LATEST ISSUES 15th March, 2026

This is the final part of the current draft of my latest 'Open Letter' scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, 16th March. I will add a brief summary and either add it to this post of publish in a new post alongside the revised itinerary for my heavily delayed New Campaign

3)    THE PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN

I am appealing to Basingstoke MP, Luke Murphy, to raise the following issues in the House of Commons and to campaign, robustly, for the legislative reform of the PHSO

On Wednesday 11^th March, 2026, I received the following email from Lawrence Hall, Senior Ombudsman Assurance Officer – Ombudsman Assurance Team

‘Our original case reference: C-*******

 I work in the Ombudsman’s casework team, known as the Ombudsman Assurance Team. Among our responsibilities is reviewing challenges to our casework decisions.

 Unfortunately, it appears we failed to act on Mr Stock’s feedback letter, which was first shared with us on 20 May 2025. Please accept my sincere apologies for this oversight. On this occasion, our service appears to have fallen below the high standards we aspire to.

 To address this, we will now carefully consider and respond to Mr Stock’s feedback letter…’

Lawrence Hall continued by informing me that his response, alongside a response from Ian Higgins, another manager, would be forwarded within four weeks. I have zero confidence of a satisfactory outcome.

My pessimism is founded in an appalling reality, shared with countless other underserved complainants, the national press and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/news/200184/pacac-renews-its-calls-for-legislative-reform-of-the-phso/

“As we have done annually for many years now to no avail, we are once again calling on the Government to bring forward what is now very long-overdue legislative reform of the PHSO, so that it can provide the level of service the public requires from it.’’ - Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Chair, William Wragg MP

A previous trigger for debate on the reform of the complaints system was made as long ago as 2013, after the release of the Francis Report following the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry!

I own a copy of Della Reynolds book, ‘What’s the point of the Ombudsman?’ Della’s book runs to 579 pages of copious volumes of damning evidence and anecdotal accounts of systemic failures by the PHSO. Chapter Three of the book titled ‘Is the PHSO corrupt by design’ adequately sums up the perception shared by so many frustrated NHS service users.

Getting back to Lawrence Hall and his written words,

 ‘On this occasion, our service appears to have fallen below the high standards we aspire to.’

Let me educate Lawrence Hall on the grim reality of the ‘high standards’ he seems to champion.

THE TIMELINE OF MY COMPLAINT WITH THE PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN

My formal complaint about CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust was first acknowledged by the PHSO on Wednesday 31^st August, 2022.

That complaint, initially designated by the PHSO as FS-Case-*********, was allocated to and further acknowledged in writing by Intake Caseworker, Katie Bailey and given a reference numbers C-******9  Stock******KB on the 9^th September, 2022.

Katie Bailey wrote again on the 16^th September, 2022 to inform me that, due to a Covid-19 backlog, ‘you are likely to wait between 9 to 11 months before we can allocate your case to a caseworker.’

Almost a year had passed without any communication from Katie Bailey or anyone else at the PHSO so I contacted Maria Miller who was the MP for Basingstoke at the time.

Maria wrote to me on the 1^st September, 2023 to tell me that she would be writing to the Chief Executive of the PHSO ‘to request a review of your case’.

I then received a template letter from the PHSO on the 25^th September, 2023, asking me to complete new complaint forms and designating a new reference number c-******2.

PHSO case worker, Mark Pierce, contacted by phone 17^th October 2023 and then by letter dated 20^th October, 2023.

Mark Pierce advised that I first seek resolution by way of independent lawyers and to return to the PHSO if I was unsuccessful in securing private legal representation.

Over the following five months I contacted over 170 lawyers. Ultimately, I failed to secure private legal representation, not due to lack of merit, but due to the unavailability of lawyers with relevant expertise and resources who offer Legal Aid.

I wrote to Mark Pierce for the 1^st time on the 16^TH March 2024 but was ignored.

I wrote to Mark Pierce for the ^2nd time on the 16^th April 2024 but was ignored for a further month.

Mark Peirce eventually telephoned on the 17^th May 2024 to confirm my case was to be reassessed following submission of evidence confirming approach to lawyers while an email follow up confirmed that my case had been allocated a caseworker and ‘prioritised due to the delay in me picking up your emails…I agreed that I would put a note in my diary for the end of August to check if your case has been allocated to a caseworker.’

I received another email on the 15^th August 2024 from Caseworker, David Jagiello-Brown to conform a caseworker had been assigned to me and would contact me.

On the 22^nd August, 2024 I received an email from David Jagiello-Brown who informs me that he is the caseworker looking into my complaint. He designates yet another reference number C-*******3 and then attempts to summarise my complaint, referring to me as ‘Mr Hann’. The summary is incomplete and does not cover the full scope of my complaint. He goes on to further account for ‘how this has affected you’, still referring to me as Mr Hann. David Jagiello-Brown finally adopts my real name when listing questions he believed I wanted answered by the Trust. He asks me to confirm what specific questions I wanted the Trust to answer.

I received another email from David Jagiello-Brown on the same day asking for my daughter to make her own complaint about the way she was treated by CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke. I replied by email soon after.

I received an email from David Jagiello-Brown on the 25^th September, 2024 explaining that my case had been discussed with a team manger and deemed ‘more complex than we had first thought. As this is the case it will move to a senior casework team.’

On the 6^th January, 2025 I received an email from Kirsty Fitzsimons, Senior Caseworker, informing me that ‘I will be looking into your concerns about Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.’

