Legal Aid

They are bureaucratic and ultimately unhelpful organization.

The cowboys

They caused this nightmare and are true idiots. They won’t take responsibility for it.

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

is a very bad model. The aim is to help with legal fees so justice can be available to everyone. However you apply for legal aid, Lawyers do work on your case. If you are assessed by the

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

as not being eligible you become liable for the Costs of your lawyer. If like me you’re assessed but have to contribute and had not been informed properly of this, you are still liable. said …
It is, therefore, my decision that the firm’s handling of Mr McMorrow’s Legal Aid has been poor
Yet the

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

found nothing wrong. The invoice was for work done between and . So On I fire your firm as I have lost faith in your ability. You issue me a bill acknowledgment 147 days later on and finaly submit to the

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

On . 250 days from submitting to myself

Comments likke the above enrage me!

The USB Key with the audio recordings of my phone calls came. With a letter! I was supprised as the Letter that was posted with the USB Key contained a password
The posted the "password" to the usb key with the usb key. 
Like locking your front door and leaving the key in the lock.


Unencrypted files with an “encrypted” zip File

Subbmitted Legal Aid Agency (LAA) Complaint-2020-02-04
I am again asked to explain what I feel is missing. I am unaware of the data The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) holds on me. I have request my entier-case file The files below are only noted as The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) have referred to them.

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

expect me to know the data they hold on me!


Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

disclose and addational 3 files.



finaly relase the inverstgation report, into the

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

handling or my SARs. My feeling on The


are not something I am shy of expressing.

Phoned the

The Legal Ombudsman

to check they had my complaint. As I was given no notification. I was told it could be 12 weeks! before it get allocated.

Submitted my second complaint to

The Legal Ombudsman

Gave up waiting for

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

have made a Formal Complaint to

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

Submitted my formal complaint, with a valid reason to expedite.

– Can you advise what files you believe are missing?

I currently have an outstanding debt so if I got to the

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

this debt need to be paused You have given me notes about phone calls. When I asked for communication. The notes are not even transcripts but a summary. They also fail as they use acronyms that are not explained. A breach. You provided me “7 Solicitor’s claim.pdf” this appears to be only part of civ claim 1 As I am using my SAR to make a complaint against my lawyer for a bill Claim1 is important. This complaint is for the Legal Ombudsman and Solicitors Regulation Authority. I am happy to inform them you won’t cooperate. You refer in my complaint response to “substantive amendment” But no substantive amendment was disclosed in my SAR response of 12th August 2019 so having it and not disclosing is a breach of GDPR.. Mr McMorrow
Can you advise what files you believe are missing

Phoned the MOJ about the poor service for Legal Aid Agency

Our complaints process has now been exhausted.

Dear Mr. McMorrow, Our complaints process has now been exhausted. If you are dissatisifed with this response and wish to pursue the matter further then you have the right to make a complaint to the

Parliamentary and Health Service (PHSO)

through your local Member of Parliament. The Ombudsman is a free service; it makes final decisions on complaints that have not been capable of being resolved by a government department or Agency. By law, the Ombudsman service can only look at complaints about UK government departments and agencies if they have been referred by an MP. There is further information available on the

Parliamentary and Health Service (PHSO)

website It is important that you take the matter to the MP as soon as you receive our final response to your complaint, as there are time limits for the Ombudsman service to look into complaints. If you don’t know who your local MP is, go to for more information, or contact the House of Commons Information Office on
Our complaints process has now been exhausted

1.6: Revocation of the certificate

When a certificate is revoked the client must be given 21 days to consider the bill and make any representations, as they have a financial interest in the costs. Therefore, if the certificate was revoked either less than 21 days before or any time after the bill has been submitted (to us for assessed bills or to the court for bills where they are the assessing body), the claim will be rejected unless there is documentation confirming the client has seen a copy of the bill and has no objections. This will be a priority reject unless there is another valid reject reason.

For assessed bills the date the Claim1/1A certification is signed should be used to determine whether the provider would have had the opportunity to send the client the bill and allow 21 days to pass. For taxed bills, the financial interest certification at the back of the bill will need to be completed to determine whether the client has been sent a copy of the bill. This will not apply where the client already had a financial interest by virtue of the statutory charge applying or contributions paid, as the client should already have been provided with the bill

Revocation of the certificate

An Extremaly early respons to my Stage Two Complaint. This was not due till

I got an SMS asking me to contact LCS. They have recieved my stage two formal complaint and ICS should be suspended.

