

Back to sections


NOTE - Other example of TYPICAL treatment by the PHSO: closing rank with the 'tribe' members


Private Eye, # 1361, 7-20 Mar 14, pg 11:

" Morecambe Bay… More than 5 yrs after the death of baby Joshua Titcombe, the Health Service Ombudsman last week published a scathing report stating that the trust responsible for his death had failed to investigate it openly and honestly. This, however, is not the full story."

"More than 3 yrs earlier, the same organisation refused to investigate Joshua’s death, stating that it was “pleased” with the way the trust responded”.

"The Ombudsman has now apologised to the Titcombe family for its original decision; probably a wise decision given that events at Morecambe Bay are now subject to an independent investigation by Bill Kirkup, who played a key role in the Hillsborough inquiry."

"One has to wonder how many other decisions not to investigate serious NHS complaints the Ombudsman has got wrong in the past."


Private Eye, # 1368, 13-26 Jun 14, pg 12:

(Following repeating some of the above), Private Eye stated:

"The PHSO stated at the time that there would be "no worthwhile outcome" in pursuing an investigation...

...the Ombudsman at the time, Ann Abraham, declined to investigate following non-documented meetings with Cynthia Bower, the former CEO of the Care Quality Commission, [*] in the months before the last general election."

"Mr Titcombe wrote to request an internal review of these circumstances in July 2013 but the new ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor, refused the request."

"...the ombudsman initially also refused to participate in the independent investigation process led by Dr Bill Kirkup. The Eye has learnt that Mellor has now made a U-turn and agreed to "fully cooperate"..."

"But why has the PHSO gone to such lengths to avoid scrutiny of its actions at Morecambe Bay?"

(*) Cynthia Bower is also the individual who, together with Jo Williams, then CQC chair, "undermined the evidence whistleblowers gave to the Francis inquiry"...proving, yet again, the saying:

"Birds of a feather, flock together"


  C O M M E N T S

Back to top