top of page

PHSO: Lies & Systemic Corruption (3/6)

The International Ombudsman Institute (of which PHSO is a member) states:

"The role of the ombudsman is to protect the people against violation of rights, abuse of powers, unfair decisions and maladministration. Ombudsman institutions play an increasingly important role in improving public administration while making the government's actions more open and its administration more accountable to the public."

June 2013 My MIND advocate (who fully supported my complaint) submitted my complaint to PHSO on the basis that the 2009 NHS assessments which did not diagnose me, were substandard (no clinical tools used, no childhood history taken, no relatives or others who knew me interviewed and no autism-related questions asked). He wrote this on the application form about his conversation with the NBC manager Dan Stewart:

PHSO never did report SPFT to CQC! They simply ignored this. A national charity makes a serious formal request and PHSO wilfully ignores it. SPFTs behaviour was unlawful in ignoring NICE Guidance yet PHSO wilfully disregarded this.

September 2013 I received acknowledgement of submission of my complaint and a proposal to investigate in principle by caseworker Jen Amos, but PHSO intended completely re-scoping the investigation of the complaint to whether the funding panel procedures were correct. I challenged this bizarre decision.

October 2013 PHSO consulted with their legal department over my challenge and claimed my complaint was "outside of our time limit" (also wrongly claiming it was submitted a month later than it was), so I provided evidence that it was within the 12 month limit. This evidence was the June 2012 QA questionnaire, because it was after receipt of that, I did research in the following weeks and then realised there was a problem with the assessments, meaning my complaint was within 12 months of that time, but they bizarrely refused to accept this proof and the caseworker used their arbitrary opinion saying I "must have known" because I was unhappy with the outcome! This not only demonstrated serious autism ignorance, but also was her personal opinion, that was clearly biased against me, wrongly used as fact.

The NHS itself had considered my complaint (albeit a corrupted process) and they have the same 12 month rule and I had approached PHSO straight after the NHS complaint was closed (7 months down the line). Also, when people have extenuating circumstances (as I did) PHSO are supposed to waive that rule anyway and they did not consider the impact of my disability on my understanding, significantly disadvantaging me. For the same reason, courts will waive the 3 year limitation rule for people with extenuating circumstances. The only basis of investigation that PHSO would consider, was the administrative process of the commissioning panel's decision-making, because the panel had occurred within 12 months. I was forced to accept this or not have my complaint investigated at all, it didn't occur to me at the time, that even though the poor standard of my NHS assessments would not even be investigated, that this also meant that none of the medical and clinical evidence I had accumulated proving I am autistic, would be either. I thought PHSO would at least however, discover the panel had made the wrong decision.

When I challenged PHSO not investigating the assessments I was told "As I have previously explained, the law which sets out what we can and cannot do says that we should not investigate a complaint that was raised more than 12 months of you being aware of the matters you are complaining about." even though I had provided evidence that it definitely fit within the 12 months timescale and pointed out that NHS had the same rules and they had considered my complaint. They insisted that because by their definition I was 'unhappy' with the outcome of the assessments, that was the point I knew about the problem. But being unhappy is simply not the same thing as awareness that the assessments were clinically substandard. Absolute corruption and extreme bias towards the NHS, clearly PHSO are there to shut people down. PHSO also have been on record saying they don't investigate clinical negligence. But this very similar case proves otherwise.

PHSO also did not use their available discretionary powers to waive the 12 month limitation in light of their claim of the complaint being out of time, or take my disability into account as extenuating circumstances, or even offer me reasonable adjustments of any type.

During this month, I had a quantitative EEG (qEEG) brain scan which showed the activity, communications and connections in my brain to be consistent with autism, and my results were stated in a letter provided later by the doctor, to be "well recognised in Asperger's syndrome". Nobody could possibly have more proof of having Asperger's syndrome than I have.

Further, they investigated a very similar complaint about autism assessment failings here.

November 2013 I requested a PHSO review of their decision of the basis under which they would investigate my complaint. They later claimed that my review form was blocked by their server and they had not received it. However, one caseworker confirmed receipt of it, whilst the other denied it! This type of incompetence just added to the already very stressful nature of the process. When I challenged the claim of non-receipt and provided evidence of the colleague specifically confirming, they didn't reply to the email. My MIND advocate also wrote a letter fully supporting my awareness of the problem and the review request, asking PHSO to investigate the complaint properly.