First letter about this debt.

Stage two Formal Complaint.

The below extracts from the response that highlight the incompetence for the

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

As you are aware, your emergency cover was date limited to the period and The date limit was imposed because your solicitors did not submit a substantive amendment when required to do so. Following a ‘reinstate certificate request’, submitted by the solicitor on , we reopened the certificate and the required substantive amendment was provided.
A final bill was then submitted by your solicitor . Please note, there is no time limitation for providers to submit a final bill. The work they successfully claimed for was undertaken between the dates of your emergency cover only. We did not pay the solicitor for any work outside of these dates.
Following the payment of the final bill, we then referred this matter to our debt recovery unit (as explained in your original offer letter). At that stage, you were informed that your solicitor’s claim had been paid and you would have to set up a payment plan to address the liability.
With reference to your Subject Access Request: You have asked why you were not provided with copies of your telephone calls after you were informed that all calls to the agency are recorded? Copies of your calls were not requested in your SAR correspondence so were not provided in response.
See comment above.

We’ve not sent the response, it’s with the complaints team.

We sent the response, we just don’t know-how.

– Response from Costs Draft Person Ms E Harper

Thank you for your letter (undated). The work undertaken was clearly set out in the bill sent to you on 18th July 2018. Any query regarding the bill should have been raised within 21 days of it being sent to you as clearly set out in the letter sent, however we received no objections. When you did not accept the offer of Legal Aid work relating to your matter, work was discontinued. We trust this answers your query. Any questions relating to the payment of money due should be directed to the

Legal Aid Agency (LLA)

as our involvement in this matter has now concluded.
Costs Draft Person

Stage One Formal Complaint.

SAR Response of 13 files

Submitted a SAR Request.


You may remember awhile ago my commenting on the totally inept PHSO Here

Well yesterday I got PHSO Letter 09-03-2015
Another well crafted letter that confirms ONLY that PHSO don’t read the full history of a complaint but instead look for any easy way out supporting the very organization they were setup to monitor.

Let take the letter apart….(for fun)

It is evident that Huntercombe Group were engaged to provide information to your employers about your fitness to work and the legislation that governs our work does not allow us to investigate such complaints. Quite simply, we do not have jurisdiction over the actions of Huntercombe Group in this capacity.

So that’s the ICO, GMC, CQC and PHSO who don’t have jurisdiction. So we have Data Protection Laws that no one enforces making the DPA a total joke.

You reiterate that you did not give permission for your information to be shared. However, it is evident from the papers that you did provide written consent to your manager in an email dated It seems this email confirmed that your employer could approach Huntercombe Group with regard to any medical questions they might have. I know that you dispute that you ever gave oral permission but the fact remains that you provided written permission.

Again this completely disregards the issue. The email in question is Email 23-07-2012I’ve edited this file to remove my former employers information.
Lets accepts for a minute this was permission (not that it was)
it does not explain

  • Why I never saw the letter first
  • Got to comment on the letter

It also states “permission” was given to my employer, not to Blackheath
Its also ignore the fact Email 04-09-2012 would have removed permission suposley give on

We have now completed our review of your complaint and reached the end of our process. If you are still unhappy with our decision, and want to challenge it again, you will be able to do so only by applying for judicial review. Judicial review is a form of court proceeding where a judge reviews whether a decision or action made by a public body is lawful. There are time limits for this and you may incur costs. You may therefore want to take

Ah yes an unemployed young man who’s been on benefits for three years can clearly afford taking legal action.


That document on last page (90) has a flow diagram box one hasdouments

“Has the complaint been properly referred to by MP”

Would may complaint have more sway if referred to by my MP? How is this fair? My MP is a total waste of space who has ignored me twice!


The understatement of the decade!

“Too often, public services regard complaints as a nuisance. They are nothing of the sort.

public service ombudsman


The Patients Association’s report found that:
* More than half of the patients claimed the PHSO “takes sides with the organisation it is investigating”
* Nearly half felt it was “unwilling to challenge” NHS organisations
* That the ombudsman “fails to investigate complaints fully”
* It “produces final reports full of inaccuracies”
* And it “makes patients feel like they are a nuisance for complaining

Health watchdog accused by patients of taking NHS’s side
How many reports dose it take before the PHSO admit they are evil!

