Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

Don't expect a fair hearing here ... unless you are a public body.During 2013 I submitted two complaints to the SPSO (Care Inspectorate, NHS Lothian). Neither were upheld. In 2014-2017 I submitted further complaints, none of which have been upheld except on the most trivial points.The method of investigation in both cases was to write to the organisation complained about, and then take the organisation's response as the definitive account of events. The evidence which I submitted was disregarded, even though this proved the organisation's version was incorrect. The organisation did not even deny what I claimed, it simply ignored it. Because it provided no confirmation, the SPSO concluded that there was no evidence that the events I complained about actually happened.I appealed against both 2013 decisions, and received decisions from the Ombudsman (Jim Martin) on 30 January and 5 February 2014. Although I had shown beyond reasonable doubt that the NHS was in breach of its own policies, that the SPSO investigator relied on erroneous claims by NHS Lothian in arriving at his decision, and that the Care Inspectorate ignored the whole of my evidence contrary to the Ombudsman's own Principle that all relevant evidence should be considered, Mr Martin dismissed my appeals.For example, I complained that the NHS had unreasonably excluded me from involvement in decisions about my mother's rehabilitation after a hip fracture. Having advanced dementia she was deemed incompetent to make her own decisions, and her wish that I should speak for her was ignored. The NHS decided unilaterally that she should not be allowed to regain mobility. It said that it was preferable to involve me in decision-making because it was essential to explore different viewpoints, but it was necessary to exclude me because I did not agree with the views of the psychiatrist in charge of my mother's care. Mr Martin decided that was reasonable!This is officially the last stop for complaints against public bodies in Scotland, unless you are wealthy enough to afford Judicial Review and had the foresight to lodge your case within 3 months of the events. Getting a fair hearing at the SPSO is like getting blood out of a stone. Mr Martin does not practice what he preaches. He ignored his own Statement of Complaints Handling Principles.

They are not even worth one star they cover up complaints against Edinburgh council and their base is housed next to the council. they hide everything illegal that’s going on when it’s brought to their attention they are completely corrupt not fit for purpose they don’t serve the general public they need closed down immediately as they serve no use for the majority of honest people the vulnerable have no chance of help if you are well off they might help you if you know what I mean they are a complete farce the system is a farce and completely broken.

I would give this organization zero stars if I could. If you want justice for yourself don't bother going to them. I have been fighting medical issues for twenty three years now. Never have the SPSO found in my favour even though other doctors have been shocked by what has happened to me. It is my opinion that because the SPSO are semi legal if they found in your favour you can then sue who you are complaining about. My last complaint resulted in another woman's complaint being intertwined with mine and I also received her letters therefore the SPSO breached the Data Protection Act. Very, very unprofessional.

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THIS AGENCYI referred to the SPSO after an unsatisfactory response from my initial NHS complaint.I noted afterwards the negative reviews.Seems this bureaucracy was set up to repeat the NHS’s initial response. Clearly a large bureaucratic organisation which employs significant members of staff so at least it provides employment (at a cost to the public purse).I remember reading that recent events ie. Covid will expose jobs which are a waste of time and money. This is clearly an example.Their investigation was of a very poor standard. Forget about their statement that it was people centred.I asked for copies of what their report was based on to find that it appeared that the only piece of evidence used was from the Consultant whom I had seen for a few minutes after having asked to meet with a Doctor over what are real issues with my treatment. His information was inaccurate. He advised that he could not comment on my contact with another Doctor as he was not present at the time (which was inaccurate) then he proceeded to comment anyway.The agency went on to initially try and limit my access to the medical evidence I asked for. They seemed not to know that medical records are openly accessible to patients.Overall this was a disappointing, eye opening experience.I worked in local government for 34 years before retiring, including doing investigations after complaints,so I know how to conduct such processes. This standard of report would never have been accepted.Do not waste your time with this agency. Seek legal advice from agencies who offer no win, no fee contracts.My problem was not serious enough to follow such a path and I had to find a way forward myself. I am aware that people will take much more serious issues to this agency and expect a fair outcome.

Fife Council social workers have deliberately went out of their way to bully and victimise me. The risk to my daughter has been increased, while my contact has been stopped for no apparent reason other than the fact they don't like me. My complaint ended up with the ombudsman and despite proving that my daughters human rights had been breached my complaint was still rejected. I'm led to believe that Fife Council deliberately kept information from the investigation into them. This process happened regarding my complaint against the Children's Hearing, only I was able to prove this because I was given the time to go over the information. However, this was something that wasn't offered by the ombudsman, instead I was told that if I contacted him again that he wouldn't be responding".So the fact my daughter's rights are being breached is something the ombudsman haven't no interest in. She's only 8 years old."