January 2014 My review of the scope was not upheld and I was told I could re-open the complaint but only on their re-scoped basis of investigation. I requested they go ahead with this, as it was the only option left to me, other than not having my complaint investigated at all. I sent a copy of my qEEG report with the application form (it hadn't formulated in my head that they were not assessing my evidence, I had a very delayed reaction to this fact).

February 2014 Received email in which PHSO admitted ignoring new evidence I sent, because it did not fit the basis they would consider the complaint under and which completely ignored the failings by my Trust and all the evidence I was supplying: “We are focusing our investigation on the specialist funding panel process, as we have previously agreed, so will consider the evidence relevant to those issues."

March 2014 PHSO draft report issued not upholding my complaint and containing many inaccuracies, which I replied to. My detailed and valid points would be ignored, there was only one point they took notice of and to get round it they simply altered the wording of that part to cover themselves, for the final report.

April 2014 PHSO did not uphold my complaint (which I could have foreseen, because of them re-scoping the whole investigation which was obviously deliberate). Their convoluted final report still contained many factual inaccuracies, lacked logic and ignored all my evidence. I requested a review of their final decision. (If only I had done a Subject Access Request a lot earlier because I discovered all the proof of what SPFT did after the event and PHSO has ignored all the evidence to date and refused to change their decision, even though it was provably wrong).

PHSO caseworker Jen Amos made this statement on page 4 of PHSOs final report: " is clear that the Trust did not at any time offer another AS assessment" (as can be seen from my 'The Evidence ~ Read it And Weep' post, they most definitely did!) and on 10.5.19 Jonathan Roper of PHSO confirmed the following: "Having looked over the evidence we have on file, I have not seen the Trust specifically said this to us. As Jen Amos said in the final report, she had based this on the outline of what happened that she set out in paragraph 14 of the report." so PHSO's caseworker made this up!! This proves systemic corruption (staff process complaints they way they are trained to do, having provided subsequent evidence of them having got it wrong only for it to be ignored shows it wasn't a mistake and there are many people who have had their complaints mishandled similarly by PHSO)! False statements in reports arising from an Act of Parliament (PHSO's reports do) is non-oath sworn perjury - a criminal offence according to the Perjury Act 1911!

By using the wrong scope of investigation, PHSO had failed to identify that the Trust had contravened NHS rules, which state that private diagnoses must be and are recognised (which I had also had confirmed in writing by PALS):

  1. and


PHSOs Annette John either was ignorant of, or didn't care about these rules. She wrote in this letter dated 30.4.15 that adults with private autism diagnoses don't warrant an NHS Autism Care Pathway - along with admitting my complaint shouldn't have been considered out-of-time by them! I later found out from the SAR, that PHSO had made false statements to the first clinical adviser, about SPFT not having knowledge of the private diagnostician's credentials, when I have proof I sent this information on multiple occasions, to multiple SPFT staff in writing. When I later sent this evidence to PHSO they ignored it.

Alison Rhodes (specialist services manager, on the SPFT funding panel) stated in email 6.3.13: "Panel rely on clinicians making the application to pull together and summarise information so that a clear picture is presented that enables consideration and decision making." but the clinician she referred to, was Rebecca Simpson who was not only not diagnostically qualified but she deliberately made false and libellous comments about me in the application (which I discovered later, from my PHSO SAR). Therefore as the whole outcome relied on what she wrote in the application, (which she refused to provide me a copy of), then it was by it's nature biased against me and guaranteed my application would fail.

In an email on 12.4.13 Alison Rhodes had written to the funding panel administrator, clearly stating in two places that the funding was not authorised merely because of the "expertise" of the two clinicians who had already assessed me. Obviously this ignores the process of the assessments entirely (I had written to them about the substandard nature of the assessments) which is unacceptable and a failing towards a patient. The application was made in the first place because of the nature of those assessments, which was what my complaint was about!