Patient Association report referenced in above article.


If the PHSO was a sick animal, it would have been put down.

NHS Ombusdman accused of major failings


On I sent Mr Jonathan Roper He responded on with…

I am very sorry to read of your concerns about our Office.

Firstly him “being sorry” is absolutely pointless My faith PHSO
is non-existent him doing his job in a professional manner would demonstrate his sincerity – but thats asking lot.

I will arrange for one of my team to carefully consider the correspondence you have sent us, which you attached to the email.

My letter was full of legal regarding the ‘powers’ of PHSO it needs to be reviewed by a lawyer!

We will contact you again about this as soon as possible. We will look to do this within the next two to three weeks and will keep you updated.

Maybe three weeks is different to the PHSO

From the above we can concluded there was nothing for the PHSO to do.

  • JobCentre Plus
  • ICE

Did the work.
They will love this as they can publish it as a “closed” case. It also begs the question why they can’t look at my case, which at its core is the same Breach of DPAf


I got a response form Mr Jonathan Roper, to say this email was pointless, would be nice.
My response To PHSO Letter 27-04-2015


On Friday 24th April 2015 Mr Jonathan Roper

I now have all the information I need to write to you. However, before doing this, I thought it appropriate to check if the points above have covered all your issues as I am keen to provide you with a full response.

On Wednesday 29th April 2015 Said

I will carefully consider its contents. I will provide my full written response to this letter and your previous one as soon as possible, but within the next two weeks.

So no matter the question the “stock” answer from PHSO is Two Weeks.


On Friday 29th April 2015 Mr Jonathan Roper

I will carefully consider its contents. I will provide my full written response to this letter and your previous one as soon as possible, but within the next two weeks.

So he had everything, then on he needed more time. I’m at a loss to explain the constant and endless delays.


Care Plans
Care Plans
I was at Blackheath from until During this time Blackheath we’re responsible for my medical care – a task I don’t think they took seriously…
Care Plan 25-04-2012 I was at Blackheath for a number of weeks.

  • You would expect a “Care Plan” written each week/month – their are 6
  • 5 of the “Care Plans” are all dated the same
  • MY DOB IS wrong on all 6 “Care Plans”

While at Blackheath they put my left foot into a plaster cast to straighten my foot. I want it noted I agreed with this, and it has helped. But the form giving them permission to do this, is incomplete.
Form 19-07-2012

  • if the cast is not removable is medical consent required un-ticked
  • Has written/verbal informed consent of patient/NOK been given un-ticked
  • If non-removable has emergency removal procedure… un-ticked – it was also never discuss with me
  • It’s unsigned – making accountability for the mistakes impossible

The two above medical errors have been reported to PHSO who have ignored it.


Another fantastic letter from Mr Jonathan Roper at the PHSO
PHSO Letter 20-05-2015

In your case, The Huntercombe Group are an independent provider and therefore we can only look at complaints about services they were commissioned by the NHS to provide to you. As we understand things, the Huntercombe Group were an independent provider commissioned to give you NHS care and treatment. On that basis we could look at a complaint about the treatment they provided to you that was funded by the NHS.

So I take from this as the NHS did not pay for my employer to break my privacy there is nothing the PHSO can/will do. Lets forget that my employer was the NHS.
When contracting services to independent providers like Blackheath. Are they not bound by rules?

1.This document is a guide to required practice for those who work within or under contract to NHS organisations concerning confidentiality and patients’ consent to the use of their health records. It replaces previous guidance, HSG (96)18/LASSL (96) 5 – The Protection and Use of Patient Information and is a key component of emerging information governance arrangements for the NHS.
2. For the purposes of this document, the term ‘staff ’ is used as a convenience to refer to all those to whom this code of practice should apply. Whilst directed at NHS staff, the Code is also relevant to any one working in and around health. This includes private and voluntary sector staff.

Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice
So The NHS wrote this document but it don’t apply.
Lets also explore the fact that only because I was under the care of Blackheath could Dr Luff have written this letter.


Department of Health FoI


Letter to Mrs Rachael Russell, Mr Jonathan Roper’s manager
To PHSO Letter 26-05-2015


Another POINTLESS and completely out of the blue, letter from the PHSO PHSO Letter 28-05-2015
Let take the letter apart….(for fun)

We are independent of both the NHS and government. We look at complaints fairly and do not take sides. We make decisions about whether we have seen mistakes, or if an organisation has acted correctly.