And then on the 14^th January, 2025 I received the following information by email from Kirsty Fitzsimons ‘I wanted to let you know that I have been reading the case material you sent over to us and I’ve identified a possible conflict of interests for me with your concern. Before coming to work for PHSO, I worked in a similar service to the one you are complaining about, and I am concerned that my professional background may lead to a degree of unconscious bias in the way I consider your complaint. I want to ensure that your case is given the full attention and impartiality it deserves and so my manager has agreed to reallocate your case to a different Senior Caseworker today (to avoid any further delay).’

On the 17^th January, 2025 I was informed by Thomas Body that he had been appointed my replacement caseworker. Thomas Body asked me to provide him with a shorthand version of my list of my complaints against CAMHS Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

I spoke to Thomas Body on the 24^th January, 2025. He advised me that the PHSO would unlikely investigate the full scope of my complaints against CAMHS Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust because my complaints were deemed ‘disproportionate’. I argued, robustly, for the full scope of my complaints to investigated and Thomas Body said that he would take my case to a higher authority for consideration.

Between the 24^th January and the 23^rd April I made multiple submissions of evidence. Some information was specifically requested by Thomas Body, including ‘'Can you confirm what specific questions you wanted the Trust to answer as part of your desired outcome?' I submitted 73. Thomas Body declined to forward even 1!

The following email, sent to Thomas Body on the 1^st April, 2025 expresses my growing frustration with the PHSO.

‘WHY THE HELL ASK ME 'Can you confirm what specific questions you wanted the Trust to answer as part of your desired outcome?' AND WASTE MY DAMNED TIME IN COLLATING THOSE QUESTIONS?!!!

AND HOW THE ACTUAL HELL CAN YOU MAKE THE FOLLOWING COMPLAINT ON MY BEHALF ie  'The notes about him were not accurate and inappropriate.' IF THE TRUST ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. THE MAJORITY OF MY QUESTIONS RELATE TO THAT SPECIFIC COMPLAINT!?!!!’

I received the following email from Thomas Body on the 25^th April, 2025

‘Dear Mr Stock,

I am emailing to let you know, I have issued a letter explaining we will not be taking your case forward any further as we are unable to agree a complaint scope. The letter also explains that we will be setting up a separate case for Meg and will be in contact once this has been done.

I am sorry this will be extremely disappointing for you, but we feel we have tried on several occasions to manage your expectations on what we can and cannot do as part of any investigation.

Kind regards

Thomas’

Thomas Body’s letter had actually arrived in the post the day before. This was my response on the same day.

‘THOMAS BODY

 I am informing you that I have now opened and read your letter dated 23rd April, 2025.

 I DO NOT accept your decision not to consider my complaint further and will be taking robust and determined action against you and the wider PHSO.

 I am notifying you that I WILL be forwarding 'feedback' to you within one month of the 23rd April, 2025. This will be above and beyond the 'customer survey' that I filled out yesterday. I will outline my assertion that you have treated my complaint against the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust unfairly, unprofessionally and with contempt and dishonesty.

 I will be forwarding a report to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and to the Health and Social Care Committee. I will NOT be attempting to enlist the PACAC as I am already aware that the PACAC cannot review the PHSO's adjudications on individual cases, including the PHSO's decisions on whether or not to accept a case. I WILL be making both the PACAC and the HSCC aware of the wider issues and outlining my serious intentions going forward.

 I have already engaged my local MP and will be mounting high-profile and very public protests against the Trust AND the PHSO commencing in June this year.

I CANNOT allow the serious clinical negligence and reputational abuse of me by clinicians and leadership at CAMHS Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to go unaccounted. Nor can I allow the PHSO to avoid its responsibilities to hold those same individuals and institutions to account.

 I WILL do whatever it takes to raise national and international awareness of my cause and grievances. There WILL be a reckoning.

Sincerely,

MARK STOCK’

On the 20^th May, 2025 I sent a ‘Feedback Document’ to the PHSO FOR THE ATTENTION OF THOMAS BODY with a covering email that included

‘With reference to the email I sent to you on Friday, May 16, 2025, please find attached 'PHSO FEEDBACK DOCUMENT' which I also intend as a formal complaint and which should be accepted by the PHSO as such. This document is specifically addressed to acting CO of the PHSO, Rebecca Hilsenrath. I would kindly ask you to forward the document to her and inform me that you have done this.’ 

Thomas Body did not reply or even acknowledge my ‘Feedback Document’.

Thomas Body’s email to me on the 8^th October, 2025 acknowledged further delays in considering my daughter’s complaint separate from my own. Meg’s case was now allocated reference number C-******5

‘Dear Mr Stock,

I am emailing to let you know that Megan’s case has been allocated back to me to consider. I am sorry there was previously an oversight in the case not being allocated straight back to me after your original complaint was split into two (your care and Megan’s care) and Megan’s case was opened…’

Meg’s own complaint about CAMHS Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke remains unresolved by the PHSO to this day.

Is THIS what Lawrence Hall means by 'the high standards we aspire to' ?

STOP THE PRESS

I have been made aware of the following

‘The Ethics and Integrity Commission issued the following press notice:

PRESS NOTICE 3 March 2026

CAN OMBUDSMEN HELP DETECT SYSTEM FAILURE? – NEW REVIEW BY THE

INDEPENDENT ETHICS AND INTEGRITY COMMISSION

The newly established independent Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) has today launched its first Review, exploring the role of public service ombudsman schemes in identifying wider systemic failures.

The Commission has issued a call for evidence, inviting stakeholders, experts, and the public to contribute their views.

The closing date for submissions is 30 April 2026.’

I will be taking FULL advantage of this invitation