Rebecca Simpson had also told me in an email on 7.3.13 regarding her funding panel application on my behalf: "In terms of your ASC assessment, I am bound, at this point, by the opinion of our specialist clinic at this point." so this means that she automatically did not write a case in support of my application to the panel which means my application was unfairly represented, not neutral and the panel relied on this to make their decision as they stated above. So how is such a funding panel process trustworthy, neutral or fair? Claire King of SPFT PALS, also had told me in an email of 25.1.13 that the reason she shut down my complaint was because of the clinical opinion which was the very thing I had complained about in the first place and this was the same reason the funding panel are on record as basing their decision on! Claire King even stated that specialist services would not offer a reassessment for this reason. Alison Rhodes of specialist services was on the funding panel! It proves the panels were totally sham, because not only had PALS lied to me saying I had misunderstood about being offered the ASD reassessment, but they used the same reason to refuse funding that had been used to shut down my complaint months earlier! PHSO failed to discover any of this, it is all documented. Sadly I didn't discover all the evidence until after PHSO had made their final decision and the fact that they not only didn't discover it as they should have, but the fact they have steadfastly ignored it when I sent it to them, proves they deliberately didn't do a proper investigation and aren't interested in the truth or facts, only covering-up for the NHS.

I told PHSO that I wanted to submit a new complaint as I had new evidence they hadn't investigated and they told me I had to ask SPFT to investigate it first. I contacted SPFT who refused to do so, even though they had never seen my new evidence and I explained why it was a new complaint to them. I later found through SAR, they had rung PHSO in a bit of a panic over me raising a new complaint and PHSO colluded with them, reassuring them all would be well, even though they were telling SPFT it was a new complaint.

May 2014 I submitted the new PHSO complaint (which I received auto-acknowledgement of receipt for), the basis being the Trust's refusal to accept my diagnosis in the light of overwhelming new evidence (the qEEG brain scan, in conjunction with all previous evidence I had that they had not looked at, including my ASD diagnostic report). I stated that I could not submit this complaint before, because I had the prior complaint review under consideration and needed to know the outcome of that, before I knew whether I would need to submit a new complaint. I asked PHSO Please also, if you refer my case to an expert/professional adviser, ensure you use one that is clinically trained at a diagnostic level in autism assessment and diagnosis, because anyone less would not be in a position to comment.” I listed all the ASD evidence that had been ignored by the Trust and included information on SPFTs breaches of the NHS Constitution.

July 2014 the review of my original complaint was also not upheld. It was just a rubber stamping exercise. It was clear that each member of PHSO staff was used to backing-up their colleagues, to shut down complaints.

August 2014 Upon chasing, PHSO informed me that they couldn't find my new complaint (which I had received the auto-acknowledgement for in May!). In July, I had emailed some additional information for the new complaint, (some ASD research correlating with my qEEG brain scan evidence). I then received a reply from the caseworker who had dealt with my original complaint review, informing me that the new information I had sent (which was very obviously for my new complaint!) did not change his review decision! They must have deliberately filed my new complaint into the 'post-review' (ignore) domain and when I did an SAR I found out exactly why (collusion with SPFT). They also did not take my disability into account at any time in communications with me and in law I am entitled to reasonable adjustments.

September 2014 There was a group of dissatisfied PHSO complainants who were having complaints looked at by Russell Barr (Director of investigations, who proudly announced he used to be a police detective) and mine was included. He and I had a lengthy telephone discussion on 8.9.14 and he promised to get back to me within a couple of weeks, regarding investigating my new complaint. Over 2 months later I was still waiting, I chased up and he responded to one email, in which I supplied further evidence, asking if he could call me shortly after, no call came. I chased him up again, resulting in a vague response with no action. It was supposed to be Russell Barr investigating my case instead of a caseworker in the usual investigation team. This never happened. I later found out through SAR that SPFT (Simon Street) had sent a ridiculous letter to PHSO, stating how an NHS NICE compliant ASD assessment is done - when neither of their assessments were NICE (or any other standard) compliant - the NICE guidance wasn't written until three years after my assessments!! He even listed various ASD clinical tools and they hadn't used any! You couldn't make this up. The SAR revealed this was the sort of nonsense PHSO unquestioningly accepted from the NHS by default to change their mind about investigating, without any reason or logic.