That is a LIE! In Letter PHSO Letter 09-03-2015 The PHSO attempt to defend the actions of Blackheath compleatly ignoring other emails.

We also try to resolve complaints quickly without the need to investigate, wherever possible.

They (the PHSO) do everything in their power not to investigate – thats true, mainly it involves stressing the person making the complaint so much they give up. They lie and cheat. And misinterpret everything.

If we decide not to investigate, we will clearly explain why

Yes. and when asked to clearly state the law you’re saying stops you from investigating you “forgot”

We aim to do this within four weeks. We will update you regularly, and will let you know if we think it might take longer.

Another LIE! I contacted the PHSO in November 2014 so far nothing!
Also as far as keeping me informed, It’s due to my relentless chasing, emails and phone calls.


The PHSO sent me a fantistic letter PHSO Letter 28-05-2015 it states…

We aim to do this within four weeks. We will update you regularly, and will let you know if we think it might take longer.

On I sent complaint to Mrs Rachael Russell about Mr Jonathan Roper and his careless attempt to fob me off.
Mrs Rachael Russell Said she would respond by . Today is no response.

It also states…

One of our customer service staff will carry out these checks, and will contact you very shortly to introduce themselves. They will let you know what they will be doing and how long this will take.

My definition of shortly is maybe 2 or 3 days – not 8 days.


Got Out-Off-Office from Mrs Rachael Russell shes away till


A total work of fiction today from Mr David Guy at The PHSO He explained
Mrs Rachael Russell had issues emailing on on

  • All my communication with the PHSO so far has been by letter!
  • My phone was on all day – yet no phonecall

Mr Guy Kindly forward me the password (I use that term in the loosest possible way) and a PDF document.
I’ve worked in IT for 15 years. Firstly PDF files can be cracked depending on strength of the password can determine the time it takes to do this.. a password of “Pacific01” is NOT secure in any sense of the word. gives this password a bit fat zero.


While Mrs Rachael Russell & Mr Jonathan Roper admit to “mistakes” with minutes & deadlines Mrs Rachael Russell found nothing wrong! I’m not surprised

In my complaint to Mrs Rachael Russell (To PHSO Letter 26-05-2015) We can quite clear identify unansewred questions. Mrs Rachael Russell has carrefuly avoided answering these. Make the PHSO completely unaccountable.


When dealing with the PHSO

Upon reflection EXPECT NOTHING Was/Is a bit unfair. You can expect LIES, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS & STRESS

They will LIE and support each other. They will be a major source of stress! They will appear as if on your side, but that will quickly be seen as a ploy.
Join ( What really happens when you make a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman A true support group full of fantastic people. Warning some of the stories about the PHSO (and service they monitor) are truly shocking – You will be left asking how people at the PHSO sleep.


@PatientsAssoc: No consent and no accountability for the actions of staff on a #Patient while in Care #ComplaintsAPPG –

case summaries


On the PHSO said they would be in contact with me regarding the medical “errors” at Blackheath (See above)…so far nothing!


@NHSConfed_Press: Read our response to the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman report on NHS complaints

Like all good NHS documents it agrees change is need, but provides no insight into the changes or how they could be accoumplished.
It has the NHS sock phrase lessons that have been learned
Which has been used sooo much it’s lost all meaning.
Its not exactly a “response”, more of a limp (pointless) agreement.


When i’ve stopped crying at how ridiculous that work of fiction is I’ll review…

I had a fantastic post – and lost it :(

A voice for change

This is a neurolinguistic tick. The word “voice” implies you have a voice and your concerns will be addressed. In my case I’m left with more questions after the PHSO did nothing.


Again more wordplay. “Enquiries” to me are simple questions ie. “what’s your postal address”. This large figure gives a distorted view of PHSO being busy

We completed 2,199 investigations, compared with 384 in the previous year

Again a fantastic statistics but the difference needs to be explained.

I’ve asked the PHSO to clarify the two above points in terms & definitions

The big one

854 were upheld in part or in full

so from 27,566 “Enquiries” only 854 were upheld.
Not exactly something you want to scream about.


Guess what?
the PHSO are useless. (as if we did not know that)

PHSO Letter 18-06-2015

This letter is funny and only serves to prove the PHSO are a total joke.

