While compiling chapter 26 of ‘A Murder of Conspirators’ I have been forced to contend with the appalling state of affairs arising from dealing with the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman over nearly three years.
I have already written much about the ‘corruption by design’ of the PHSO ( not my words but the words used in Della Reynolds voluminous book, ‘What’s the point of the Ombudsman?’). I will take this opportunity to signpost the reader to previous chapters posted here at Four and Twenty Dead Crows, including the entry titled ‘LATEST ISSUES 17th May, 2025’ which accounts for the dismissal by the PHSO of my complaints about CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.
The unsavoury conclusion that I have arrived at, through my own horrendous experience, corroborated by multiple online review platforms and the testimony gathered by PHSOtheFACTS is that the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman has been repeatedly failing to provide the British public with a reliable, competent, ethical and honest platform for legitimate grievances against the state provided, tax-funded National Health Service.
Read the following review titles culled from Trustpilot…
…‘corrupted investigation system’,.. ‘One star does not indicate how appalling PHSO are’,.. ‘Lack empathy and professionalism’,.. ‘Waste of time’,..‘Misleading flawed process- what a disgraceful joke’,.. ‘Do not trust the PHSO’. There are 456 such reviews published at Trustpilot. https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.ombudsman.org.uk
Della Reynolds book, ‘What’s the point of the Ombudsman?’, cited above, runs to 579 pages of ‘case stories’ from health service users who have experienced real clinical negligence and found the PHSO wilfully and cynically impotent.
This has been a systemic failure of the ombudsman almost since it’s inception.
‘In 2014 the Patients Association took the radical step of no longer advising complainants to take their case to the PHSO on the basis it would compound their stress rather than alleviate it.’
Today I returned to the PHSO’s own website and read the following
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-public-service-ombudsman-bill
‘Ombudsman reform: Improving access to justice
When things go wrong in public services, the public must be able to hold authorities to account. But the current system of multiple Ombudsman schemes in England is a barrier to justice.’
In 2016, following a public consultation, the Government published its draft Public Service Ombudsman Bill to modernise the complaints service, but this bill was not passed.
WHY NOT?
The actual Public Service Ombudsman Bill can be found here
Page 3 states, ‘The draft Bill would… Equip the PSO with powers to investigate complaints and to promote good complaints handling.’
THE PHSO ALREADY HAS THE POWERS TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AND TO PROMOTE GOOD COMPLAINTS HANDLING. ‘The Ombudsman possesses wide powers of investigation and is able to determine the procedure for the investigation and to obtain information from such people as required. In respect of the gathering of evidence and the examination of witnesses, the Ombudsman has the same authority as the High Court. Defiance of these powers can be treated as contempt of court.’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_and_Health_Service_Ombudsman
It simply chooses not to use its powers.
Page 5 confirms these ‘court’ powers in stating ‘Public service ombudsmen have powers similar to those of a court, including powers: • to conduct formal investigations; • to require documents to be produced; and • to require witnesses to attend and be examined, in some instances, under oath.’
It goes further by stating ‘An ombudsman case does not involve lawyers or litigation, and generally proceeds more informally than a court case, using inquisitorial methods rather than the more adversarial model of a court.’
By ‘inquisitorial’ it means a ‘Legal system where the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defence.’
The PHSO actively refused to investigate the ‘facts’ surrounding my case.
WHY?
Surely a refusal to use high court powers to investigate my own claims of clinical malpractice and potential corruption by healthcare workers and leadership staff within CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust is evidence of ‘corruption by design’?
Comments were made, back in 2015-16, that the Public Service Ombudsman Bill didn’t go far enough. Indeed, it had been criticised for offering a “conservative” model of ombudsman.
Kirkham and Thompson also concluded that the Bill “is a classic product of Whitehall pragmatism and lacks a strong vision”. They have argued that what the draft Bill proposes is a “conservative model of the ombud enterprise”, and that the Government has “not provided the ombud with full powers to seek out systemic maladministration”. Despite Kirkham and Thompson’s comments, the Government consensus at the time agreed that the draft Bill would “ensure that anyone who makes a justified complaint can expect a rapid, effective remedy and that their voice will be heard”.
IT HAS NOW BEEN OVER A DECADE SINCE THE PUBLIC SERVICE OMBUDSMAN BILL WAS DRAFTED.
Service users like me have been grievously and cynically underserved by the current incarnation of the PHSO.
It is my opinion that systemic corruption is baked into the complaints chain and that many clinicians and especially the managerial class and Patient Advisory Liaison staff understand and cynically exploit this.
The PHSO is a veritable black hole where most legitimate complaints go to die.
I absolutely commit to holding individuals and institutions to account for clinical negligence, abuse, failure to follow policy and protocol, reputational damage and outright corruption.
I also publically call for radical reform of the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman and will lobby politicians robustly until this happens.
I will be actively protesting in the near future, resuming demonstrating in central London and hunger strikes alongside a new online multimedia campaign. If the PHSO cannot be trusted to do their job then I will do it instead.
This post will be copied to every legal entity and media orginisation in Britain.
POSTSCRIPT. Within a couple of hours of posting this latest blog entry I discovered the following email in my inbox
## This is an automated message ##
Dear Mr Mark Stock ,
Your case has now been assigned to a caseworker who will take a closer look at your complaint. They will contact you within 10 working days to discuss your complaint further.
Your caseworker's contact details are:
Caseworker: Stephen Reilly
Phone Number: +***************
Email: *******************************
Well, let's see...