November 2014 My complaint was still not allocated to a caseworker over six months after submission! Sally Sykes confirmed by email that Russell Barr would be looking into the group of cases, of which mine was one. Russell Barr had still not looked into it himself and had gone completely silent by now. I was then hastily told by Mr Barr that my complaint would be allocated to an investigator (so all of a sudden it wouldn't be Russell Barr contrary to what I had been led to believe). Email excerpt screenshot #1 in evidence:

Email excerpt screenshot #2 in evidence:

January 2015 PHSO caseworker rang me and told me they would not be investigating my complaint! I then received this email (excerpt screenshot):

Strangely, Russell Barr mysteriously left the employ of PHSO in mid-2016, after only around 2 years of employment in such a senior role. Incidentally, Eileen Knibb, also made grossly false statements in her "proposal not to investigate" which can only have been written after I was told they would investigate: "I propose that we decline to investigate. The substance of the matter she now raises with us is the same as we dealt with previously, but phrased differently and approached from a different angle." This is ridiculously false as their own files show.

In complete contradiction of the above lie, their manager Annette John wrote to me on 30.4.15 admitting the truth: "The Trust's comments on the assessments they had carried out in 2009, and NICE guidelines, were not relevant to our considerations because we had not investigated your complaint about the assessments, or expressed any view about them". Also, in PHSOs "review proposal sheet", it stated: "We have never considered whether the Trust’s assessments in 2009 were reasonable as we concluded in [complaint ref] that that part of the complaint was out of time." (it wasn't, as the evidence on this website proves) and "...without ever having investigated those assessments. We have only ever investigated what happened with the Panel in 2013".

After everything came to a Kafkaesque end, with PHSO sticking to their decision, I finally and very belatedly, did the Subject Access Request (SAR) and discovered the many shocking pieces of information and evidence. Proof of collusion between PHSO and SPFT, proof they were going to investigate and had written to SPFT telling them so also, but when SPFT wrote back and told PHSO my complaint had already been investigated (which was ludicrously false because PHSO knew that SPFT had refused to investigate it as per the above quotes from documentation, as I had emailed PHSO the written proof and PHSO themselves had only investigated the funding panel procedures first time round!) so PHSO just merged it with my original complaint to shut it down and lied to me saying they had not said they would investigate! More corruption.

On 18.10.18, I did an SAR for a copy of the clinical advice dated 28.4.18 which they used in their review of the decision to shut down my new complaint. I also discovered that PHSOs clinical adviser for my first complaint, was unqualified for the task and had totally failed to identify multiple breaches of two sets of funding panel procedures ("Specialist Funding Panel Application Guidance Notes" and "Trust Commissioning Operational Policy Document", this was notified in writing to PHSO multiple times but has been ignored) - the funding panel procedures were the very thing PHSO had re-scoped the investigation to look at. And they say they investigate processes but they even failed to do that properly. But I had already been passed to PHSO's customer care team and had to start battling it out with them. PHSO wouldn't listen to any of this when I contacted them and to date, have blatantly ignored all the evidence I emailed them, that proved I was correct and SPFT were corrupt and had lied. I remain in this battle with PHSO (Jonathan Roper), which has included them getting a 2nd clinical advice, from a psychiatrist in relation to my new complaint (after they had merged it with the original complaint on the basis of SPFT's known lie) under the review of their decision not to investigate.

This clinical adviser claimed that SPFTs ASD assessments were acceptable (a complete joke of a statement) without stating any clinical benchmark or standard by which he justified that statement (the box on PHSOs form requesting this that he completed was blank!) and this of course invalidated his opinion as it couldn't be justified. It also calls completely into question, who on earth PHSO are using as advisers, that they say anything PHSO want them to say - and PHSO go to great lengths never to divulge their identities (even withholding information on their training and expertise). It was me who had to do another SAR to find out about this failure to cite a benchmark/standard and call PHSO out on it, they never even noticed, or because it was a paper exercise only, they didn't care. You can read my feedback of the 1st and 2nd clinical advices here. It was because of this omission, they ended up requesting a 3rd clinical advice, and when I asked how they could get clinical advice on a by then closed complaint, told me that it was their decision as to how they deal with complaints! It's clearly the simplest and quietest option they chose, to make people go away. I asked Jonathan Roper if he had notified SPFT of PHSO seeking a 3rd clinical advice, he told me he hadn't. This speaks absolute volumes.

And it just occurred to me at the end of August 2019, that this 3rd clinical advice is another sham anyway, it should be a medical evaluation of my qEEG report with my clinical diagnosis as back-up, instead Mr Roper has obtained an advice only on the clinical aspect relating to the SPFT assessments, which can be arbitrarily manipulated, so PHSO are actively ignoring incontrovertible medical evidence! More corruption! Having now received a copy of this latest clinical advice, I have shown here how appalling it is, in detail. You won't believe the false claims and incompetence of the adviser.