You are looking for financial remedy to your complaint.

Errr. We have never discussed the remedy i’m looking for.
My first complaint I suffered a financial loss, so financial remedy is appropriate.
Saying this is another presumption – and one that needs to be answered

They have correct identified my complaint (a miracle) however they contradict themselves….

We have carefully considered the information you have provided and have decided not to take further action on your complaint.

and then…

I am afraid that we are unable to find evidence of any personal injustice arising from the events you complain of.

You can’t find “evidence” because you never looked. In 2012 Lewisham Adult Safeguarding used records to show Blackheath did nothing wrong, who’s to say these records were not altered? It’s a fact that Blackheath have got many medical facts wrong.

By doing nothing Blackheath are free to do this again.I was 1 of 3 people out of 18 patients that could talk.- My major concern is them doing this again.

My experience at RHN was fantastic. At a time where everything was utter chaos the RHN gave me hope. Had i gone to Blackheath I don’t think my views on life would be so positive.


Hah! DoH Just respoded to my FoI Request third_party_laws And as expected the PHSO lied!
hConfidentiality – NHS Code of Practice Dose apply to third party providers.

In response to questions, E, E1, E2, E3 and F. Firstly, yes the attached Confidentiality Code of Practice does apply to all providers of NHS care, whether they are NHS or non-NHS providers.

They also confirm…

It is a criminal offence to breach the Data Protection Act (1998) and doing so can result in imprisonment. The Human Rights Act (1998) also states that everyone has the right to have their private life respected. This includes the right to keep your health records confidential. If clinicians breach either the Data Protection Act (1998) or the Human Rights Act (1998), then it could potentially lead to a review of their fitness to practice.

I Would argue PHSO doing nothing is also breaking the law and they are aware of an offense.


After a fantastic response form DoH I thought I would clarify…

Do the PHSO have the remit and or power to investigate a Dr breaching the DPA?”




@PHSOmbudsman: Read our case summary about how NHS Eng. did not address grieving widow’s unanswered questions

The hypocrisy here is amazing. After speaking to the PHSO I had MORE question then when I started, when asked I was ignored!
The Biggest question was/is

How can the PHSO be impartial and defend Blackheath?

Second question! I asked the PHSO to quote the law they are using to refuse an investigation. They never did.


I know the PHSO are a total joke – They have refused my case as the breach by Dr Luff was not paid for by the NHS! (Had they not paid for my care, Dr Luff would not have been able to write the letter)…
I have just found in 2014 they talked to Blackheath!



@PHSOmbudsman: New complaints handling toolkits from NHS England launched today. Pleased to have worked with others to develop this

on that link we find Health & Social Care Data Flows: Information Governance – Preparing for Transition – What You Need to Know on page 8….

2.1 General Principles Regarding the Use of Confidential Information
The HSCIC will shortly be publishing a Code of Practice on the management of confidential information in line with its obligations in the HSCA. The Code of Practice will outline the general principles for handling care records, including the need to maintain accurate records, to share them when appropriate, to inform citizens about the use of records, to hold records securely and to act within the law. You will be required to comply with the Code of Practice once it is issued.
The comprehensive source of information and guidance on your detailed obligations regarding PCD is the IG Toolkit. This integrates the many different rules that cover how confidential information should be handled, including those set out in:
• The Data Protection Act 1998
• The common law duty of confidentiality
• The Confidentiality NHS Code of Practice
• The NHS Care Record Guarantee for England
• The Social Care Record Guarantee for England
• The ISO/IEC 27000 series of information security standards
• The Information Security NHS Code of Practice
• The Records Management NHS Code of Practice
• The Freedom of Information Act 2000
• The Health and Social Care Act 2012

What they don’t they don’t tell you is these rules are not enforced! The ICO (who manage the DPA & FoI) don’t investigate individual complaints. The Confidentiality NHS Code of Practice is also not enforced.
So once again the PHSO have published documents that on closer inspection fall apart.


Yesterday The PHSO asked

We are holding a Twitter Q&A at 12 tomorrow on our report on #NHS investigations into avoidable death & harm. Tweet us Qs using #askPHSO

In the hour long Q&A they answered ONE question on the scope of the “review”
The answer (as you would expect) Is somewhat confusing. In all communication this report has been identified as NHS report, the PHSO’s answerer would suggest Mental Health & Ambulance Trusts are not part of the NHS.

