A Review of the Public Sector Ombudsmen, 2005–2006

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. These reasons include situations where a complaint is premature and should first be referred to an internal complaints mechanism, situations where a complaint is targeted at a body that is outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction, or situations where a complaint involves a matter that is outside her jurisdiction.

2. The PO no longer provides the statistics for the number of complaints rejected by the PO for jurisdiction reasons. However, the figures for previous years suggest that the numbers are relatively low (approximately on or around 100 per year).

3. Although set against this factor it should be recognised that, as from 2000 to 2001, the figures for complaints received by the HSO only recorded those complaints for England. Prior to this date, complaints for Scotland and Wales were also recorded as being dealt with by the HSO.

4. The increase was detailed as 30 percent overall when PO and HSO complaints were taken together. A review of the figures is partially inaccurate for the reasons given earlier, but it would seem reasonable to suppose that not all of this increase can be accounted for by an increase in PO work alone.

5. The outcomes concluded within the year were—Withdrawn 14, No Formal Action 688, Advice Given to Relevant Body 65, Decision to Conduct Formal Investigation 172.

6. Strangely, this figure did not appear in the 2005–2006 annual report.

7. The last such successful review by a complainant was in 2005: Cavanagh & others v Health Service Commissioner [2005] EWCA Civ 1578; The Times January 13, 2005.

8. Out of which in one case no finding of maladministration was made and in eight others no finding of injustice was made.

9. Not everyone sees this development this way: see Select Committee on the ODPM, 2004–2005, Ev 16–28.

10. The figures for 2005–2006 were unavailable at the time of writing.