Clearly, ASD assessments that don't take childhood history, don't use any clinical tools, don't ask any autism-related questions and don't interview anyone who knew you as a child or adult, are completely substandard. Anyone who says otherwise, needs to be struck-off as they are incompetent. I found out through SAR that PHSOs first clinical adviser had also confirmed that the funding panel relied solely on the NHS opinions and did not read my private reports or my detailed submission (the reverse statement was made in PHSOs final report)! More lies and corruption by PHSO.

I also found out through SAR that PHSO had deliberately omitted a key statement about SPFT's assessments made by the 2nd clinical adviser that backed me up: "ln routine practice the majority of diagnoses in psychiatry are provisional and therefore can be subject to change and revision." so SPFT therefore couldn't stick rigidly to their opinions (especially in view of the shoddiness of the assessments) and PHSO can't defend them doing so either. But PHSO conveniently failed to include this part of the clinical advice in their report. When I pointed this out to Jonathan Roper, he incredibly replied: "By stating this, the adviser was explaining why a different diagnosis did not in itself mean the NHS assessments were wrong." What a ridiculous claim, when the adviser was providing advice on the NHS assessments not my subsequent private diagnosis! In any case, as the NHS assessments were clinically substandard and my private one was fully NICE compliant and extremely thorough, he couldn't use that argument at all. And if Roper really thought that this statement applied to my private diagnosis (it didn't, their clinical adviser wasn't given a copy of my private diagnosis or asked to comment on it) PHSO would have used that statement to back up the NHS assessments and undermine my private diagnosis, instead of omitting it entirely! But in my experience and that of others, PHSO staff are devious, they will twist everything to try to fit what they want, when you point out discrepancies, bias, illogic, or failings - or simply ignore it, if they can't contort it to supposedly represent something else.

I had told PHSO during their 'investigation' that sometimes I miss text in written communication and when I did the SAR, I discovered that during consideration of my review they had disrespected me in a way which amounts to disability discrimination (especially considering they had not offered me support or reasonable adjustments in making my complaint), by misusing my comment and turning it into something to discredit me. I also discovered much evidence that the whole investigation was subject to gross unlawful predetermination. PHSO has been found guilty in court under Judicial Review of such predetermination, as this case evidences: Not only that, but there has been a lot of negative publicity about PHSO such as this (and a quick search will bring up a lot more besides):

"...patients said ombudsman staff were 'rude', 'dismissive' and 'insensitive', and complained that investigators often ignored evidence and were clearly biased in favour of the NHS. The report comes less than a year after the deputy head of the PHSO Mick Martin stepped down after it emerged he had ‘assisted’ in the cover-up of a sexual harassment case when he was a senior executive at Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust." Dame Julie Mellor, the chief executive, also resigned last summer following a review into the incident."

HSE published an article "Independent review reveals full extent of health ombudsman failures" about how rotten PHSO is. The trouble is, Rob Behrens has only been called in for reputation management, he isn't putting right the injustices PHSO create, by covering-up NHS failures. All reviews of PHSO are absolutely awful (and tragic reading, to see how people have been made to suffer). Have a look at Trust Pilot and Google reviews are as bad, 1.1 out of 5. The Patients Association used to be scathing about PHSO, but their CEO left and the new one, Rachel Power is clearly part of the system and doesn't criticise PHSO, despite ongoing corruption and failures, as well as ignoring dissatisfied PHSO complainants who contact them. I copied her into emails to Behrens and then personally emailed her, receiving no reply, I chased up a response on their live chat, it was promised, but never came.

PHSO have their own 'principles of good complaint handling' and they have breached all six requirements (yet they train the NHS about how to handle complaints!):

PHSO claim on their website:

"Step 2 Deciding whether to investigate your complaint

What happens?

We take a closer look at your complaint to decide if we should investigate. We look at several things, including:

  • whether you have been affected personally by what happened

  • whether you complained (to us or an MP) within a year of knowing about the issue

  • whether you have (or had) the option of taking legal action instead

  • whether there are signs that the organisation potentially got things wrong that have had a negative effect on you that hasn't been put right"

They've never even commented on the impact on me - let-alone investigated it!