The review focused on hospital trusts across England only, not mental health or ambulance trusts #askPHSO


Whats be remarkable in the PHSO “research” has been the lack of criticism of the CQC. It is part of the CQCs remit to check the policy for receiving-and-acting-complaints
The regulation states…

All complaints must be investigated thoroughly and any necessary action taken where failures have been identified.

This suggest (to me) that while the CQC don’t investigate complaints, they do look at how the complaint was handled and will make sure “Lessons Learned” are implemented.

So we have a serious question. Of the trust looked at by the PHSO, how many where rated good or better by CQC and WHY?

Now the really question is… The CQC had published a report on complaints according to the document is was Published December 2014 so the question is…What has the PHSO been doing? Why waste public money re-doing research?
The CONCLUSION on page 39 states…

This report paints a partial picture of the state of complaints in health and social care services, but one in which some things are clear. There is wide variation in the way complaints are handled and much more could be done to encourage an open culture where concerns are welcomed and learned from. While most providers have complaints processes in place, people’s experiences of the system are not consistently good.


Each time the PHSO answer a FOI Request, I find it raises more questions than it answers!
According to The PHSO I asked…

@PHSOmbudsman @XXXX @XXXX What are the top 5 reasons for not doing an investigation? Don’t make me do a FOI.

I got a response. FDN 251997 Data

Im not going to discuss the full file because it will just highlight how pointless the PHSO are.

Firstly a small point on process. In FDN 251997.pdf (above) they state

Please note that the information for 2015/16 is only provisional as we have yet to fully clean the data.

Now these are the reasons for closing a case without investigation, it either falls into a category or it don’t. So what’s “clean data” mean?

Secondly the data for 2015/16 is huge jump from 2014/15….i.e.
General discretion is 2014/2015 was 832 in 2015/16 it’s 1854
There is no account or reason for this jump given.


My feelings about the PHSO are not very well hidden. But todays publication of Service Charter is an insult to everyone who approched the PHSO.

Lets for fun examine the claims made in the Service Charter.

Under the heading…

Giving you the information you need
We will:

  1. explain our role and what we can and cannot do
  2. explain how we handle complaints and what information we need from you
  3. direct you to someone who can help with your complaint if we are unable to, where possible
  4. keep you regularly updated on our progress with your complaint
  • The PHSO make a big song and dance about being the last organization you can complain to. If they can’t help you fall to into The Regulatory Gap (if anyone has a good link to explain this please email me
  • In my case I had to chase them almost daily, I’d never speak to the person doing the investigation.

Under the heading…

Following an open and fair process.
We will:

  1. listen to you to make sure we understand your complaint
  2. explain the specific concerns we will be looking into
  3. explain how we will do our work
  4. gather all the information we need, including from you and the organisation you have complained about, before we make our decision
  5. share facts with you, and discuss with you what we are seeing
  6. evaluate the information we’ve gathered and make an impartial decision on your complaint
  7. explain our decision and recommendations, and how we reached them
  • The letter I got from the PHSO saying the don’t deal with employment issue is proof they don’t understand complaints. My complaint was a breach of date protection, yes my Dr did write to my employer but that was not my concern. They did not have permission to write any letter.
  • The PHSO never explained to me how the work (or don’t as the case is) or how they came to their result, when I asked for more I was ignored

Under the heading…

Following an open and fair process.
We will:

  1. listen to you to make sure we understand your complaint
  2. explain the specific concerns we will be looking into
  3. explain how we will do our work
  4. gather all the information we need, including from you and the organisation you have complained about, before we make our decision
  5. share facts with you, and discuss with you what we are seeing
  6. evaluate the information we’ve gathered and make an impartial decision on your complaint
  7. explain our decision and recommendations, and how we reached them
  • The information I gave them was electronice scanned Care Plans & The Letter. There was noting Blackheath could add
  • evaluate the information, This I assume is code for ignore bits of your evidence we don’t like.

Under the heading…

Giving you a good service.
We will:

  1. treat you with courtesy and respect
  2. give you a final decision on your complaint as soon as we can
  3. make sure our service is easily accessible to you and give you support and help if you need it
  4. look after the information you give us

PHSO run a public consultation on the Service Charter
On I submitted my response to at the time the DRAFT Service Charter

As you can see My comments have been ignored.