Guys,I had my biggest problems with GP's and I took it to the ombudsman. This firm just ignored everything I have said to them. University researches, proofs that can be accepted on the gov medical websites I sent them all and yet, there wasn't a result. The reviews being made by reviewers in the Public Services rather than ombudsman herself or himself.My suggestion is to request Expert Witness report for the cases and reviewers will have no power to ignore it. They can decline however it does not mean that you can't take your complaint further.If they still ignore to call an expert witness, don't forget this can actually return them badly.So look for your rights, don't feel disappointed with the outcome. If thry don't solve the problem, look for a lawyer. They are getting paid to not to solve your complaint unless if NHS causes death, they process an investigation apart of that, they will ignore everything to protect their doctor and their system. Plus some solicitors work for them, you can find more information on my profile which one it is but unfortunately thid place is not a trustful body to raise your concerns.

Dealing wth the SPSO felt like an experiment in learned helplessness". They ignored that the NHS had changed its story and that the subsequent answer did not even answer the question asked of them in my complaint. They sided with the NHS saying that had done all thety could to address my complaint

It is clear that this organisation exists primarily to protect public services from the reputational damage" of actual lawsuits

After an initial slow response to my complaint from the SPSO, they handled my complaint pertaining to NHS Lothian rigorously. The complaint I made on behalf of my son was upheld, and it is my hope that this will be of benefit to other patients in NHS Lothian too.(I suspect that the initial slow response from the SPSO is due to them having inusfficient staffing levels to deal with the overwhelming amount of compliants they`re required to deal with).Many thanks to the SPSO for having acheived a positive outcome in response to my complaint both in the interests of my son and hopefully to others who do not have a voice.

This is the SPSO decision report. My comments are shown by [MP: xxx]SPSO decision reportCase: 202003228, A Medical Practice in the Tayside NHS Board areaSector: HealthSubject: Clinical treatment / diagnosisDecision: some upheld, recommendationsSummary:C sought help from their GP for various health problems [MP: On 07/6/2019, I was almost 61 years old. My GP organised a B12 test which was done on 14/6/2019. The test was reported as borderline B12-D.]They were diagnosed with a B12 deficiency (vitamin B12 is an important vitamin within the body which is essential for the production of blood cells and for the ‘myelination' (a protective outer coating) of nerves) and complained about the delay in diagnosis. We took independent advice from a GP. We noted that vitamin B12 deficiency is often diagnosed late as the symptoms will often present gradually; they are not particularly specific to B12 deficiency, and can mimic other diagnoses. There are also limitations with the diagnostic tests for B12 deficiency and many people will have normal blood tests whilst being deficient in B12. [MP: The SPSO assigned GP Adviser noted: “The most common cause of vitamin B12 deficiency is an ‘auto-immune’ process within which someone produces antibodies against certain cells within their stomach. This then reduces the absorption of B12 from foods in our diet. C was found to have these antibodies within his blood. Vitamin B12 deficiency affects around 6% of people within the UK under the age of 60. This rises to around 20% for those aged over 60”.In summary, one in five 60+ year-old people will have B12-Deficiency due Pernicious Anaemia. At the 14/6/2019 B12 Test, I was almost 61 years old; I was not tested for Pernicious Anaemia; The cause of my B12 was Pernicious Anaemia; When the correct PA test was done on 23/12/2019, I was diagnosed and informed on 30/12/2019. I had B12-D due to Pernicious Anaemia. B12 Tests were done on 14/6/2019, 29/7/2019 and 18/12/2019. No PA Test was done until my wife pushed the GP on 23/12/2019.]We found that there was a slight delay of about six months in diagnosing C's condition. [MP: Inaccurate data - The delay was from 07/6/2019 until 30/12/2019 which is more than 6-months.]We considered that this delay was understandable in the context of other health issues which were raised at the time [MP: All B12-D symptoms were registered between 07/6/2019 until 30/12/2019 in my GP Records. The GP focussed on a Mental Health strategy and got blinded – this was the reason for the delay.]and the fact that other blood test results were normal [MP: The 14/6/2019 test revealed: Serum vitamin B12=Low; MCH=High; RBC=Low; Serum Bilirubin=High – this means 4 key tests were outside of range - SPSO inaccurate again. There is no mention of the 29/7/2019 Retest that was done due to the anomalies found in the 14/6/2019 test. The 29/7/2019 Retest was rejected by NHS Tayside because it did not meet the 3-month Retest Rule. The GP Record entry stated: “B12 too soon to repeat”. I was left with no clinical planning and no scheduled Retest. Ongoing engagements by me to get a Retest were ignored by the GP and the GP Records detail comments of ongoing Mental Health issues. This whole section is a distortion of fact.A Subject Access Request Audit revealed that the SPSO investigation was a sham: My original complaint was not used; The GP compromised the Health Records issued to SPSO – all data from 01/7/2019 to 30/12/2019 (when I was diagnosed) was removed by the GP; The GP Adviser requested these records and did not get them. The GP Adviser was given an additional 710 pages to review – only 113 were reviewed (16%). There is no record of what the GPA reviewed.My SAR Audit revealed that the investigation was compromised and SPSO are fully aware and did nothing. They have deliberately covered this medical negligence up.]Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.