PHSO have also to date, breached their own 'Service Model Policy and Guidance: Customer Care Guidance 4.0' P8-9

"Complaints about our decisions

Our decisions on cases are final, but we will consider whether to review our decision, if we have

got something wrong. We will take a further look and conduct a review of the case if someone is

able to show us that:

we made our decision based on inaccurate facts that could change our decision or

they have new and relevant information that was not previously available and which might

change our decision or;

we overlooked or misunderstood parts of the complaint or did not take account of relevant

information, which could change our decision. If, having looked again at the case, we think we may have made an error, we will take action to put that right. This can sometimes involve reopening an investigation."

Well this website proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they got it very wrong, the evidence is here, so when are PHSO going to put it right? I did complain and it got me nowhere.

During the time I was passed to PHSOs customer services, there was a period where I had been overwhelmed with family responsibilities for a long time and one problem after another to deal with, including health issues (directly caused by all the battles I had been forced into), so there was a gap in communications, until 2016, when I started sending PHSO more evidence and proof that I had uncovered by SAR (which took some time due to the volume of material in both the SPFT and PHSO papers), that their decisions were wrong, that SPFT had lied and that I am autistic, but PHSO clearly want to save face as much as SPFT do and it has all so far, been to no avail. The work I have been put to is incalculable, not to mention the unbelievable stress. I was communicating with Jonathan Roper at PHSO, his replies to most emails were unbelievable (when he actually did reply,as much content is ignored). He ignored evidence and breaches of law I provided and contorted anything that supports my case, into the opposite, which is frankly, laughable. All of this behaviour by PHSO staff is the crime of Misconduct in Public Office.

The current Ombudsman Rob Behrens personally reviewed my case in August 2018, what a total sham that was. He wrote to me a letter full of factual inaccuracies and when I wrote back pointing them out and sent the evidence, he simply ignored me! I sent him a 20 page report answering his letter in breakdown and backing it all up, requesting a response within two weeks. It's not even been answered and this proves awareness and complicity. He has ignored all the evidence I sent him as if it doesn't exist. PHSO is utterly corrupt and I am not the only person to say this, many have been treated the same way.

Two successive ombudsmen have failed to comply with their own rules which means they have broken the law! I have asked PHSO to quash my final report, because it fits all the criteria for doing so. I have so far been ignored.

“I have concluded that, rather than requiring a submission to the High Court, it is possible for the Ombudsman to decide to 'quash' a report. In practice, this would mean writing to all recipients of the report to make clear that they should not rely on the findings it sets out.”

"Quashing of reports or decisions

70.In considering a suitable way to remedy a complaint about a decision, we can consider quashing our own report or decision. This means that we would treat the report as invalid (and we would make that clear to all affected parties).

71.We will only quash a report or decision we have made in exceptional circumstances given the strong public interest in certainty around our decisions. These circumstances are;

  • We have missed significant material evidence which we should have considered, or significant new evidence has come to light, and/or;

  • Our decision is incontrovertibly and significantly wrong for some other reason, and;

  • There is no other way to resolve the matter, and;

  • It is in the public interest for the report to be quashed, for example because the existence of the report and its findings are having a demonstrable adverse impact."

Well, this website proves with evidence they did not uncover material evidence, that their decision was wrong and that it's having a demonstrable adverse impact. But PHSO has ignored all the continuing harm to me in breach of their own rules. And it is in strong public interest because in ignoring SPFT breaking autism and other laws, they are giving all NHS trusts permission to do the same to any autistics! Clearly, Rob Behrens doesn't want to make it possible to obtain quashing of their decisions (see the green highlighted part of the above quote showing it's all about reputation management), so that all the people denied justice by corrupt PHSO practices, can get a quashing and show up how corrupt PHSO are - corruption hides itself, it doesn't advertise! So they are ignoring me to date on this, despite it clearly fitting the criteria! I won't give up.

Rob Behren's hypocrisy knows no bounds, as he said this in an interview with DAC Beachcroft on 4.6.18:

SPFT gave absolute "primacy" to their clinicians (demonstrated several times in writing as the specific reason they shut down my complaint and then denied funding for the reassessment I had already been promised, using the exact same reason), PALS lied to me because of it and PHSO actively condoned this! So he can't talk about how "difficult" it is for NHS complaints handlers when they are corrupt and PHSO assists them in this!

Behrens clearly wanted to paint himself in a good light in this March 2018 National Health Executive article "NHS Ombudsman calls out ‘harrowing’ failings in mental health care" but again, it's full of hypocrisy:

"Mistakes – including failing to properly diagnose conditions and discharging patients from care too soon – can lead to “catastrophic consequences” the PHSO said.

“The cases we have identified demonstrate the importance of maintaining momentum in improving mental health services, to ensure patients receive the safe, effective care they need and prevent the same mistakes happening to others,” Behrens commented.

“Patients who use specialist mental health services are among the most vulnerable in our society. As a result, any serious failings on the part of the organisations providing these services can have catastrophic consequences for them.”

Yet he personally reviewed my case and rubber-stamped what happened under Julie Mellor's watch. Corruption and all, even though this was the same as happened to me. It's all lip service.

PHSO has utterly failed to comply with their legal duties about harm to patients also, which require them to report to bodies such as CQC (see evidence at the top of this page) and the police (in accordance with the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 which governs PHSO):

"3.1 Section 15(1)(e) of our health legislation gives us the power to disclose information to any person we consider relevant, if it is clear there is a likely threat to the health and safety of patients. (Legal requirement)"

"3.11 In some instances, the threat to patients will relate more to their health than to their safety. For example, in dentistry, serious mistakes may not be life threatening, but may affect the oral health of patients. In these cases, we can still share information under section 15."

Then there is this, about autistics and complaints:

"Ask Listen Do

Making feedback, concerns and complaints about education, health and social care easier for children, young people and adults with a learning disability, autism or both, their families and carers.

All of these resources were launched at the House of Lords in October 2018, in a call to action by the partners with Baroness Sheila Hollins and Caroline Dinenage, Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care.

At this meeting, these organisations pledged to be the lead project partners for Ask Listen Do:

  • Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman"


  • The organisation does something positive about it in good time and tells the person what they are doing to put it right."

PHSO has signed up as a lead partner to 'Ask, Listen, Do' and is therefore expected to remedy my situation. Not to mention they are breaching - and condoning SPFT breaching, my Human Rights:

"Public authorities, including Regulators, Inspectorates and Ombudsmen (RIOs), have an obligation to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), and case law has clarified that they also have positive obligations to promote and protect human rights when carrying out public functions."

PHSO failed to uncover ALL of the evidence I found, during their investigation and lied (perjured) in their report. Nobody can be that incompetent, so it only leaves corruption and extreme bias leading to cover-up. Julie Mellor the previous ombudsman, also made a public statement about actions taken over discrepancies of evidence between parties, at the PACAC 2016 oral evidence scrutiny session about how they work, which PHSO did not comply with and since I proved it, they are ignoring it and trying to explain it away. Mellor's failings have been acknowledged at an annual PACAC and Behrens should be correcting wrongdoings that occurred under her watch but chooses not to. It's simply impossible for PHSO not to admit how much SPFT have failed me and broken multiple laws, I have cast-iron proof they got it wrong which PHSO has been provided. PHSO also by default, accepted SPFTs lies about me and used them to undermine my complaint, adding more of their own in direct disability discrimination. The magnitude of injustice against me is staggering! But as PHSO has been found to be covering-up for and colluding with SPFT many times and breaking laws themselves during the course of this - what else did I expect. Watch this space.

UPDATE: Della Reynolds, co-ordinator of PHSOTheFacts group (Twitter: @phsothefacts) compiled and edited a book, in which multiple cases of group members were included. Mine was one of them and is on pages 127-135, exposing both SPFT and PHSO failings and corruption, Order the book from Amazon here: it has five star reviews and is well worth buying. It tells you the futility of taking a complaint to PHSO, as sad as it is to say, you really are far better off suing the NHS and avoiding PHSO altogether. Maybe when everyone is suing the NHS something will finally be done about this sham of an organisation.

Article written on 8th August 2020 by Bruce Newsome, "The Critic" Magazine:

"Healthcare Needs an Ombudsman

Public healthcare needs public accountability"

In the article Mr Newsome exposes the sham that is PHSO. Many people have unfortunately suffered the same sort of corruption as I have, as described above.

So, for all Rob Behrens' talk, all we see is PR hot air from PHSO and the corruption continues - this will give you a laugh at any rate:

Credit to Della Reynolds for this marvellously apt GIF

bottom of page